Dear Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament,
On behalf of thousands of dedicated and highly-skilled probation staff, I'm taking the most unusual step of writing this open letter to you as a group because we are at our wits end and simply don't know what else to do to save our profession.
Part of the problem is that most people do not know what 'probation' does. It's been said that in a soundbite world, it's not a soundbite service and hence the government's plans to abolish all the existing 35 high-performing independent Trusts in less than three months time has gained little media or public attention.
The government's plans to split the existing Service in two with 70% of the work being offered to the private and voluntary sector has absolutely no support amongst people who know and understand the work of the Service. There is no precedent anywhere in the world for such a completely untested methodology and at the recent World Congress of Probation held in London, there was widespread disbelief and incredulity that a Service that is held in such high regard should be deliberately broken up for apparent ideological reasons.
The government's plans for introducing a commercial market into the field of offender supervision and rehabilitation has been widely and roundly condemned as completely unworkable. Even the official Risk Register, which the government have refused to publish, gives the chances of failure at the highest level. This not only makes the venture extremely unwise, but given the obvious public safety aspects of our work, it also means it's potentially dangerous.
It has long been recognised that, ideally, those offenders sentenced to less than 12 months custody and who represent some of the most prolific offenders, should be subject to some form of supervision upon release and offered support. In the past this used to be undertaken voluntarily by probation and in more recent times many Trusts have been working with partners in order to deliver a service to this group. It has been made clear to the government that all Trusts are keen to expand their remit in this way and we do not understand why the offer has been refused.
The existing 35 Probation Trusts are all acknowledged to be performing well and clearly have at their disposal the best equipped workforce able to tackle all the thorny and complex issues connected to offending. It is therefore astonishing to us that the obvious 'best in the business' agencies have been prevented from bidding for their own work. This makes no sense to us, especially as many of the potential bidders have no experience in this field at all.
Plans to arbitrarily divide the existing Probation Service in two has already proved to be highly demoralising for a dedicated and professional workforce normally used to going well beyond contracted terms and conditions in order to provide a world class service to the individual client and general public. It is truly heartbreaking to witness what is happening to a proud and honourable profession. It is literally being destroyed in the name of political ideology.
Can I please urge you all to take a moment to reflect on what probation staff and others are saying, examine your conscience and support the very reasonable suggestion that, at the very least, we really must have a pilot scheme before the irrevocable step of abolishing a fine Public Service is taken.
May I therefore urge you to support the following amendment to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill on Tuesday 14th January:-
“Any restructuring of the Probation Service in England and Wales, which will involve multiple providers of such services, must first be the subject of an independently evaluated pilot scheme prior to the introduction of tendering on a national level.”
Thank you on behalf of a dedicated, professional workforce and highly performing Public Service.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Brown
THANK YOU JIM ! Keep up your brilliant work
ReplyDeletePO NE England
Thanks Jim
DeleteThank you Jim.
ReplyDeleteThank you
ReplyDeleteAs always, brilliant. You really are a gem!
ReplyDeleteThanks Jim, would you mind if I shared this with colleagues
ReplyDeletePlease share it as wide as possible - time is short!
DeleteThanks Jim. You have inspired me to send one further email to my (Tory) MP in the hope of finally getting somewhere.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteHeartening opener for next instalment of the ORB saga.... as you know I was in the audience ' heckling' ! for AQ & full marks to DB for her incisive challenge to CG.. ( indeed had Deb not badgered the AQ Editor beforehand -unlikely that she would have been selected! as privatisation of PS not on list of topics for discussion!)... the paucity of Grayling's arguments had people aghast...but sadly Sarah T ( although admirable on Immigration ) was woeful on privatisation of PS.. when approached after programme she admitted that she was poorly briefed! SO your missive & countless others from colleagues & supporters of PS need to be heard by Lib Dems.....
Sadly Paul Goggins MP untimely death has robbed PS of resolute and principled supporter in TR campaign..
Keep up the good work
Regards
Mike
Mike,
DeleteIt's astonishing to hear that yet again probation wasn't one of the topics and that the BBC had to be badgered! Exactly the same with Andrew Neil on Sunday - we got a mention early on as being upset, but then nothing. It's like the topic is just too difficult, they don't understand, so best just leave it alone. There's a blog post in there I suspect.
Yes very sad news about Paul Goggins who understood completely what the issues are and as you say was a resolute supporter of our case.
Cheers,
Jim
Excellent letter Jim
ReplyDeleteThanks everyone! It's what happens when you can't sleep.....
DeleteThanks Jim - I have been barred by Twitter for over use after Tweeting links to Blog to all and sundry, especially LibDems.
ReplyDeleteNext we can follow ORB in Parliament tomorrow, Hopefully Sarah Teather will be better briefed by the time it comes to vote!
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14576
Andrew Hatton
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-independent-view-the-public-service-users-bill-is-an-opportunity-for-lib-dems-to-show-whose-side-theyre-on-37737.html
ReplyDeleteIn 2011, Nick Clegg strongly backed the government’s ‘open public services’ agenda. In practice, this was used as a figleaf for outsourcing everything from prisons, probation and the NHS to council services. Corporations like G4S, Serco, Atos and Capita have won billions of pounds in contracts yet they are hugely unpopular with the public and the scandals keep coming.
DeleteClegg also promised to ‘take a hard line against the kind of blanket privatisation which was pursued by governments in the past’. Yet the coalition has sold off the Royal Mail, the blood plasma supplier, the search and rescue service, the student loan book…the list goes on. It couldn’t get much more blanket. Meanwhile, rail fares and energy bills rise and rise.
While Clegg talked of ‘modernisation’, this feels more like a dark age for public service users, where we are ripped off, ignored and locked out of the decision-making process at every turn.
What would re-establish the Lib Dems as a party for public service users? How can we give people a real say in the public services that they use and pay for?
We Own It is a new organisation which aims to stand up for the rights of public service users. We’re asking Lib Dems to commit to a Public Service Users Bill in your 2015 election manifesto.
This Bill would give public service users a right to be consulted about services. Crucially, we’d be consulted before they are privatised or outsourced (supported by 78% of Lib Dem voters). The public would get a say over Danny Alexander’s plan to sell off further billions of public assets.
The Bill would give us rights vis-a-vis the private companies running our public services, forcing them to be transparent and respond to Freedom Of Information requests (supported by 93% of Lib Dem voters). We would have a right to recall them when they do a bad job (supported by 90% of Lib Dem voters).
The Bill would require government to look at public ownership first (supported by 65% of Lib Dem voters). There would always be an in-house bid when services are contracted out (supported by 83% of Lib Dem voters). Organisations with a social purpose – cooperatives, genuine mutuals, social enterprise, charities – would be promoted above private companies in the bidding process (supported by 68% of Lib Dem voters).
The Lib Dems have an opportunity to commit to a Public Service Users Bill and show they’re serious about modernisation, accountability and openness. As consumers, people expect to have some rights. As public service users, people expect high quality services and fewer (or no) scandals. As taxpayers, they expect transparency about how their money is being spent. As citizens of a democratic country, they expect to have a voice.
We would love to hear from Lib Dems who want to embrace this agenda and stand up for the people who use public services.
* Cat Hobbs is the Director of We Own It
Interesting 4minute video here thats asking if some of Graylings plans need more inspection, and a good comment from the LibDems too.
ReplyDeletehttp://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25712962
http://www.unison.org.uk/news/unison-recommendation-on-final-offer-for-probation-workers
ReplyDeleteI'm more then a little unhappy to be advised by a union to accept the deal on the table now, only 24 hours prior to the TR third reading in the commons!?
DeleteGreat timing.
The BBC clip is from the Sunday Politics show and features Timpsons recruiting ex-offenders and Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland querying ideological reforms that don't always produce savings - that'll be TR then! The question is, how representative is this of Lib Dem MP feeling generally?
DeleteUNISON'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.
DeleteThe 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.
UNISON for police and justice workers
Local lib dem councillor to tweet local mps re today's blog
DeleteOff topic, but trying to find the content of tonights panorama programme, social services and family courts, (hopefully some of Graylings plans will be shown to be stupid), I spotted this that should be shared.
ReplyDeleteIt's already revealed that £10,000 has been spent at RADA for acting lessons for ministers, £250,000 on ministers portraits, and then this!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538560/The-six-figure-gravy-train-More-800-officials-paid-100-000-taxpayer-despite-age-austerity.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Data released by the Cabinet Office reveals that in March 2013 there were 819 public sector workers earning more than £100,000.
DeleteThe highest earner was Ian Nolan, the chief investment officer of the Green Investment Bank, who was paid £330,000.
His boss, chief executive Shaun Kingsbury, earned £325,000 while Dennis Hone earned £310,000 as chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority, which he quit last year.
Among the 30 earning more than £200,000 were the chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies (£210,000), pensions regulator Stephen Soper (£210,000), NHS England boss Sir David Nicholson (£210,000) and Ministry of Defence equipment chief Bernard Gray (£220,000).
Despite the huge sums, Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude insisted the government had made progress in reining in spending.
He told the Daily Telegraph: ‘Britain is now leading the world on transparency. We have released more data than ever before and the whole point is to allow armchair-auditors to hold our feet to the fire.'
Mr Maude went on: ‘This Government is slashing costs to help the country live within its means. We have shrunk the Civil Service by 15 per cent since the 2010 General Election and it’s now at its smallest since World War Two.
‘There are a fifth fewer people earning over £150,000 and over 250 fewer quangos than there were under Labour.
‘It’s these sort of tough decisions which helped us save hard-working taxpayers £10 billion last year but there’s so much more that we need to do.’
In the past the government only published details of people earning more than £150,000 but lowered the threshold to increase pressure on government bodies to curb spending.