The Amendment failed - 243 votes for & 263 against
************
I am despondent this feels like the end game and to be honest one we were never going to win against a thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable Minister of State. What does that say about this government that these tricks and sleight of hand tactics have been used against such a performing and loyal workforce? I am utterly disillusioned with our politicians based on this experience of Grayling, Something has to be done about the way the rich elite are taking all in our society and the demonisation of the poor.
****************
The waste of it all. The loss of experience already, the loss of morale. The sheer lunacy of it. The pouring down the drain of public funds. The bureaucratic wall that will get higher and deeper and wider. The mess, the chaos. I feel angry. Every day I have to pretend I am not angry that everything is normal, read another email full of shite, press delete.
****************
Now every one of us are well and truly shafted what are we going to do? Take it like good compliant workers or fight the bastards? All uprising start with discontent which turns to anger followed by fury and a reign of terror.
From the years of "you have never had it so good", built off the backs of the dead of two world wars, back to the normal run of history. The rich bloated elite forgetting that the others are human in their grubby lust for profits and power.
It's been a bad day with the near privatisation of the NHS and Probation and the death of Bob Crow an old school class warrior, I've had better.
*******************
Yes quite a day. Our great hopes of another House of Lords defeat for Grayling cruelly dashed by 20 votes. The MoJ TR spin machine keeps up the bollocks, the blog sails past three-quarters of a million hits and the British Library make contact requesting permission to archive the content and save it for the Nation. It looks like I might be joining that illustrious blogger Sir Stephen Bubb and will have to keep you all informed of my dining arrangements. Here he is, self-serving as ever, and still trying his very best to take our work away:-
"Not only did I get a reply to my letter to the Prime Minister about public service reform last week, but I ended up chatting to him about it over the vegetables at the Charlbury Farmers' Market on Saturday. Always a big draw since it brings together a range of local producers and farmers. Mr Cameron is a regular customer, as am I.
My letter to Cameron drew attention to the need to push harder on securing a bigger role for the third sector in delivering citizen-focused services. I pointed out that many of the reforms have led to replacing public sector monopolies with private sector oligopolies. Future reform must be driven from below, by the exercise of citizens’ rights, rather than further top-down, Whitehall-led change. These rights do also, of course, need good government support, to make them strong enough to meaningfully push power down to citizens. There is much work to be done by all parties, ahead of the election, if they are to make this happen."But today we can look forward to the MoJ answering some very awkward questions put to them by Margaret Hodge and the Public Accounts Committee. I notice that Rob Allen has some suggestions in his latest blog post:-
"Unproductive and frustrating might well describe the relationship between parliament and the ministry during the last twelve months, with requests for more information about costs and risks repeatedly denied to legislators. The House of Lords seems to have fired its last shot in the battle for more transparency. With this afternoon’s narrow defeat of their attempt to subject the probation changes to greater parliamentary scrutiny, responsibility for extracting more details about the plans moves to Mrs Hodge and her colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee.
There are three basic questions areas that the PAC should probe if they are to fulfil their obligation to test the economy, effectiveness and efficiency of the changes.
On economy the simple question is whether the government plans are affordable. Grayling may say that contracts will be let on quality not price but in order to supervise 50,000 more offenders with the same resources, something has to give. His own strategy says that “from previous competitions for Offender Management services, we have seen evidence of the potential to generate efficiency savings, which allows us to invest in support for short sentenced offenders and those who need it most. The private sector is driving savings within the CJS.” The permanent secretary needs to tell the PAC for example whether the estimated £25m saving on the Community Payback bill in London after SERCO took over in October 2012 is still valid- presumably not since the contract is being terminated early. The NAO should also press on the costs and performance of HMP Oakwood – allegedly operating at half the annual cost per prisoner place of comparable prisons. The MoJ see this is an example of how the private sector can cut costs. But performance so far has been very poor. Is this a genuine or responsible benchmark for costings in criminal justice and if not what is?
On effectiveness, the key questions relate to the manageability of the new arrangements. How and with what resources, are the Ministry going to ensure that contracts are delivered properly? And how will the Department make sure that that the crucial operational interfaces are properly managed between the public Probation service on the one hand and the Rehabilitation Companies on the other and between the Companies and the range of other relevant agencies. The NAO last week published a separate report on criminal justice which found that governance and management arrangements are complex and that delivery partners “need to be working well together at national and local level, focusing on how best to achieve the overall objectives of the criminal justice system, rather than optimising the performance of their own organisations.” In probation, arrangements are about to get a whole lot more complex and the PAC should want to know how they will work.
The third focus of the PAC is efficiency. The NAO criminal justice report found that “changes to one part of the system can have unexpected consequences for others”. The PAC should ask about unintended consequences of the Transforming Rehabilitation changes. Grayling told Policy Exchange that if he were running a CRC he’d want to set up a housing operation. He’s right of course that prisoners need a place to live but do we really want to develop offender specific services that could inadvertently reinforce rather than diminish their social exclusion. Is there not a risk that mainstream services will see an opportunity to wash their hands of offenders safe in the knowledge that their needs are to be looked after by these new private agencies?
On the sharing of good practice, the PAC will want to know how the Ministry will develop a contracting regime that encourages encourage providers to share what works when there is a commercial advantage not to do so.
When Grayling first announced his changes, he was reported to have said that you don’t pilot a revolution. By contrast, his junior minister told the Sunday Mirror at the weekend that the government has always been clear that the changes “will be rolled out in a controlled way, with robust testing at every stage”. Although they are interrogating officials rather than ministers, the PAC has the right to press them hard about the results from of this alleged testing so far and the plans for the future . In fact they have the duty to do so."
Postscript - I'm aware that TR is having catastrophic consequences for some individuals. Please try and look out for colleagues at all levels and be mindful of the pain they may be going through. This really is a time when we should try and pull together for support and demonstrate to Chris Grayling what he will sadly never understand, that probation is a family as well as a job and profession.
This is a repost from the preceding blog, with some added words.
ReplyDeleteThese extracts are from Lord Faulks in the Lords yesterday (I've previously posted the link if you want to read it yourself):
"First, there is the crucial issue of engaging with and supporting those already working in probation—what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, described at Report stage as “taking people with you”. We are working closely with probation trusts to make sure that probation staff have the information and support they need while these changes take place. We are committed to treating staff fairly during this period of transition. I am pleased to say that we have reached agreement with the trade unions and the employers’ side over a national agreement for staff transfer, which will protect the terms and conditions of staff transferring to new rehabilitation companies or the NPS."
"The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to engagement with the unions. I did grimace slightly because there has been agreement and complete liaison with the unions. Officials meet regularly with the unions—every two weeks—through a specially established forum devoted to discussing the reforms. Alongside the meetings with the forum—which is our formal engagement body—fortnightly meetings with the unions have taken place since September to look specifically at our pensions proposals. Trade union officials have attended a number of workshops, training sessions and meetings with programme officials to look at specific elements of our reforms. Informal discussions have also taken place on a regular basis and negotiations over the national agreement on staff transfer always took place with a departmental representative in attendance. Ministers have regular meetings with unions every eight to 12 weeks."
"It is difficult to understand why there is apparently—so the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, says—discontent among the staff, because a deal has been negotiated with the unions. We have been undertaking negotiations with probation trade unions and the employers’ representatives over a national agreement for staff transfer that will protect the terms and conditions of staff transferring to the CRCs or the NPS. Probation trade unions and the Probation Association, which represents trusts, ratified the national agreement on staff transfer on 29 January 2014. Trade unions have also withdrawn all local trade disputes. The national agreement offers a very good deal for existing staff, and demonstrates our commitment to fairness by going much further than we are legally required to do. Staff will transfer to the new probation structures with their existing terms and conditions in place. The additional protections set out within the agreement include a guarantee of employment in the new probation structures from 1 June 2014, no compulsory redundancies for a period of seven months following share sale and an enhanced voluntary redundancy period of up to 67.5 weeks. Alongside our negotiations, the programme has put in place a dedicated consultative forum for effective engagement with trade unions and employers’ representatives. We will continue to engage closely with trade unions and employers throughout the transition to the new probation structure."
So its there, in The Lords, in Hansard, in black&white:
In summary - National agreements in place ratified by unions & employers - guaranteed employment at point of transfer - no redundancies for up to 7 months post share sale (new to me, that) - up to 67.5 weeks' voluntary redundancy (despite claims its been withdrawn by NOMS) - all local trades union disputes withdrawn - union officials involved at least fortnightly since September 2013.
What basis a strike? I am totally committed to fighting the insidious trinity that is TR, NOMS and MoJ, but what legitimate basis is there if the Lord Faulks is telling the truth? And if he is misleading the Lords and the country, then what redress do we have?
We need an urgent response from Napo!
DeleteI don't think we'll get any response, Jim, let alone an urgent one.
DeleteIts NAPOs responsibility - either there IS a legitimate mandate and basis for strike action, or there isn't. Was there any justification/rationale offered at Birmingham SGM?
NAPO - it can't be too difficult to answer, surely?
I'll happily come out against the unholy trinity if there's a valid argument so to do. I suspect a fair few folk are waiting for an answer... no cookies, no cocoa, just a simple answer please.
Still nowt from NAPO then?
DeleteIt's probable that the Public Accounts Committee will find much wrong with TR, but TR will sail on. The Offender Rehabilitation Bill will soon get Royal Assent. We know that TR is driven by an ideological fixation on outsourcing the delivery of public services. Every available lever has been tried to stop TR and all have failed.
ReplyDeleteI therefore wonder what is the point of a further strike by Napo at the end of this month? It cannot be to bring the MoJ back to the negotiating table because an agreement has already been signed.
Yesterday in response to criticisms of its strategy, Napo sent out a missive to members which included this quote to justify further strike action:
“You’ve done well making your point and having a protest but it’s all going ahead so run along…” Patronising statements like this should come with a cookie and a pat on the head. Ignore it as demeaning rubbish.”
Members have done well making their protests and it would have been better if all members had joined in the struggle, but that's another story... There is nothing patronising in concluding that protests have not delivered what was hoped for. This is not how the Napo leadership see it and they believe another strike is going to make a difference. They must believe this as otherwise it would be mere tokenism and that would be patronising towards members.
Therefore it is incumbent on Napo to spell out what it hopes to achieve from a further strike. The parliamentary process is almost over, Napo is in the Probation Institute and if you look at the transcript of the Lord's debate yesterday you will see several references to the PI – all made by those on the other side of the argument to demonstrate how that have listened and in support of their commitment to good practice and high standards of delivery. Some object to the PI as being described as a fig leaf – how about Trojan Horse? Napo, though, continues to see it as a sacred cow and will not make a splash by jettisoning it.
Napo needs to fight fights that it stands a chance of winning. There is no point in leading members to the point of exhaustion; wondering what did our strategy gain over that being followed by Unison?
I see some fervour in the enthusiasm for more industrial action and some members are angry and want to express it on picket lines. But this expressive stuff is not going to change TR and the chances of changing it must surely be the criteria by which all proposed actions should be judged. It is no good winning hearts if you cannot also win minds – and the passage of the Bill shows we have failed to win minds to our cause.
I have just seen this one liner contributed to the Napo Forum and it cuts to the quick for me. Maybe those who signed up to the PI can square this circle.
Delete'Unless it opposes profit for probation, how can the PI be ethical?'
Some additional treasures from the Lords yesterday:
ReplyDeleteamendments voted for: Clause 3, page 3, line 2, leave out “an officer of a provider of probation services” and insert “a person”
Lord Faulks: "The efficiency savings that these reforms will generate will be reinvested in two major prizes that many noble Lords have long argued in favour of. The first is a through-the-gate system of support for everyone released from prison... The second is the extension of supervision after release to short-sentenced prisoners,"
Lord Faulks: "The probation reforms are being implemented under powers that both Houses agreed as long ago as 2007 and which are settled law. While those powers do not require parliamentary scrutiny, the Government have stuck to their commitment to provide extensive information to both Houses about the reforms. We have acted on the concerns raised when the Bill was last in this House, for example, through supporting the establishment of a probation institute..."
Lord Faulks: "The NPS will continue to use the probation qualifications framework—PQF—to ensure staff competence. For the new rehabilitation companies there will be a contractual requirement to maintain a workforce with appropriate levels of training and competence. They can use the PQF or—for cases where there might be an excellent member of staff such as an ex-offender, who has gained skills from a non-traditional route... The Government are also supporting probation representative bodies to establish an independent probation institute, an idea raised by my noble friend Lord Marks at Second Reading."
Lord Ramsbotham: "When I tabled an amendment asking for that to be rectified, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out quite rightly that my wording was faulty because the Offender Management Act 2007, already quoted by the Minister, which the Government claim allows them to alter probation provision in any way they wish without consulting Parliament, did not mention “the probation service” but rather “probation services”.
Baroness Linklater: "This is a moment to recognise that we are seeing the passing of an organisation that has served this country well for the past 100 years, with a breadth and depth of experience that only time can give. I am sad about that and I want to pay tribute to the service that it has given. I hope that in the brave new world it will still have enough of a voice to allow it to serve us as well as it has in the past."
Reference by Lord Beecham to past words of John (now Lord) Reid regarding OM Bill 2007:
"“If, at some future point, any Government were to decide that the time was right to open up that area of work”— that is, offender management—
“they would have to make the case to Parliament, and Parliament would have the final say”. He went on to describe it as a “double lock meaning that any movement after that will require a vote of both Houses”
Well am I missing something if the 2007 act said " probation services" not the Probation Service is is legal to dismantle the Probation Service it cant be if the wording is correct can it??
ReplyDeleteIs the noble ( right honourable even ) Baroness Linklater correct?
This a quote from Margaret Hodge on 7 March 2014:
ReplyDelete"The Criminal Justice system receives £17 billion a year in funding, and yet it is creaking at the seams – an inefficient, ineffective system. The reoffending rate remains far too high, the web of IT systems don’t talk to each other and up to £19 million is wasted in courts because trials don’t take place when they’re supposed to.
The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office need to up their game and deliver the good management of the criminal cases we expect.
I look forward to talking to the senior figures from both about how they intend to address these problems when they come before us on Monday 17 March 2014."
I suspect such an overture from Ms Hodge will only serve to entrench the commitment of Grayling et al to push harder, faster and further with their reforms, i.e. there's clearly no scope for arguing the status quo.
This is another area where I struggle with the slippery unholy trinity - it was initially about the money, then it wasn't, then it was, then it wasn't - depending on who was asking the questions and/or who was offering the answers. But no-one seems to remember the previous answers, its only about what was last said. Why haven't NAPO got a ready archive of embarassing gaffes and quotes to wheel out & contradict Grayling, Wright, Faulks, Spurr, Allars, etc etc etc.??? They're all there in Hansard.
As are the following useful statistics from the NAO document:
* £853m was spent by the 35 probation trusts in 2012-13
* 208,000 offenders being supervised by probation trusts as at 31 Mar 2013
[I calculate a unit cost of ~£4,100 per person being supervised p.a.]
* 7.6 per cent fall in probation caseload between 2008 and 2012
[sounds like a real terms reduction in offending behaviour to me]
* 36 per cent adult reoffending rate for those with custodial sentence of between 12 months and 4 years
* 59 per cent adult reoffending rate for those with custodial sentence of less than 12 months
[That seems to be a significant difference, i.e. 13% reduction in reoffending rates when released prisoners are supervised by probation. Sounds like a good argument to give the job to probation to me.]
So how will TR & its ideological vandalism improve the probation landscape?
Forgot to include that probation budget @ £853M is a mere smidge of the £17Bn budget allocated to the criminal justice system.
DeleteI suspect this is far less of a burden on the CJ budget than any of the individual and unfit for purpose IT systems which don't work, aren't being used, are causing problems and remain expensive to maintain, certainly far more efficient and cost-effective than the Prison Service, and I don't think probation can be held responsible for any trials failing to go ahead.
For comparison
Deleteaverage prison population 2012/13 = 85,120
operating costs 2012/13 ~ £2.9Bn
Cost per prisoner approx £35K p.a.
More details available here:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/prison-and-probation-trusts-performance-statistics-201213
You'll be telling me next that TR is a bad idea and that it won't work!!!
DeleteThank you for pointing me in the right direction, but I'm just trying to make sense of it in my own way, seeing as there seems to have been a distinct paucity of facts or constructive criticism to the TR argument. The distress and devastation of probation staff is not open to question - but a credible, informed challenge to the mechanics of the TR argument seems to be missing. In my amateurish, cheerless way I'm merely plodding along trying to find the relevant pieces of information that help me. And I thought it would be useful to share, just in case it was helpful to someone else.
DeletePlease don't be discouraged Anon 18:01 I"m sure other Anon 14:09 means no ill will.There are useful briefings on Napo website under Campaigns tab and am sure I've read somewhere that Napo has produced a report for the Public Accounts Committee whichwould be useful if members could see as well.
ReplyDeleteIs it legal to only offer the enhanced voluntary redundancy terms to Chief Officer and 'corporate services' grades?
ReplyDeletePBR Latest - Department of Works and Pensions have suppressed a report ( at Ministerial level) for 6 months that says providers of the work programme (48%) believe it is ineffective. Charities say people have been "creamed" so more focus goes to those who are easy to place in work. Difficult to place work seekers are "parked" so in effect receive little support including those with disabilities.
ReplyDeleteAny reflections anybody on how PBR with offenders will work????
Has anyone seen this, no wonder probation doesnt have any money, pissed up the wall with consultant fees. Dont need 9 million pounds to realize an idea is shite.
ReplyDeleteFrances Crook
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee discovered that MoJ has squandered £9 million on consultants on probation privatisation
Sadly no PAC minutes or other publications currently available. Margaret Hodge made a very powerful statement about pbr and probation on tonight's C4 news (in the wake of the leaked but as yet undisclosed dwp report). I'll try to get the exact wording asap and post.
Delete£9M into your chums' trouser pockets aint a bad result though. Probably secures a non-exec seat (aka £30K for a few days a year), maybe a few favours to call in as & when required - a role as some kind of roving peace envoy perhaps? Its a cross-party privilege - Blair, Blunkett, Major, etc etc etc.
here's the link to a webcast of the committee hearing (use silverlight):
Deletehttp://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=15101&player=silverlight
Morsels from the webcast - its brilliant, like cheesy peas!!!
DeleteDame Ursula Brennan, Permanent Secretary
Antonia Romeo, Director General, Criminal Justice Group, Michael Spurr, Chief Executive, NOMS
Sarah Payne, Director, National Offender Management Service, Wales, Ministry of Justice
Hodge – what savings will this new programme produce?
Brennan - This programme has never been designed to produce savings in and of itself… We want to protect spending around probation in order to extend it to u.12 months… not recovering savings in 2014/15
Spurr – NPS is for those offenders for whom payment by results is not deemed appropriate… savings made by reducing 35 trusts to one management centre… driving down corporate back office costs… 21 companies only be paid by payment by results
Romeo – 21 crc’s – substantial design work to prove its affordable – tested ourselves thoroughly in the market…
Hodge – none of you have answered the question… how can you develop an entirely new system and appoint 21 new companies yet claim there’s no additional cost?
Spurr – this is not a new process at all, it happens now…
Hodge – are you assuring this committee there are no additional costs?
Romeo - Majority is fee for service, the balance is pbr – answer not yet known – and an additional aspect is the service element, where we will put their profit at risk
Committee - Overall budget roughly the same? Caseload to be increased by 20-25% but paid for within existing budget then?
Brennan - Not all of the Under 12 months cases are as demanding, some won’t require any input, so no significant additional demand on the budget
Romeo – number of offenders will go up, but a different model… services delivered in a different way, one of the policy aims of the programme
Brennan – in order to extend provision the use of different providers is what enables you to develop new ideas and extend the service… the way the programme is designed is to make savings in a different way to pay for under 12 months
Romeo – we’re adopting a phased approach, testing & shadowing with existing Trusts – the programme is on track to deliver pbr by 2015… contracts to be signed 2014 and implementation in 2015… pilots of the methodology have happened in Doncaster & Peterborough, but you’re right to say they are voluntary and the new programme isn’t. Government policy is to roll out pbr by 2015.
Spurr – the system will need people to collaborate together… primary, secondary & tertiary level providers… looking to share good practice – sharing all evidence with crc’s because expectation is its for everyone’s good… crc’s will realise its in their own and everyone’s interests to share practice and information
Criminal.
Deletecontd... (I'm not an audio typist or stenographer):
DeleteSpurr - Voluntary package for surplus staff – primarily corporate service & support staff – aim is to retain operational staff & expand the caseload... (and in the process Spurr managed to reinvent the history of the PQF by claiming that PSOs historically managed caseloads without qualification. Can I remind you, Mr Spurr, that it was NPS/NOMS directive to give PSO staff caseloads and get them to write reports.)
And guess what – Spurr went on to claim the PI was a NOMS’ creation as a defensive position, something they have created to ensure professionalism within both the crc’s and nps. Trojan Horse as predicted by Netnipper.
contd...
DeleteSpurr - What staff will be paid is a matter for those employing them, that’s not for me to say
Romeo – “Complex” pbr is not complex - binary = desistance, frequency = how often, but hybrid = focused on victim impact, which is complex (uh?)
Romeo – consultants – brought in a company to prepare a shadow bid – then brought in an organisation helping to assure quality and that the programme was market-ready - Ernst & Young + KPMG – we’ve spent money on different types of things - £9M so far… including £3M on legal advice & paying for experts in people transitions services…
Thanks very much for doing this - £9 million on consultants, so far!
DeleteI'm losing the will to live & breathe now... its like visual qorare:
DeleteSpurr – staff Allocation process was set out fairly – the process was agreed with trade unions – there won’t be any employment tribunals because we adhered to the agreements made with unions, and if there are any, we’ll win.
And all in all the costs of design & implementation of TR programme have been swallowed up within the MoJ, and do not count against the NOMS budget. Creative accountancy making it look like its a bargain, when the MoJ have actually spent millions on this in staff time, in consultancy fees, etc etc etc.
Its a friggin' omnishambles, of that there's no doubt.
On today's evidence I would estimate that the combination of Brennan, Spurr, Payne & Romeo adds up to about £500K of public money spent on frightened rabbits who are inept, arrogant and full of self-serving, self-deceiving twaddle. Presumably Allars wasn't allowed out to play? But there's plenty more where they came from. The 14 members of NOMS directorate alone cost the public purse in excess of £1.2M annually in salaries. This excludes any pension arrangements. And now they think can can play hardball. The banks cleaned out the Public Piggybank - The Work Programme took most of the remaining loose change, and A4E have run them ragged, G4S have run them ragged, Serco have run them ragged, any and all of the IT providers have fleeced them beyond what is actually known (i.e. they dare not disclose the real loss to the public purse). The minor victories of £150M recovered from G4S & Serco are a pitiful fraction of what's been stolen from us as taxpayers.
DeleteThose probation staff who claim to be unable to afford to go on strike may wish to watch ITV right now- "The Miners Strike and Me", to see what real hardship looks like.
ReplyDeleteDon't think comparing current situation to the miners strike gives much cause for hope, not many miners left...
Deletedon't even go there to say what financial situations staff are in...........walk a mile in my shoes before you do!
DeleteIncredible when you are supposed to be empathic to the dire consequences of the people we deal with.
The outright lies (staff allocation process set out fairly...process agreed with trade unions), the supreme arrogance (wont be any employment tribunals and if there are, we'll win), the call for collaboration ( in our best interests? - I don't think so). If I'd needed a reason to come out on strike on the 31st/1st Michael Spurr's latest contribution to the omnishambles would have definitely done it for me. Every day, just as I think I cant get any more angry or disillusioned, some new pearl from one of the MoJ's henchmen just rachets up the rage a bit further.
ReplyDeletePS I needed no persuading - I'll be on the picket line. Why? Because I can.
Deb
Was the staff allocation process agreed by unions as stated above?
ReplyDeleteEven if it was, the process was not followed in most areas. Data used for the split was inaccurate. Fact.
It may well be that the Trusts bare the responsibility for this (although it was imposed on them with too short a time frame to be able to get it right).
The unions can fight this for their members. There is enough evidence out there. For some reason they are choosing not to.
Can someone tell me why?
I'm just listening to Public Accounts Committee. Interesting comment made by Spurr at 15:10 that risk may increase but that doesn't necessarily mean a change [from CRC] to NPS.
ReplyDeleteI've understood that to mean that the private companies will be managing high risk of harm cases - even if only for one or two months until risk plan is put in place and becomes effective - I wonder if bidders know this or if the public would like to know.
15:44 Bidders for CRCs can sell the company to anyone else they wish to (i.e. G4S) as long as they either talk to or get permission from MOJ first.
DeleteI wonder how long that will take.
15:55 Operational staff we will need largely to retain (so will not get voluntary redundancy).
DeleteWell if you want to keep us that's one thing but if you are effectively making us redundant - by taking our roles and responsibilities away - you will need to offer us the redundancy package. You say you don't anticipate employment tribunals and if you have them you will win? I think you're wrong.
I've just realised that Spurr et al think that if they say something is true it is....
ReplyDeleteFACT: Michael Spurr has mislead the PCA, the staff allocation process was not agreed with the unions and it was arbitrary and negligent. There will be tribunals and they will be won when independent eyes look at the way consultation and negotiation was flouted.
FACT: NOMS is an expensive overhead staffed by people playing at business at great public cost (safety and financial).
FACT: NOMS/MOJ have managed to squander the loyalty of an altruistic workforces and engender great anger and quiet non compliance with this Omnishambles.
Probation staff are not fools and have been severely underestimated, I now work ten hours less a week than I did due to my working my allocated hours, I never took toil and previously gave this time gratis. This is replicated the length of the country add the hidden cost of this together with minimal adherence to the new system ( whenever it comes) may just beyond the capacity of these despicable "leaders" to reframe/lie about it.
Right on cue. G4S pays back a few quid and gets a clean bill of health to take on TR contracts? If not directly from the MoJ, then almost certainly by way of the back door with all the wheeling and dealing that will be done when contracts are awarded.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10692369/Chris-Grayling-G4S-will-repay-130m-over-electronic-tag-scandal.html
The PAC highlighted this risk several times, and again right at the end of their session, including the fact that the particularly dodgy A4E have never been excluded. Dame Brennan was especially wriggly and slippery in her answers around this issue. "Acting on advice from Cabinet Office" seems to be her get-out-of-jail card here. She looked too uncomfortable for it not to be an issue, similarly all four were very twitchy about G4S and Serco returning via backdoor deals.
DeleteThere was a particularly animated male in the gathering behind the witnesses with a 'tache and thin glasses. He was frequently rolling his eyes and shaking his head, but also offering advice to the gathered minions, who then passed papers or words forward to the witnesses. Who he, I wonder?
G4S, the private security firm, is to repay the taxpayer more than £130 million for its role in the electronic tagging scandal.
DeleteThe Treasury will receive the windfall after it emerged G4S and a rival company, Serco, had overcharged for providing spurious tags on criminals, some of whom were dead, back in prison or had fled the country.
Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, said the amount could increase if criminal charges are brought in the future over other criminal justice contracts held by G4S.
The minister said the amount included £4.5 million to cover the cost of “overpayments” made under G4S’s deal with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to operate court buildings.
This contract remains under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, and a decision is still awaited over whether criminal charges will be brought.
Serco has already agreed to repay £70 million plus VAT, meaning the full amount reimbursed by the two firms will top £214 million.
G4S’s settlement represented a significant increase on its earlier offer of £24.1 million, which was rejected by the MoJ.
Mr Grayling told MPs: “G4S has agreed to repay £108.9 million plus VAT to reimburse the government for overpayments made by my department under the electronic monitoring contract and to cover direct costs to government arising from these issues.
“This sum also includes £4.5 million to cover the cost of overpayments made on two contracts held by G4S for facilities management in the courts, both of which were referred to the Serious Fraud Office in December.
“I am satisfied ... that this represents a good deal for the taxpayer. In the event of criminal charges being brought we would consider whether further sums are due from G4S.”
An inquiry was launched in May after it emerged that G4S and Serco had been overcharging the taxpayer for electronic tagging offenders.
In some cases, the government had been spuriously billed for tagging criminals who had absconded, been sent back to prison, or who had died.
G4S is still in discussions with the Cabinet Office over its ability to bid for new government contracts.
The full scale of the scandal was made clear in a National Audit Office report last November.
It showed G4S billed the taxpayer £4,700 for monitoring an offender even though equipment had been removed 935 days earlier, and it charged for 612 days’ tagging - at a cost of £3,000 - even though it had been informed the offender had been sent to prison and the company had removed the monitoring equipment from his home.
Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, said: "This large sum of money G4S are repaying taxpayers shows the true scale of the wrongdoing that went on.
"This, in addition to its poor performance on a number of other contracts, has led to huge damage to the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system.
“However, it is not for G4S to feel it can just wipe the slate clean. The Serious Fraud Office is still investigating, and G4S should be treated in just the same way as any member of the public would, with no special cosy deals between the Tory-led Government and big business.”
If you can evidence that Spurr et al have misled the PAC, there's an email address - pubaccom@parliament.uk. Let them know. Give them the evidence. I thought NAPO had already given evidence, so are the MoJ lying or not? Or have WE been misled by NAPO? Jim has already highlighted that we need an urgent response to the words spoken in The Lords whereby the agreement and approval of unions to pretty much everything that NOMS are doing has been outlined by the Govt spokesman (Faulks), There's been no reply so far...
ReplyDeleteThis outlines what Napo agreed to:
Delete1. Does the “staff split” mean that we have lost the fight to keep Probation public?
The answer is No, No and No again! The MoJ would have you believe otherwise. Of course they would- think about it. In theory, a sane approach to restructuring our work would be to split the cases first and then do the staff after. So why on earth are they doing it backwards? To demoralise us- they think we’ll simply give up campaigning. We know it feels awful but don’t cave in to such a deliberate and crass attack on your morale.
2. We are still in national dispute.
Our dispute covers the terms and conditions of members and the impact of the chaos that will follow TR on our clients and public safety. None of these issues have gone away and are likely to intensify. We are still working our hours (we know this isn’t perfect in a service like hours but we shouldn’t put in masses and masses of extra work to make life easier for the MoJ or potential bidders). The dispute is open and industrial action still forms part of our overall strategy but timing is everything, and we can’t put all our eggs in one basket.
3. We did not agree the staff split.
It was imposed and would have been regardless of the transfer agreement. The staff split is, and always was, a dog’s dinner and that’s why we didn’t agree it. It is why we are advising members to register grievances and appeals. Use every avenue available to protect yourselves at work. The National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections is entirely separate from the staff split. It covers protecting members in future- this has been agreed because it is our responsibility to try and protect you for every eventual outcome as best we can. It does not affect our campaign. The Secretary of State will use this against us; “The unions have agreed!!!”. This is the usual and entirely predictable nature of politics- ignore it and, instead, use the Agreement to hold your trust to account:
a) The Agreement states that Trusts must adhere to agreed principles such as, “Transparent, equitable and straightforward processes relating to reorganisation.” There follows a whole list of actions that Trusts should be taking. Use the document to ensure that they follow the proper processes. It will take time and effort on the employers’ part and so it should!
b) The Agreement also protects things like pay protection, redundancy, some continuity of employment etc. It provides a basis for the series of “measures” meetings which are ongoing. We are still in dispute. Any attempt to renege on the agreement will trigger fresh disputes.
4. To secure the Agreement we agreed to come out of local disputes relating singularly to this issue.
It does not mean we are out of national dispute. Members’ grievances, branch disputes on other issues, work to rule, should all continue. We do not agree with the staff split or the chaos of TR but, remember, while it remains in the public sector this is technically an exceptionally foolhardy restructure. We know it won’t feel like that on the ground but that’s essentially what it is. If we give up and feel deflated at this point we make the government’s life so easy in terms of privatisation. If you have a gloomy day- don’t worry- we all have them. Acknowledge it and then move on. Recruit all staff not in a union to Napo. We will be making every effort to keep Probation in the public sector and we can win.
Having listened to the Public Accounts Committee last night and slept on it, the way Michael Spurr spoke about NOMS keeps coming back to me.
ReplyDeleteWhen asked to outline the current structure of probation he couldn't really explain what NOMS did or why they were needed. He just kept saying vaguely that NOMS has 'a relationship' with Trusts.
We've said it before and we'll say it again. NOMS is not needed. We were fine without it and they do little apart from spend public money on bureaucracy. Get rid of NOMS and we would have more than enough money to supervise those serving under 12 months.
MOJ knows this. NOMS knows this. I wonder if this is the real reason they are carving up the probation service, it is one way that NOMS will become legitimate.