Reasons to be Positive

Trying to keep tabs on this whole TR omnishambles is not easy and with some Trusts moving to issue re-assignment letters, understandably there is widespread confusion, dismay and anger. But despite all the waves of negativity, I feel the need to try and take stock of the positive and a good place to start is provided by Mike Guilfoyle and his summary following a successful meeting in London on Friday. This is the gist of what he posted recently on here:-

Greater London Napo branch meeting yesterday...packed room heard from John McDonell MP, Frances Crook & Napo Assistant General Secretary... clearly much anxiety, anger & uncertainty around pending changes ..but some salient points...

1. Parliamentary Human Rights Committee critical report on Offender Rehabilitation Bill this week..

2. Grayling's forced decision NOT to pursue privatisation of 3 prisons..

3. Labour front bench mounting opposition to TR - JM stated that until 3 days before debate on TR - Labour had planned to abstain...change of approach based on efficacy & evidence of TR Omnishambles.. Now commitment to 'restore' Probation Service!

4. Newsnight programme - Serco/LPT (not barnstorming!) but indicative of changing popular mood on outsourcing.. Public Accounts Committee - excoriate-change-gentle grilling of privateers..

5. Egregious examples of faltering outsourcing -Serco-Health- Atos -Disability...that appear to have seen shift of gear & mobilised resistance..

6. Liberal Democrats - approaches made to NC & dawning appreciation that TR could begin to unravel & associated risk to credibility pre-election..

7. Sheer ineptitude of MoJ - at this weeks 'negotiations' Napo reps requested for the ** time - copy of Equality Impact Assessment - document provided at the 11 th hr.. when queried - MoJ reps - 'Grayling had this all the time, but did not want to share it!!!!

8. Unison (belatedly) have mustered support for mandate for industrial action...

9. 2 Amendments to Offender Rehabilitation Bill - Harry Fletcher using his 'contacts' to max impact...

10. 'Soft' Tory MP's - behind the scenes some mounting concerns at the implications on marginals .. if public safety fears become more pronounced..

11. Frances Crook invited colleagues to send any scraps of info' to her that she might put out to media that would have quick fire impact..

12. If timetable can be stalled due to proposed actions & comments from tob table - already speculation that slippage to 'end of year '- 2014 from MoJ sources.. with electoral buffer - 6 months - TR could be scuppered??

Appreciate that his is brief snapshot from one meeting & having spent 20 yrs as a PO - I do not underestimate that toil & moil ' that colleagues are having to endure....

But the resounding message from MP's + Gen Sec... ' The Fight is still very much 'on' ..

Hope this assists..

In relation to point 1, a reader has kindly pointed us in the direction of the report and identified some particularly salient points:-

12. We are not satisfied with the information and analysis provided by the Government in relation to the Bill's compatibility with other relevant international standards. We expect human rights memoranda to go beyond assertions that all relevant human rights obligations have been considered, and we repeat our general recommendation that Departments should provide detailed information explaining why the Government is satisfied about the compatibility of a Bill with relevant international human rights obligations, not just the ECHR, in their human rights memoranda.

We are disappointed that we did not receive any additional information from the Department about the Government's amendment on women offenders, and we repeat our general recommendation that Departments should, as good practice, provide us with a supplementary human rights memorandum on Government amendments with significant human rights implications, such as the Government amendment relating to women offenders in this Bill.

18. On 19 November 2012, the Prime Minister announced that the Government is "calling time on equality impact assessments".[41] However, the legal duty established in Brown remains for public authorities to demonstrate that they have had 'due regard' to their equality obligations.

30. The provision of information by the Government in relation to its consideration of the Bill's impact on protected groups has been piecemeal, lacking in detail, and has been produced only in response to parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill and the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. This does not provide much reassurance that the Government has properly complied with its equality duty in the formulation of the policy.

Following a period of radio silence, I notice that Joe Kuipers, Chair of the Avon and Somerset Probation Trust, has published another blog post and as usual, it makes for very interesting reading. First off, he highlights a key message contained in the ministerial announcement regarding the decision not to hand the three South Yorkshire prisons over to Serco:-

All of the South Yorkshire prisons will immediately become part of the ongoing process of applying a new public sector benchmark. This process is delivering swift reforms and impressive savings across the public sector prison estate. All HM Prison Service managed prisons are significantly reducing unit costs, improving outcomes and delivering value for money for the taxpayer. 

Although making a point about the prison service, I agree it is just as significant a message for the probation service and will be extremely relevant if any plan 'B' is forthcoming. He goes on to quote from an e-mail sent by the ASPT board to MoJ/Noms and which gives an indication of how one Trust continues to play things quite a bit differently:-

"Sally, Annette and I listened intently to, and noted, the teleconference on 13 November. We have also looked carefully at the letters from Michael Spurr of the same date and that from Colin of the 15th. Yesterday, the 21st, at our Board meeting the Board was fully briefed by Sally and Anne to consider (over a period of some 2 hours) the information and to reach a view about the next steps for our Trust. We noted in particular the request that Trust Boards now agree to impose the processes and conditions of transfer as set out in Michael's letter. In the teleconference Michael also offered the option of a mandatory contract variation to achieve the same.The other key information received was from the PA (after this was requested) that on the 20th no agreement was reached on some outstanding matters and that now, from the MoJ perspective, there was no more time for further negotiations. 

Our Board exercises its duty as a good and responsible employer and agreed that we faced three options in the light of the current position:

• to agree to voluntarily impose the current arrangements, despite needing clarification on a number of matters;
• to seek further clarification on a number of matters where there remains lack of certainty;
• to seek a contract variation requiring the Board to fully implement the arrangements.

In considering the issues and reporting on our decisions the Board makes it absolutely clear that it is not the Board’s intention to delay or frustrate the Transforming Rehabilitation process or to act against its contractual obligations. In fact, we have responded fully to all requests made and are in regular communication with the TR Transition team. Any decision taken by the Board, as the employer, about these issues is based entirely on the Board being satisfied that it is acting properly.

The Board took into account the fact that the legal advice on the staff transfer has been taken by the Ministry of Justice and as such is ‘privileged’ advice which has not been shared with Trusts who are the employers of staff and that there still remained a number of issues that are subject to further clarification which staff need in order to make informed decisions. Although Colin's letter offers indemnity Board members rightly also have to consider personal reputational implications.

In light of the above, the Board agreed unanimously that the right thing to do was for the Trust Board to await instruction by MOJ / NOMS in terms of a mandatory contract variation being issued. This is consistent with the whole exit process being managed through the contract, as has been previously agreed, and it clearly places the responsibility for the decision to transfer staff to either the CRC or NPS with NOMS / MoJ."

He ends by making this extremely interesting observation on the whole shenanigans:-

As we await the announcements of the new CRC and Divisional NPS leads, at our Board meetings we are careful to declare any potential conflicts of interest. Neither the CEO nor I have anything to declare that might interfere with reaching unimpeded decisions. We struggle to understand how colleagues hoping to or actually moving to new jobs in the new world can balance a natural concern about their futures with absolute impartiality as the professional advisers to probation Trust Boards?

PS - Talk about havin a laugh - just noticed this tweet from Debbie Ryan yesterday - 

NAPO - would you like to help shape the G4S TR bid? Work together to shape the model????