Omnishambles Update 40

Now that the issue of whether or not to run with a Judicial Review has been decided, it's time to turn our attention to other aspects of this TR omnishambles. As always there's been some good comments of late that I'd like to highlight:-

Firstly let me say I am not in NAPO, so have no axe to grind one way or the other. I have commented previously that I did not think members had the stomach for another strike . . .my most recent observations lead me to think that enthusiasm for direct action has waned. In my LDU it is very much 'business as usual', additional work is absorbed readily just the same as covering for sick colleagues. Yes we moan to each other about it, but we still do it. We seem to get around the need for 'sessional work' by re - employing (on temp short term contracts) ex PO's who recently took early retirement! Nobody bats an eyelid, they are just welcomed back into the fold like they never left. 

Strike action will not "secure delays" although I am still hopeful that the sheer ineptitude of those forcing TR through at break - neck speed will delay matters. My real concern is that a lacklustre day and a half of action will actually do far more harm than good. Why can't area NAPO reps simply phone individual members and pose the very simple question "will you be out at the end of the month or not?" It isn't too late for damage limitation.. . just remember a poor turnout, as well as empowering Grayling, may well demotivate non - striking NAPO colleagues and Unison members.

***************
Couple of points:
Still think that napo leadership need to withdraw from probation institute, even after reading and thinking about all the pro PI stuff I'm still of the firm opinion that the Napo's involvement compromises the struggle against TR.
 
Then regarding strike action - I have no moral dilemma - I am a believer in democracy, napo had a democratic vote to strike, all napo members had an opportunity to vote and those that did voted in favour of strike action. It's about personal principles, values and beliefs, the kind of stuff we try to promote with service users. Any napo member who, for whatever reason seeks to legitimatise strike breaking is not a democrat IMO. If you are a napo member who goes in, I hope you resign from napo so that your actions don't undermine, disregard and show contempt for the hard working and dedicated NAPO local reps and members who fight on a daily basis to represent you and your colleagues to the best of their abilities. Please stand solid with your colleagues.

Concerning the strike, it coincides with concerted action for a third time by the legal profession as outlined here in the Guardian:-

Criminal solicitors across England and Wales are to stage a two-day walkout at the end of the month to coincide with a strike by probation workers. The lawyers' escalation of their industrial action, in protest at deep cuts to criminal legal aid fees, is aimed at intensifying pressure on the justice secretary, Chris Grayling. Both the solicitors, who are also launching an indefinite work-to-rule, and probation staff will take action on Monday 31 March and Tuesday 1 April, which is, coincidentally, Grayling's birthday.

The National Association of Probation Officers (Napo) announced earlier this month that it would stage a 24-hour stoppage from midday on Monday 31 March. Probation officers, who work closely with solicitors in court, particularly when convicted defendants are sentenced, are opposed to the justice secretary's plans to outsource 70% of the service to private firms and voluntary groups.

Nicola Hill, president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association, said: "We are standing by the probation service as they too face a dangerous overhaul and a risky, non-evidence-based, privatised rehabilitation agenda. "Throughout the criminal justice system we are seeing justice eroded. The Ministry of Justice and the courts have benefited from the goodwill of defence solicitors for many years.

"Legal aid lawyers have been oiling the wheels of a creaking justice system for too long. We're no longer prepared or able to do this. That's why we'll be working to rule, sticking to the letter of criminal procedure. This won't be to the detriment of clients, but will demonstrate to the MoJ that we've been taken advantage of for too long. Our hand has been forced."

Bill Waddington, chair of the Criminal Law Solicitors' Association, commented: "Yesterday's decision is an indication of the anger and frustration about what the government is doing. The fact that some 500 lawyers holding more than 700 legal aid contracts took the trouble to drop everything at very short notice, to make their views heard, shows we are at the end of our tether and not prepared to put up with this any longer."

I notice that yesterday's blog from Ian Lawrence gave more details of the London Rally in conjunction with the Justice Alliance:-

Napo and Justice Alliance 1st April 

We are finalising plans for the central London strike rally on 1st April with the Justice Alliance, and as you would expect there are many logistical considerations to go through so that we are able to demonstrate without police interference and ensure a maximum turnout from Napo and Justice Alliance members. 

At the time of going to press it seems more likely that we will now be staging the demo during the afternoon of the 1st April rather than the morning as we had provisionally planned, so as to allow those Napo members who are travelling into London from picket duties to arrive comfortably. We hope to be able to announce the details and venue on Monday and get leaflets and posters out to you soon afterwards. 

We will also circulate details of local Justice Alliance contacts to all branches to assist with any planned local activities. 

The latest Campaign Bulletin number 34 is well worth a look for further information.

There's been much comment about last weeks Public Accounts Committee hearing in front of the redoubtable Margaret Hodge MP:-   

Please do take some time to read even some of the PAC minutes, they are truly astonishing in the vein of Rumsfeldt's "unknown unknowns". Dame Ursula Brennan saying that what she's saying is what she's not saying, but its what she's saying; or the claims that savings aren't savings, but they are savings from elsewhere, perhaps, but we won't know until the savings have been made.

It truly is 'Yes Minister" made flesh. Or the nonsensical chuntering of Count Arthur Strong.

***********
I just read this excerpt:

Dame Ursula Brennan: "It is worth bearing in mind, when you look at that under-12-month case load, that there is no requirement to do the kind of intensive service that you do with the other case load that applies to those people." 

HaHa. If bidders think that they will be totally screwed. Those of us in Probation know how time consuming and resource sapping that group will be. After a few months of working with people with short prison sentence plus twelve months supervision they will want to pull up the draw bridge pretty quickly. In our area we spend c£150,000 from out Trust budget voluntarily for through the gate provision for u12 month sentences - they only draw on a small number of prisoners who volunteer into the service. The workers are so stretched by these people that their caseloads are half of those of workers dealing with Community Orders.

And that is working with the more motivated end of the u12 months group. Imagine - zero motivated u12 monthers who are saddled with 12 months supervision when they get out. That's a saddle that this group very easily shed, but CRCs will have to run after them trying to get them recalled. Best of luck to them.....but luck will be no help whatsoever. They will be utterly f**ked and hugely out of pocket. What is more, the processes for managing this group on mandatory supervision have not even been considered yet. Remember, it is 'through the gate' - it is quite different - no offender supervisors - CRC workers will be doing it themselves, with no worked out processes. This is the group who put bricks through windows just to get back inside for a few nights of warmth and a meal. The best a CRC worker can do is signpost them to a food bank. 

Then there is the overcrowding in prisons that will arise and the huge disruption to prison reception processes caused by the increase in these sentences as against community orders - to a JP, 3 months custody with12 months supervision will sound better than 12 months Community Order. The costs of that will be massive!!!

My advice to bidders is that if you don't know this client group....get out now.

For a further flavour of the exchanges, I notice that yesterday's email to all Napo members from Tom Rendon  was devoted entirely to the topic:-

Dear All,

If you want an insight into who is in charge of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme in Central Government, here are some extracts below from the Public Accounts Committee session which is also covered in detail in the latest Napo News.  The only thing that made sense is the Permanent Secretary stating that she would not proceed with TR if the programme was not “business ready”.  As for the rest, well, I’m almost lost for words…

This is NOT a spoof- you can check out the full transcript on Hansard or watch the session on iPlayer

Margaret Hodge: Chair, Public Accounts Committee (PAC)

Dame Ursula Brennan: Permanent Secretary, MoJ

Michael Spurr: Chief Executive of NOMS

Antonia Romeo: Director General, Transforming Rehabilitation

Ian Swales MP (LibDem): PAC Member

Richard Bacon MP (Con): PAC Member

What happens if the CRC decides they are not making enough money? (secrecy rules!)

Ian Swales: What provisions will you make for the long- term ownership of these CRCs and what do you do if one fails?  This is not a service that we can have failing for any length of time….What happens if the supplier just says, “You know what?  We’re not making enough money out of this.  Bye!” and so they go?

Antonia Romero: They would not be able to change ownership without discussing it with the MoJ.

Richard Bacon: As long as they talk to you about it, they can sell.  That is not what you meant, is it? Or is it?

Antonia Romeo: I am deliberately trying not to find myself in a position where I reveal too much during the process of a live competition.

What about piloting? (Admission of the absence of credible evidence for TR)

Margaret Hodge: But the Peterborough model, as I understand it, is voluntary.

Antonia Romeo: That is correct.

Margaret Hodge: And the model that you are designing is not voluntary.

Antonia Romeo: That is correct.

Margaret Hodge: Is there any international evidence on this payment by results stuff?

Antonia Romeo: Very little actually.

What about the bureaucratic cost of transferring cases between the CRC and NPS when risk changes? (Margaret Hodge asks about the 25% of cases where risk changes)

Michael Spurr: In terms of the potential movement after you have allocated a case to a Community Rehabilitation Company, I am sorry, but I do not recognise the one in four cases…

Margaret Hodge: How many do you expect to be moved? What proportion? In your experience, how many people go up and down the risk register?  You must know.  How many if I was wrong about my one in four?

Michael Spurr: I do not have a figure because we do not retain a figure in that way.

Margaret Hodge: Well, how do you know one in four is wrong?.....How many do you reckon?  What is your idea of this?

Michael Spurr: Relatively small.

Margaret Hodge: What does that mean?

Micheal Spurr: It means what I say- relatively small.

Margaret Hodge: I don’t understand that.  When you are trying to predict processes, how many does it mean?

Michael Spurr: I don’t think it is fair for me to pluck a figure out of my head at this minute.

Exasperated?  Don’t worry, here’s Dame Ursula with some no-nonsense clarity:

“What I am trying to say is that we are not saying, “Here is how we do it now.  We are going to do something that adds cost to it.”  We are saying, “Here are all the costs now.  They are going to lie in different places, and the procedures are going to look different.”  So we are not simply saying, “Here is a process, we are adding cost to it.”  We are saying, “Here is a process that is going to operate in a different way.”

In typing this out for you, part of me doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry but the truth is I am seethingly angry.  Our Probation Service is just too precious to be ripped apart by this lot.  Don’t give up.  Take action on 31^st March and 1^st of April 2014.

Ps. They’ve already spent £9 million of our tax money on TR consultants.

Best wishes,

TOM RENDON

National Chair

Link to account of PAC hearing:- 

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/7395