Omnishambles Update 42

As the strike on Monday and Tuesday rapidly approaches, I thought the following email from Pat Waterman, Chair of Napo Greater London Branch to CEO Heather Munro was interesting. She copied it to all London staff:-

Dear Heather

Last time we went on strike you wrote in your blog that:

I will not be taking action personally as I need to ensure that the organisation can operate safely, protecting those staff who continue to work and ensure we are managing the risk our offenders pose. I do understand however staff's wish to take action, demonstrating to the MoJ the strength of feeling in the service about the changes ahead.

In your blog this week you advised us all that you are going to Italy this weekend. While you are on holiday my members will be going on strike again to defend the trust against the plans of this government to abolish it and put much of our work out to tender.

You have spent your entire career in the public probation service and, while I do not expect you to join our action, you might wish to consider donating a day and a half's wages to the NAPO Strike Fund to help support all those who are willing to defend the service. We are fighting to SAVE THE PROBATION SERVICE. Please help us.

Pat Waterman
Chair

According to twitter conversations I've seen, the solicitors are pretty annoyed at their colleagues at the criminal bar agreeing a deal with Grayling, and it seems to be borne out by this on the Legal Futures website:-

Civil war broke out among criminal defence lawyers yesterday in the wake of a deal struck between the government and the Criminal Bar Association. The Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA) accused the Bar’s leadership of using “the unity of the profession to pursue self-interest in a separate secret negotiation”. As a result of the agreement, the CBA has suspended its direct action: the ‘no returns’ policy which meant that barristers would not accept briefs where the original advocate has had to return it, and the refusal to handle very high-cost cases (VHCCs) since fees were cut 30% in December, which 41 barristers have already done. In return, the government has agreed to suspend the 6% cut to the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme until after next year’s election and take account of the recommendations of the various ongoing reviews of the criminal justice system and criminal advocacy.

CBA chairman Nigel Lithman QC said: “This gives 89% of the criminal Bar (those that do not do VHCCs) what they have demanded and has been achieved by their resolve.” On VHCCs, he said that “whilst it is for each individual barrister to choose what work they undertake, there is no objection in principle to barristers who want to work on VHCCs undertaking such cases if they choose to do so”. Mr Lithman welcomed the government’s agreement to work with the profession to consider better alternatives to the VHCC scheme, adding at the end of his statement that “the CBA remains supportive of the stance taken by solicitors”. The only concession offered by the government to solicitors was that an interim payment scheme – aimed at helping firms’ cash flow – will be introduced this summer, a year earlier than planned, at a cost of £9m.

By doing a separate deal with the barristers it looks like Grayling has just made the solicitors more determined and most certainly 'up for it' on Monday and Tuesday. Talking of Grayling, the prisoner book ban continues cause him loads of bad publicity from all parts of the political spectrum and now includes HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Nick Hardwick. Here he is talking to the Independent:-

The Government's blanket ban on books being sent to prisoners is a “mistake” and the policy should be changed, the Chief Inspector of Prisons has said.

In an interview with The Independent, Nick Hardwick said preventing harmless items such as books from entering the country's jails was unnecessary “micro-management” by politicians. Decisions on what prisoners can receive from outside should be left to the discretion of individual prison governors, he added. His comments will come as a blow to the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, who has so far dismissed growing objections to the policy, saying he is determined to bring “right wing solutions to bear on social problems where the Left has palpably failed”.

Mr Hardwick said that while the basic intention of the Government's policy was “sound”, aspects of the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme - which places strict limitations on what prisoners can receive in the post and keep in their cells - were “not sensible” and “haven't worked out in the way ministers intended”.

“The problem in this case… is trying to micro-manage this from the centre, with the centre describing very detailed lists of what prisoners can and can't have,” he said. “I think that's a mistake. I think that once the policy intention is clear, how that's implemented should be left much more to the discretion and the common sense of governors, so that they can reflect the needs of their particular prison population.” Mr Grayling has come under mounting pressure to re-examine the policy since the issue was raised earlier this week by Frances Crook, the chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, in a critical article for a political website.

Her comments were picked up by author Mark Haddon, who galvanised Britain's literary establishment to speak out in protest. On Tuesday Alan Bennett, Sir Salman Rushdie, Julian Barnes, Ian McEwan, Carol Ann Duffy and other respected writers signed a letter condemning the ban.

While on the subject of Grayling, here he is in the Guardian talking about judicial review and campaigning groups:-

Campaign groups are undermining parliament by launching too many court challenges aimed at overturning government policy and avoiding costs by hiding behind "human shields", the justice secretary has said. In his clearest rationalisation so far of why judicial review cases should be limited, Chris Grayling accused pressure groups of exploiting costly legal procedures to delay legislation, planning permissions and deportation decisions.

"We have seen [judicial review] being used as a tactical tool rather than a vehicle for an individual to right a wrong," Grayling told the House of Lords constitutional committee. "Increasingly it's being used a political campaigning tool. It's trying to bypass … the political process.

"We are seeing pressure groups who are there to campaign and this is one of the tools that they use. We are trying to limit the human shield strategy where a campaign group finds an individual who has no resources of their own and rows in behind them. If the case is lost, there's no risk to the campaign group itself.

"My belief is that, to a degree I find quite unacceptable, it's either being used to delay or to try to challenge … a legitimate decision taken by the government and endorsed by parliament. We have no intention of getting rid of judicial review but I don't believe it should be a campaigning tool or a delaying tool." Even claims that were turned down imposed heavy costs on government lawyers and the courts, he said.

The justice secretary's comments come as the criminal justice and courts bill, which aims to limit public funding for judicial reviews, goes through parliament. One clause introduces the novel concept that courts can refuse cases if it appears "highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred". Critics have warned that it will force judges to engage in abstract speculation.

There really is no doubt where a chap like Grayling is coming from. It was a few weeks ago, but here he is telling the Civil Society website that charities do too much campaigning and should just get on with being like businesses:-

The charity sector is putting too much emphasis on campaigning and not enough on service delivery, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling told an audience of charity leaders last night. Speaking at a social welfare debate in London, organised by the Lord Mayor’s Charity Leadership Programme, Grayling said there was currently discussion about how much weight should be given to three issues – contracting, fundraising and campaigning.

“I disagree strongly with the campaigning side,” he said. “People talk about the amount MPs are lobbied by big business. But I would say that there is 20 to 30 times as much lobbying from the charitable sector, perhaps even more. I see there are big national organisations with active, well-funded campaigning groups at the centre, but with cash-strapped branches trying to provide services on the ground in communities, and I think 'are you sure you've got the balance right?'

“From the point of view of a constituency MP it doesn't feel right at all.” Grayling also said that the sector had to adapt in order to contract with government.

“The sector itself has to behave a reasonably commercial way,” he said. “If you want to win a government contract, you’ve got to be able to do a genuine business deal. We try to facilitate opportunities for the sector but we can't provide it on a plate.” He said the lesson he had taken from the Work Programme and Transforming Rehabilitation was that the sector needed to build more commercial skills, and that he had explained this lesson to Acevo, the NCVO and to contracting organisations. He said that change was inevitable for charities, because previous government methods of engaging with the sector had been too inefficient.

“In both of these programmes the social sector is enormously important, both for big organisations like Tomorrow's People and the Shaw Trust, and smaller niche organisations,” he said. “We've tried to create a level playing field.” But he said the sector also had to change to meet government’s needs.

“Before the Work Programme the Department for Work and Pensions contracted with 1,200 charities,” he said. “With the best will in the world that's not really terribly viable. It's much more difficult to manage large numbers of charities.”

Grayling said he did not agree with criticism from members of the audience who said they could not afford to become involved in payment-by-results programmes which took a long time before they paid out to contractors. “I don’t believe payment-by-results puts any constraints on the sector,” he said.

He said that charities should be able to get funding from prime contractors who had the balance sheet to fund smaller organisations during delivery, or they should be able to attract social investment to fund a payment-by-results contract.

But lets end this on yet another health warning to all potential bidders for probation work out there, and I do understand that your number is getting smaller by the day:-

I had my TR training this week and have some real concerns about the vulnerable position the bidders will be in. Do they realise that the main part of their business they have no control over? Relying on NPS staff to correctly allocate to CRC. If I were a bidder I would want some remuneration written into my contract for the occasions when this goes wrong as it will take time and resources to correct. 

Also, are bidders aware that the cases suitable for NPS / CRC can be changed by the government changing the offences listed on Schedule 15 (again) thereby making them MAPPA or not? Have they seen the case studies used in the training? I would certainly be asking to see these before putting in a bid!! Rapists, theft from person including use of weapon, the list goes on - all in CRCs! 

Also, the escalation of risk tool needs to be completed by someone who knows what they are talking about in terms of risk - it is going to cost them to employ such individuals. All I can say is bidders beware.

PS - Bidders would also do well to look at the history of Atos who have simply given up on their contract and walked away having had enough of dealing with difficult government work, as reported here by the BBC:-

The firm Atos, which assesses whether benefit claimants in Britain are fit to work, is to finish its contract early, ministers have confirmed. It follows government criticism over "significant quality failures". Disabilities Minister Mike Penning said a new company would be appointed in early 2015, and Atos would not receive "a single penny of compensation".

Atos had been due to finish in August 2015. It said the settlement was "in the best interests of all parties". It also said it would "work hard to support transition to a new provider", adding: "We will be transferring our infrastructure and employees to ensure consistency of service to those going through the process. "There will be no change for those applying for Employment and Support Allowance." Last month, Atos said it was seeking to end its government contract under which it carried out the Work Capability Assessments.