Dear All
Members have asked again about Judicial Review. We hope this email clarifies exactly where we are.
We have sought legal advice previously on JR. The advice at that time and which has been regularly reported to the NEC was not promising for two broad reasons. First, we did not have the quality of evidence we needed. TR was still largely a paper exercise at the time. Trade union objections are not the same as legal evidence. Frustrating we know. Second, our political, professional and moral objections are not the same as having a legal case.
As reported at the recent SGM in Birmingham, things have now moved on. In order to have evidence to credibly challenge the government, we need to prove why TR is causing such a problem. The Public Accounts Committee and evidence from members has been, in our view, something of a game changer (legally speaking). We are now seeking further advice about the basis for a robust legal challenge. We are committed to using every means possible to stop privatisation - on the grounds that there is a massive risk to the public - including industrial action, parliamentary activity and, if appropriate, legal challenge.
Judicial Review, if it is a runner, will be expensive but this in itself will not prohibit us.
We are sorry that this may come across as being circumspect, and members are rightly wanting to know what’s happening. However, please be mindful that whatever we communicate to you almost immediately gets into the hands of the MoJ.
TOM RENDON IAN LAWRENCE
National Chair General Secretary
We are sorry that this may come across as being circumspect, and members are rightly wanting to know what’s happening. However, please be mindful that whatever we communicate to you almost immediately gets into the hands of the MoJ.
TOM RENDON IAN LAWRENCE
National Chair General Secretary
I'd like to make a few comments, starting with the obvious that it's very good news indeed and clearly accords with the wishes of the membership if comments to this blog are anything to go by. In passing I think it's worth noting that the blog recorded the highest ever number of hits in a day yesterday, just a shade under 5,000 and in my view this change of view over JR would not have come about without members making their voice heard vociferously.
The possible cost of legal proceedings has been mentioned yet again, but I sense the launch of a legal costs fighting fund would be popular and has been mentioned a few times both here and on twitter. Although not a lawyer, I also want to comment on the argument that there wasn't the evidence to go for a Judicial Review previously. I will stick my neck out and say the evidence has been there all along in being able to challenge the 2007 Act being used for a purpose that was never intended by Parliament. As is ever the case, history will eventually decide if that hunch is right or wrong.
Finally, I really do think this news will help members decide whether to support strike action or not.
Well at last great news well done JIM on the 5k figure and the brilliant coverage. OK so they read the blog too many in the MOJ can only work out what is going via this news feed anyway.
ReplyDeleteNAPO have seemed to have got the message finally that there will not be a napo without members subs and they wont have members unless they spend the money on protecting the members. An obvious cycle but that is what the money is for and branches will come forward to support our protection. Keep up the pressure and all those who make the effort to post.
It's good to read the good news about a Judicial Review. Harry Fetcher says, "Probation sell off /privatisation can be seen off with a combination of Industrial action, Legal action and continued parliamentary pressure!"
ReplyDeleteCouple of points:
ReplyDeleteStill 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 demoncratic 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 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.
Well said.
ReplyDeleteDeb
Yes nicely put - I've taken the liberty of republishing as a late addition to todays blog post in order to give some balance to the argument for and against strike action.
ReplyDelete