Friday 22 November 2013

Problem? What Problem?

The BBC Newsnight piece cataloguing Serco's performance with the London Community Payback contract duly went out last night and struck me as being reasonably thorough in highlighting the dangers to come if the TR omnishambles goes ahead. 

Of course smug Serco and MoJ refused to grace the programme with their presence and according to long-winded statements from both, everything's just dandy and there's nothing to worry about. Sue Hall, Chair of the PCA, tried to put up a response to the equally smug Max Chambers from the Tory-financed Policy Exchange think tank, but not being a seasoned politician and lacking the killer instinct, sadly failed to make much of an impression in my view.

It would have been interesting if CEO of the London Probation Trust Heather Munro had put in an appearance, but that was never likely, the MoJ having effectively 'gagged' her earlier in the year for questioning the savings being claimed by Serco. 

Max Chambers was allowed to recite the usual MoJ misinformation crap that included references to the HM Peterborough pilot in order to justify TR. Who is Max Chambers I hear you ask and what are his credentials to be an MoJ mouthpiece? He really does need some serious challenging...........

"Max Chambers is Head of Crime and Justice at Policy Exchange. Before joining Policy Exchange, Max worked for a leading welfare-to-work provider, where he was recruited to help establish and grow a new justice services division. As Commercial Development Manager, he led the company’s bids for Ministry of Justice payment-by-results pilots, probation contracts and as part of a major programme of prison competition. Prior to this, Max worked for Policy Exchange as Senior Research Fellow, authoring seven influential reports on police reform, criminal justice and health. Max has also worked in Parliament for the Shadow Justice and Home Affairs teams. He read law at the University of Nottingham."

Meanwhile, the first reassignment notices were reported to have been issued in Wales.            

Referring to the failed negotiations on Wednesday and as reported on the Napo forum, tailgunner managed to get this further transmission off yesterday:-

There has been much chatter on the airwaves, on websites, elsewhere in this forum and in communications by both UNISON and Napo with their respective members about what transpired at the NNC yesterday. All of this gives a fairly accurate representation of the days events.
The NNC Constitution requires that papers are tabled for negotiation 7 days in advance of any meeting. This is for fairly obvious and sensible reasons - to enable both Sides to adequately prepare. As it was yesterday, the MoJ ( who have a seat at the negotiating table as part of the Employers Side), tabled a paper at the beginning of the day which essentially sought to undo most if not all of the progress towards agreement that had been made at a previous NNC meeting on the 11th. Most of the day was then taken up with considering this paper which had not properly been tabled anyway. This did not go down well with other members of the NNC on both sides of the table. Towards the close of play, the MoJ then withdrew this paper, essentially returning the meeting to where it had been at the beginning of the day - preparing to consider the final draft version of the National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections but with no time left in which to conduct these negotiations. The matter was brought to a close with a failure to agree being registered by Napo/UNISON jointly.

The not unimportant issue of the pay offer was not reached, again due to lack of time but it is expected that this will now be progressed shortly by the Employers making a formal offer in writing.

What happens next? Trusts are in possession of a "requirement' from the Secretary of State to implement a staff assignment process and letters of Automatic Assignment and even letters of Expression of Interest my begin to be issued in some areas. It remains the case that there is still preparatory work that Trusts should undertake before moving forwards with this. So, for example, an Equality Impact Analysis (the impact of the split) should be undertaken, published and consulted upon with the unions locally. Such preparatory work is non-inflammatory and might be proceeded with, but as soon as letters start to be sent, local union branches (Napo & UNISON) are likely to register local disputes.

It seems likely that the MoJ will be communicating with Trusts in the light of yesterdays NNC. Quite what they will be telling Trusts to do remains to be seen. 

Further news as and when available. There is a TR Consultative Forum this afternoon. This involves members of the TR Programme, the employers and the unions.


Information note for my MoJ readers:- another record day with 3985 hits. 

PS I've just spotted this comment from yesterday which makes an extremely valid point which requires answering I think:-

Having just read tailgunners post on the napo forum for today, I am both surprised and angry that the meeting yesterday went the way it is described in the post. If, as is stated, the MoJ tabled a paper that had not been made available 7 days in advance as required, why was it then even looked at, let alone allowed to dominate the day to the extent that when it was then withdrawn by the MoJ late in the day there was no time left to discuss the paper originally tabled for the day, at which point the MoJ announced the process was out of time! A disgusting and blatant piece of game playing if ever there was one, with the employers and the unions walking straight in to the trap. It only confirms my view that there has never been any intention from the MoJ to negotiate seriously about anything to do with TR, so why they even bothered pretending beats me. Far more honest to have just imposed the change and say 'like it or lump it' rather than this charade. I've seen more honesty in my 13 years of working with probationers than I have in any of this debacle.

22 comments:

  1. As Usual Jim's got it about right, as far as I am concerned.

    When the Probation story eventually made it on to a 'grown' up news story - people concerned about what goes on actually attend to ,it was on a Thursday night, the night those folk have a break from Newsnight and watch Question time on the other channel.

    There was Sadiq Khan, Labour top dog on Criminal Justice, did he sneak a reference to the failure of MOJ to negotiate within their own rules - nah - not as far as I can tel with what I saw & Tweets I've read about earlier part of that programme.

    This is not going to be won by logic, not yet, there is the Parliamentary Committee stage of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, to go, so it is worth keep going.

    As other commenters are saying, on yesterday's blog - MORE is needed on the PR front. I suggested to Napo they pay someone extra for now - this is absolutely critical to Napo and probations existence - push the boat out.

    What might have helped was an immediate media hit after the failed negotiations - that night - not a few tweets and an email in the morning - the news media is 24/7 now. I am sure Napo folk came out of the 8 hour session on Wednesday drained - that is why extra is needed or we risk having smooth statements from MOJ & Serco and the rest of those with their budget directed at PR rather than service until the first TR inspired murder happens.

    Andrew Hatton

    ReplyDelete
  2. A snippet from the Times.

    Outsourcing is no bad thing in principle. Having extended it to sensitive areas such as prisons, the temptation is to press on regardless. The government has a responsibility to tread carefully, however, when privatising new public sector activities such as the probation services – a plan it should rethink.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was The Financial Times and the main editorial of today.

      Free to view some articles, others over a certain period but they are trying to get us to sign up for a couple of quid a week or so. Maybe I'll have that as well as I no longer buy a daily hard copy most days: -

      http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ce3a9cfe-52b0-11e3-8586-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2lMpjTdHg

      Preceding the bit above is: -

      "High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ce3a9cfe-52b0-11e3-8586-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2lMqc2znP

      K state services
      Britain’s outsourcing mania has gone much too far

      Since the Thatcher revolution in the 1980s, Britain has led the world in contracting out the provision of public services to the private sector. As a result, this is today a core part of government business. About half of the £187bn that the state spends each year on goods and services goes to private-sector contractors who provide things ranging from stationery to prisons.

      But outsourcing is today suffering a crisis of public confidence. Several are embroiled in scandals. Two major providers, Serco and G4S, are being investigated for allegedly overcharging the government for electronic tagging. A further 10 inquiries are under way into botched contracts, such as providing housing for asylum seekers.

      This week, top executives from the big four dominant providers – G4S, Serco, Capita and Atos – were summoned to parliament to explain themselves. Their tone was often contrite. But placing companies in the parliamentary stocks provides only limited relief. The bigger question is how the government can make this market work in the interests both of taxpayers and the consumers of services. There are three challenges.

      First, there is too little competition. Ministers must do more to allow smaller providers to grow."

      and succeeding it is : -

      "High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ce3a9cfe-52b0-11e3-8586-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2lMr9Amvi

      More generally, ministers need a more sceptical approach. This week, Francis Maude, the cabinet office minister, said the government was conducting rigorous reviews into G4S and Serco “and that when . . . we are satisfied full health has been restored, we will move on quickly”. This sounds too complacent. It fails to recognise that the pace of outsourcing has far outstripped Whitehall’s ability to manage it properly."

      Andrew Hatton

      Second, Whitehall needs to be smarter about how it bargains over contracts, especially those where quality of service is as important as price. Ministers often sign up for deals merely on the grounds that they save money. They also need to be more savvy about monitoring subsequent performance.

      Third, more transparency is needed. Taxpayers need to see in much greater detail how these companies make profits and who their suppliers are"

      Delete
    2. Well I messed that bit of copying and pasting up - but dedicated readers can unpick it I guess - I will pay for that dedicated journalism, like dedicated probation it costs money and professional dedicated staff!

      Similarly with trades unions - I just hope folk who are wisely and as far as I am concerned, welcomely joining up, keep paying their subs for the rest of their careers AND turn up at meetings AND take part in ALL postal ballots.

      That not enough of us have in the past, is why Napo got in such a mess in recent years, and also why Napo does not have larger resources now to match those of organisations like Serco, the MOJ so we get heard by the BBC whenever we have something that needs saying.

      Andrew Hatton

      Delete
    3. Financial Times Subscription = £29.00 per month!

      Is copy and pasting copyrighted writing into a blog read by 3,000 a day a form of theft always or only when we get caught? - discuss.

      - Let he among us who is without sin cast the first stone -

      http://biblehub.com/john/8-7.htm

      Andrew Hatton

      Delete
  3. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25052373

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prisons privatisation cancelled amid Serco probe

      19 minutes agoHMP Lindholme near Doncaster was one of those open to bidsPlans to privatise three prisons have been cancelled because of an ongoing investigation into the leading bidder.The justice secretary said the prison service would remain in charge at Hatfield, Lindholme and Moorland, all in South Yorkshire, while allegations against Serco remained outstanding.The contractor is accused of over-charging the government for electronically tagging criminals.Chris Grayling said he was cancelling the plans for "operational reasons"."The investigations remain ongoing," Mr Grayling said in a statement."The impact of the delay and the uncertainty this has created mean that for operational reasons we cannot postpone the outcome of the competition process any further."I have therefore decided that the competition for these prisons will cease and that all three prisons will be managed by HM Prison Service."Serco and G4S are both subject to an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.An audit suggested they took money for criminals who were either dead, in jail or never existed.

      Delete
    2. Excellent news - Grayling cannot allow Serco or G4S to bid for probation work whilst the SFO investigation is ongoing. Note - the SFO is not known for speedy investigations.

      Delete
    3. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/22/prison-privatisations-cancelled-serco-fraud-investigation

      Delete
    4. Best news I've heard all day. I really hope that the MoJ and this Government are beginning to see the error of their ways, and that all this TR pie in the sky is going to come back and bite them. In my opinion G4S and Serco should not be given any more contracts. Public Services should be kept under public control so that they can be better audited and monitored. If an employee was to fiddle £24, never mind £24 million or so, he or she would have done enough to for termination of contract! I suppose the difference is that this obnoxious coalition needs the big companies, while the public sector workers are surplus to requirements. Anyway, I'm right pleased for the prison workers involved in those prisons. I'd much rather the tax I pay go towards other workers getting a fair days pay for a fair days work, rather than it going to large companies who screw their workforce, and like this government, are happy to consider them to be surplus to requirements.

      Delete
  4. I find it odd that its announced today that these prisons are to remain in the public sector. If as we're led to believe that it will be prior to xmas that that we will know if 'a clean bill of health' will be given, or not given to the companies involved above, why would Grayling do a u-turn now and not wait a few weeks more?
    Its probably a stupid question, but I can't join the dots up myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the difficulty you are having in joining up the dots is because you are making the mistake of believing what the MoJ say! It's just a bit of kite-flying - an aspiration, hope, desire, whatever. A bit like them saying there's lots of interest from prospective bidders - yeah right! The SFO move really slowly - fact.

      Delete
  5. What an interesting day ! Just heard Crispin Blunt on radio 4 saying this prison u turn must not be allowed to derail the planned massive savings from other privatisations in the criminal justice system errr could he mean the probation sell off to G4s and errr Serco ? Does that indicate that their plans are too far advanced to back track on ??? Or perhaps probation just does not matter enough and this government does not want probation staff being allowed publicity to point out the bleeding obvious? Angry ? You bet I am. Crispin Blunt is spinning a blatant lie.

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10468006/Prison-privatisation-plans-dropped-by-Chris-Grayling.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/22/serco-britain-public-services-g4s

      Delete
  7. I like this: 5 reasons why privatisation is bad for you.

    http://weownit.org.uk/privatisation

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wonder how much of tax payers money has been squandered before the MoJ's u-turn on their plans to privatise the three prisons.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 2015?

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2512055/Fresh-blow-Serco-loses-rights-run-prisons-following-string-scandals.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Embattled Serco was dealt another humiliation last night after it lost the rights to operate three prisons it had previously been earmarked to run.
      In July the outsourcing group, which has been hit by a string of scandals, was named as the last remaining bidder for the lucrative work.
      But last night Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said the three prisons – in Hatfield, Moorland and Lindholme – would instead be run by the Ministry of Justice.

      It is yet another blow for the firm, which is already facing seven probes and has seen two of its most senior executives quit.
      Investigations began over the summer after it emerged Serco charged the taxpayer for monitoring prisoners who were dead or had gone back to prison.
      Grayling said the ‘delay and uncertainty’ caused by these investigations into Serco’s government work meant the group could not begin running the prisons. It comes as analysts warned that Serco and rival G4S could be frozen out of government work until 2015.

      Robin Speakman at Shore Capital blamed political wrangling ahead of the general election, which is in May 2015, and next year’s Scottish independence vote.
      ‘It is likely to be well in calendar year of 2015 before earnings momentum begins to rebuild for these companies,’ he said.
      Analyst Hector Forsythe at Oreil said: ‘The biggest threat to Serco is Serco itself,’ adding the company’s business ‘has hit a wall’.
      Serco has undergone a radical overhaul to try and win back government trust.
      ‘The rational response by the government should be to ensure that Serco is viable supplier to maximise competition in bidding,’ Forsythe added.
      But he said he feared more shortcomings being exposed by current probes, which would ‘make embracing Serco’s rehabilitation that much harder for the Government’.
      Shares rose 1.3p to 439.9p.


      Delete
  10. http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-5ec5-Private-sector-parasites

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/public-accounts/Transcript%2020%2011%2013.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! Read all about it - the transcript of that session with Margaret Hodge and what Serco, G4S, Capita and Atos had to say.

      Delete