All Systems Go?

This is a key week for the TR omnishambles and as Joe Kuipers ponders in his latest blog post, will Mission Control, aka the MoJ, press the launch button or not? I'll leave it up to readers to make a judgement as to when we can expect lift off:- 

There will undoubtedly be a meeting of the NOMS TR Assurance Board this week to consider if it is safe to terminate the contracts with Trusts, which must be issued by 21 January if the April deadlines are to be met.

The momentous decision this week will be about whether to terminate Trust contracts, and to enable the Assurance Board to grapple with this teams have been visiting all Trusts over the past week to undertake Business and System Readiness assessments. Our meeting took place last Tuesday, and I wrote to the NOMS / MoJ team setting out the key issues as our Trust saw them. I copy the correspondence below:

"Thank you and your team for what we considered a useful exchange of information when you visited. We wish you well in pulling together the range of views to which you will have been exposed, and we presume that your report to the Assurance meeting will include a resume of the key risks that face the TR programme and the potential mitigations. However looked at, it appears that the decisions to be taken by the Assurance Board will be challenging. We understand that the primary issue to be addressed is whether it is safe to issue a notice of termination of contract based on the readiness both of Trusts to exit from the contract AND the readiness of the new CRCs and NPS organisations to be securely operational from 1 April 2014.

Here I want to take the opportunity to highlight some of the key issues raised by our Trust, and they are set out in no priority order and it is not intended to be comprehensive. Firstly I want to emphasise that the range of concerns raised about 'readiness to operate' from April 1 are born out of a genuine desire to achieve safe and secure services from that date. The concerns expressed are not to be confused with the overall stance of this Trust that essentially what is being implemented is 'not a good idea' and that the proposals are in themselves the source of considerable risk for meeting the objectives of probation supervision in the future.

I am acutely aware that our leadership team (except for Sally) and our staff will transfer to either the NPS or CRC and they want to be able to work in successful organisations and therefore the views expressed must be seen in this light.

In the overview session we explored the balance of work to deliver to the current contract and the potential work to 'create' the new organisations, with the view from ASPT that we must continue to focus on current delivery. The example was given of work demands already coming in to the leadership team without proper reference to line managers, and this is a matter that will be addressed locally so that any request will come via the CEO for proper consideration and decision. We were also asked about the 'Trust View of TR Milestones' and we made it clear that it included inaccuracies (such as items marked as successfully completed when they had not been), peculiar timescales and unclear text or narrative. In addition it is not a Trust view but a NOMS /MoJ view, and possibly a hopeful one?

We also made it clear that our Trust has met all the timescales for Exit, and we can assure you that we will be able to exit by the due date. However, this is NOT the same as the new organisations being ready to operate with sufficient effect post exit. We believe it will be dangerous to conflate readiness to exit with readiness to operate. In this respect our views are less important than the NOMS / MoJ views of the likely readiness of the new organisations. It is also worth considering how well informed and briefed partner organisations will be by April to ensure sufficient continuity of service - we can do what we can to pave the way but it is a matter for the new NPS and CRC leads to ensure effective relationships beyond April. This is particularly relevant for our IMPACT and IRIS schemes which we consider to be at great risk, both operationally and in terms of shared resourcing and accommodation.

Finally, we encouraged you to think not just of the immediate post March period, but also longer term implications (again we referenced IMPACT in this respect and the potential willingness, or not, of other public sector bodies co-funding operations when elements of that funding would be destined to the bottom line for private sector providers).

So, some more specific key issues / risks:

• the Board cannot reassure you that business risks (to BAU) can be fully manageable given the scale of transition and tasks left to do within the remaining short timescale. In this respect we cannot ignore the potential impacts of staff 'motivations' and organisational capacity factors as the emphasis working in the new organisations increases;
• the TOM is seriously flawed and too embryonic as an operating model and needs major revisions to ensure it is fit for purpose and cost effective. It cannot and should not be used as a basis for staff training as it stands;
• staff training must be undertaken by a centralised team, rather than a 'training the trainers' model. This is to assure consistency and to minimise capacity impact. It will be challenging enough to address the capacity impact of releasing staff for training, let alone withdrawing probably the most capable staff to do the training. We are still emerging from the training demands of the transfer to Delius;
• our staff assignment processes will not be complete (as agreed) until the end of February. It is not sensible to train all staff with the same modules - there will be some relevant to the CRCs and some to the NPS with their very different operational requirements. Therefore consideration must be given to the impact of training taking place in March. Recognising that such training must be comprehensive and for all staff (in varying respects) it is not conceivable that there will be no impact on BAU;
• there are significant complexities in the transition to our CRC with the merging of 3 Trusts, which we believe have been minimised to date by NOMS / MoJ;
• in relation to the 3 Trust factor, our staff want to know from where they might be working in the longer term - a key element of the lack of an accommodation strategy;
• depending on the size of the NPS and operational locations there could be court cover weaknesses with small NPS teams or high travel costs with larger more distant NPS teams;
• sentencers remain largely unsighted on TR and the implications for them. We would encourage a core NOMS / MoJ script for ALL sentencers;
• similarly, we are not sure that the Parole Board members are sufficiently informed;
• whilst we will advise offenders as best we can they need to know the new detail of the new operational processes - in these communication respects the revision of the TOM is a priority;
• the ICT countdown plan is not understandable;
• ICT concerns remain significant;
• information assurance is a thread that is missing and the impact of failure to meet IA requirements seems to be poorly understood;
• it is not clear that data cleansing and deletions from Delius have been fully considered;
• we had been advised not to have any contingency plans in relation to payroll, which we learnt today appears to be incorrect;
• our staff are well briefed and we are in regular communications with the other Trusts that will form the CRC, but disappointed by the lack of quick contact from the new CRC and NPS leads with our CEO. There has been none with the Board chair;
• there is clearly no interest in Board views - strange as the Board chair is the contract signatory. We understand (from the meeting) that Board presence at these meetings is 'unusual'.
Hopefully you will find this of some value and that it accords with your records and the other records of the meeting. I have compiled this from memory and apologise for any errors or omissions."

I have deliberately left out Joe's references to the under 12 month custody people because I'm in the process of preparing a blog post on this specific issue. Meanwhile, there's been a significant updated weather forecast from our very own tailgunner and posted over on the Napo forum pages as usual:-

The National Negotiating Council is scheduled to meet on January 29 when the 'National Agreement' will be tabled for agreement - if that isn't too tautologous. It is to be hoped also that the 2013/14 pay settlement will be ratified on that date if not before. In this event it may be possible to enable payment in February pay packets, though that might be tight.

Returning to the National Agreement on Staff Transfer & Protections - this has previously been reported on, but arising from it there are some further issues of note:

1. The Agreement contains a commitment (on the part of MoJ/NOMS) to establishing a Staff Commission "to consider issues arising as a direct consequence of the transfer of staff from Probation Trusts to either a CRC or to the NPS" The intention is to have this designed and in place by April 1. A first draft of what this Commission might look like and what it will do is expected from NOMS within a week.

2. There is a commitment in the Agreement to the continuation of National Collective Bargaining. This requires some re-arrangement, given that the current employers are scheduled to disappear on 31st March to be replaced by effectively two different employers - NPS and CRCs. Again, a draft framework arrangement for what this might look like is expected from NOMS within the week. This will need to be negotiated with the unions and then there will also need to be local structures developed and put in place within the CRCs for negotiations/consultations at that level.

3. There is a commitment to maintaining existing levels of funding for facility time - national and local, but how this will work in practice has yet to be agreed. The unions will need to undertake some re-alignment to take account of new employers and their boundaries.It is expected that discussion will be required regarding some transitional cross representation at least whilst all staff remain in the public sector.

4. There is a commitment on the part of MoJ/NOMS to the establishment of an interchange agreement between the CRCs and the NPS. This is to be in place by March 31. Again an initial draft from NOMS is expected within the week. This will be important for both training and career development opportunities - particularly so since, as many will have noted, there is no protection for continuity of service for those changing employment from CRCs to the NPS. This is regrettable but due to the seeming impossibility of importing external service into the Civil Service for new starters.

There is then a whole raft of issues, particularly in respect of those moving into the NPS, that have to be either consulted upon and/or negotiated. These will include: Absence Management/Management of Attendance, Adoption leave, Allowances,Conduct & Discipline, Grievance policies, Hours of Work, Managing Poor Performance, Maternity leave, Parental leave, Paternity/Maternity Support leave, Payment of Expenses on Permanent Transfer, Payment to Staff in event of Death/Permanent Disablement, Performance Development & review, Redundancy, Special leave ,Travel & Subsistence arrangements.

A lot to do, and very little time in which to do it, especially since negotiations can't begin until negotiating structures are in place. In reality, much of this work will be done post-April.

Also of note:
Train the trainers events are due to start any day now - this is training for a selection of staff (volunteers?) to train the rest of the workforce about how to operate in the new post-April Probation world. The training packs are supposed to be made available to the unions today. 

Probation in prisons - slightly more optimistic news emerging here. Probably arising from the recent very critical report by the Inspectorate into Offender Management in prisons, it is understood that there will be more Probation Officer posts required in prisons (not less) and existing PSO posts are thought to be more secure for now - even with some possibility of career development. More news on this when it becomes available.

MoJ/NOMS gave a commitment to give Trusts a minimum of 10 weeks notice on the cancellation of their contracts to provide Probation services. So, if this is to be effective as of April 1, then notice must be served by 20th January at the latest. That's one week away. Will it happen?

Unison has recommended acceptance of the latest offer:-

UNISON's probation committee is recommending that members accept the final offer from the employers and Ministry of Justice on a staff transfer and protections agreement to cover the transfer of members to the national probation service, or community rehabilitation companies in April.

The union will now carry out a full consultation with members over the final offer. 

The outcome of this consultation, to be carried out over the coming two weeks, will inform the meeting of the national negotiating council (NNC) on 29 January, which has been called to seek ratification of the final offer.

The committee also agreed to suspend UNISON's industrial action ballot over the staff transfer and protections agreement, which had been due to start on Friday 10 January. The ballot will be suspended pending the outcome of the consultation with members over the final offer, and the outcome of the NNC.

The recommendation was agreed at a meeting on 8 January when the committee also agreed that it would consult members on the following pay offer to probation staff for 2013, without recommendation:

• one increment for all staff eligible for pay progression;
• 1% pay rise on all pay points with effect from 1 April 2013;
• 1% increase in London Weighting; and
• 1% increase in the following allowances: standby/sleeping-in, subsistence, out of pocket expenses and relocation expenses.

Finally, this is the latest from Pat Waterman, Chair of Greater London Napo:-

TO NAPO MEMBERS 

London News 

2014...............Now that everybody is  back at work after the holidays I would like to wish you all a happy new year. But,  I fear that with what is happening at the moment, the coming year may be far from happy for many of you. 

In her first blog of the year our Chief Executive qualifies her message that the planned changes WILL go ahead although she then goes on to tell you that the end of the trust “will be much more seamless than previously thought” as most of the changes will not be put in place before 1^st April. What this means is that she hopes that all staff will be sifted and sorted by then but not the work. 

Unlike the management of LPT your union is concerned about what happens to you for longer than the next three months. It is shameful that your present employers are happy to implement a transfer process with so little regard for your future. 

My pleasure at the outcome of national negotiations is much more muted and they have yet to be ratified. This will take place at a meeting of the NNC now scheduled for 29^th January. There is also a meeting of the Probation Negotiating Committee next week (of which I am a member) at which I expect the proposals will also be discussed. 

I doubt that the proposed “Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Scheme” will be open to all. It should also be noted that, at this stage, it is not clear if the proposed  “Continuity of Service” arrangements will apply to all staff. 

I urge you all to read the e-mail that was sent out yesterday from your National Chair and General Secretary which gives more information. Like them I would also urge you to register a grievance if you feel aggrieved by the Staff Transfer Process that you are being put through by your present employers. 

Continuing the pretence of business “as usual” we had what may well be the last JNCC meeting with Senior Management and representatives of the Probation Trust Board. A couple of interesting things came out of this meeting.

• If, as a result of extenuating circumstances such as leave, sickness etc you were unable to meet the deadline of 2^nd January for returning expression of interest letters or lodging an appeal, you should contact HR to explain. I am assured by Jane Pound, Deputy Head of HR, that requests for the extension of the deadline will be treated sympathetically.
• A moderation exercise was undertaken on a sample of last year’s appraisals and the moderators disagreed with “Not Met” evaluations in 34.37% of cases and disagreed with “Exceeded” evaluations in 81.25% of cases.

Following the example set by the Chief Executive of Merseyside Probation Trust who chose to grant all staff an extra days leave in appreciation of their hard work in this stressful time, a similar request was made of our Chief Executive. I have today been advised that that this request has been refused but invited to suggest an approach that might assist staff at this difficult time which, unlike extra leave, would be within the remit of the trust. 

On 9^th January notice was given to staff that from Monday 13th January there will be significant changes to the way cases are managed and enforced. I wrote to the Chief Executive advising her of my concern that this change in practice was announced without any discussion with the trade unions and that the reduction from ten days to five days within which service users would be allowed to provide acceptable reasons for absence would put even more pressure on my members. I will be meeting with the ACO with responsibility for enforcement on Monday to discuss. 

Finally, I have been advised by our national office that they propose to call a 
Special AGM on Wednesday 5^th March at Birmingham Town Hall. 
Please put the date in your diaries. Further details to follow. 

Pat Waterman 
Branch Chair