Dear All
Legal Advice
As notified to members, we have sought a second opinion on the ability of the Secretary of State to part privatise the Probation Service by using the Offender Management Act 2007. The two opinions from leading Counsel are the same. The Act does allow the Secretary of State to enter into a contract with any provider to provide probation services. The then government meant for another provider to take over only in the event of a Trust failing in its duty. However, despite the intention, the letter of the law is unambiguous. Essentially, the Secretary of State does have the right to contract with a Trust, or any other organisation, as s/he so chooses. Because the written law is so clear on this point, we do not have reason for a legal challenge.
However, the Act places an obligation on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the provision of probation services and to ensure that provision is made. In other words, s/he has to demonstrate that whatever arrangements entered into can make adequate provision. Therefore, s/he would be failing in their duty if the new arrangements could not provide adequate provision. This would be open to challenge and this is the evidence we are gathering.
So, if the Secretary of State is taking a gamble with service provision, or if the needs of service users with protected characteristics may not be met, or if service provision cannot be met because of a massive increase in workloads or bureaucracy, or if there are conflicts of interest, or if it was more likely than not that successful offender management and protection of victims would not be provided, we have the prospect of a challenge. Providing evidence of that is the next stage. Please continue to send evidence of this to campaigns@napo.org.uk. We are meeting tomorrow to review everything sent in so far and a further meeting with Counsel.
Policy and Legal Matters
There are more problems with TR than you could shake a stick at. That’s a given. However, some of these are policy issues and some are legal. For example, the fact that TR looks to be a more expensive model is not a legal issue per se, it is a policy issue. The place to challenge here is in the parliamentary committees. We have already seen the Justice Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee holding the government to account here and this will continue. We are still gathering evidence and the chairs of these committees have said they will be reconvening in the future. Much of our opposition to TR is based around policy issues (that the current bidders for Probation have only a track record for failure whereas we are an award winning public service) and this is why the parliamentary campaign is as important as ever.
Industrial Action
Again, thank you to all members who took strike action to defend our Service. We got particularly good coverage in regional media and, nationally, we were covered by the BBC, Mirror and The Guardian. However, national coverage was not as much as we deserved despite our best efforts. We think this was because Chris Grayling had already taken a hammering over the book ban and the disturbances at HMP Northumberland. Some papers favourable to the Coalition have been running pro-Grayling stories. Some members are against strike action and we have to reflect on that. However, this is not the only industrial action members have voted for. We are still taking action short of strike action which includes working our hours and not doing sessional work. Many Trusts are employing temp staff to cover the gaps of this action and, as the costs of service delivery increase because of this, we can make our case stronger that TR is increasing the costs of providing probation services.
What You Can Do
As we’ve said before, the bidders will, at some point, get all the HR information on the staff in Trusts. One bidder enquired after the number of outstanding grievances and were shocked that it was so high. This is an essential part of stating that a) Napo members are not happy with the staff split- thus reinforcing our message from HQ and b) that we are not willing to accept any personal cost associated with the privatisation of the Service. It is imperative that members and branches continue to do the following:
As we’ve said before, the bidders will, at some point, get all the HR information on the staff in Trusts. One bidder enquired after the number of outstanding grievances and were shocked that it was so high. This is an essential part of stating that a) Napo members are not happy with the staff split- thus reinforcing our message from HQ and b) that we are not willing to accept any personal cost associated with the privatisation of the Service. It is imperative that members and branches continue to do the following:
- Register a grievance if you feel you have been disadvantaged in any way (bearing in mind that we all will be).
- Request a Stress Risk Assessment if your workload and/or stress has increased as a result of TR.
- Branches should register disputes if agreements are not being kept to. This may relate to the way vacancies arise, the work you are doing, changes to job descriptions etc.
- Staff with protected characteristics must ensure that their requirements are noted formally with a Reasonable Adjustment Action Plan.
The Government has until February 2015 to get contracts signed and sell off the Probation Service to private bidders. MoJ officials are privately saying that there is no way this can happen but that’s not quite right. With a 100% compliant and apathetic workforce, they could just about manage it. If enough members only work to their contract, follow the steps above and prepare to take further action over the next 6 months, we have a real chance of stopping the sell off. We know that some senior managers are saying that they are only following the instructions of a democratically elected government but this argument holds no weight. Their responsibility is to public safety and we know that if they help the rush towards privatisation, they are putting us, our clients and the public at massive risk.
TOM RENDON IAN LAWRENCE
National Chair General Secretary
TOM RENDON IAN LAWRENCE
National Chair General Secretary
Thanks for publishing so promptly - there is much that can be said.
ReplyDeleteSadiq Khan was Tweeting last night with a sense of frustration - confirming Labour opposes probation privatisation - so it seems that the only real possibility of stopping TR is to delay it beyond the General Election by a multiplicity of individual actions - particularly supporting the Napo 'work to rule' action members have voted for; - submit personal grievances on every occasion a new one occurs - ask for stress assessments (I am not familiar with what is involved - started after my time) and get all details to Napo to aid a possible Judicial Review and political action about cost and with the bidders by ensuring they know what a nightmare project they will be part of by bidding for a share of the reputationally damaging responsibility.
I still hope that integrity will prevail for at least some in the higher management who will simply resign as I hope I would have done rather than do anything to advance the introduction of TR - were I still working in probation.
Was it really necessary to have to wait so long to be told that the government has the authority to commission probation services from any entity, public, private or third sector? This particular legal point could have been nailed long ago.
ReplyDeleteThe competence of the commissioning of new services and the probation service reconfigurations, we are told, may be open to challenge. I recall that heady moment back at last year's AGM when Ian Lawrence enraptured his audience with his fighting talk of a letter being sent first thing the next Monday morning to get the legal process underway. He got the applause but he lost credibility as JR increasing looked like style over substance. And we still do not know if there will be a legal challenge.
We may not like it but lots of public services have been reconfigured and privatised. The unions gave their consent when they signed the framework agreement, took their directorships at the Probation Institute and, in Napo's case, took the further step of changing its constitution. Only Napo continues to agitate, the Unison leadership have put their feet up: job done!
The last figure I saw was that about 5% of probation staff had appealed their reassignments. This is not indicative of widespread dissatisfaction. There is unlikely to be an avalanche of grievances which is implicitly acknowledged in the Napo missive, as not liking something is not the stuff of legal precedents.
Well said, its all a load of drivel, I feel like I am doing my job and fighting on my own. We need to take action or do our own JR, apparently it doesn't cost that much, but I would need someone who has better understanding of the law to help me. Only one case needs to be won to topple the whole thing. Don't forget the saying that it was the straw that broke the camels back. It can work I just need someone to help me.
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for the many good people who are active in Napo have seen a very lackluster performance from their leadership at NapoHQ that failed to capitalise on the very real and at one time widespread anger from members. Their policy it seems is to ensure their own survival at NapoHQ rather than getting their well manicured hands dirty at the coalface. They are after all by and large not former probation staff and probably don't give two hoots if the probation service is destroyed as they will move on to other union jobs whilst others will take up a job more suited to their refined tastes at the probation institute. Isnt it about time the membership woke up and realised they are being taken for a ride and save their subs every month by telling them to either get results or ship out.
ReplyDeleteAs no-one really knows how where or when this mess is going to end, or what issues may arise for people along the way, it may be worth noting this change to the law if only for personal knowledge.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/april/changes-to-uk-laws-aim-to-further-curb-number-of-cases-going-to-employment-tribunal/
Employees with a grievance against their employers will have to consider participation in a dispute resolution scheme run by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) before they can lodge a claim before an employment tribunal under changes to UK law that have come into force.
DeleteSome tagging statistics revisited. G4S & Serco jointly overcharged by a conservative estimate (agreed by moj) of around £180M. Using the figures publicised when the whole debacle was first announced it seems the av cost per day per tag was (is?) £5 to monitor.
ReplyDeleteThe contract issues ran between 2005 & 2013, 8 years, or approx 3,000 days (okay, its a generous round up).
The original story spoke of approx 15,000 tags/day - which I think was per supplier, so call it 30,000 x 3,000 @ £5 = £450M approx total value of the tagging contracts.
£180M is about 40% of that. FORTY PERCENT !!!!
Can you honestly see one or two rogue operators being the sole source of a 40% overcharging scandal? However, it took one very brave whistleblower to open the floodgates. Yet a handful of individuals are being hung out to dry for what must have been a systemic carnival of greed. And G4S even tried to blag it offering £25M in the first instance. Serco's first offer of £70M was accepted - I wonder how much it really was? But they are now cleansed and born again.
So, a 40% overcharge that was never noticed by either MoJ finance staff (have they been sacked?) or the commercially astute beancounters at G4s & Serco, or their highly paid auditors (kpmg, ernst & young, etc etc)? Who's holding them to account?
40% - On £30k pa you'd move onto £42k. On £25k, to £35k. Would you notice?
Or being on the receiving end, on £30k you'd lose £12k; on £25 k you'd lose £10k. Again, would you notice? I bloody well would !
Still, if MPs can recalculate a £45k expenses overpayment as £6k, maybe they really didn't have a clue after all? Bullshit.
Its time this stacked deck of cards is brought tumbling down. What do you say, Mr Urquhart?
If NAPO are serious about fighting TR and options are becoming slimmer by the day then surely its time to withdraw from the P.I.?
ReplyDeleteDoing so is bound to create disturbing shockwaves for every aspect of TR and get the TR struggle back on the front page.
The National Chair of Napo would have to resign from Napo if they withdrew as it looks as if that is his main priority now
DeleteSo the corruption is clear to all who want to look and now people are dying in prisons because of Grayling's cock up, where will it all end?
ReplyDeleteStaff in our office are now starting to realign themselves and their social groups around their allocated roles, crc or nps. Friendships are being stretched, torn, rent asunder. Alliances are being redefined, bullies are realigning their sights, new shit is emerging.
ReplyDeleteAll of this because H M Government and her ministers believe they know better than 100 years of acquired knowledge & skills, because they have generously rewarded turncoats and wormtongues, because they are greedy and stupid and myopic.
A plague upon you all.
I predict another financial crash on the horizon. The political elite are scrabbling for all the resources they can get their thieving hands on and making it easier for their business cronies to do the same. Meanwhile the vast majority of the population are being ripped off, deprofessionalised, deskilled and robbed of everything of value that has been built up for the public good (eg our service). To weaken our position our legal and employment rights will now be eroded in an attempt to keep the peasants in their place while the sycophants and psycopaths feast on our taxes. The unions are protecting their own resources and have no interest in taking a principled and passionate stance. I am both appalled and fascinated by how blatant it all is. We need an alternative but there doesn't seem to be one. I think this is it folks - watch the train crash unfold and the wilful blindness of others prevail.
ReplyDeleteIf you really think the train will crash, I would argue that it is somewhat naive to think this. Corrupt leaders will always find creative ways to cover up or replace staff with less paid & less experienced staff. The existing staff will welcome whosoever walks through the door to help ease the pressure from stressful & increasing case loads, hardly raising or expressing any resistance. The 'crash' will never happen because they will cover it up.
DeleteOn the matter of the unions - absolutely disgraceful. All the hype for nothing. What have we achieved/gained, nothing.
I have already resigned from NAPO. And when I came back from the strike & my manager allocated me a further three cases & an SDR I told him to piss off. Guess what, that's exactly what he did. Didn't see the cases or the report again (neither my manager). You know why, because what was he going to do sack me. Who will then carry their F***ing cases. We have the power - we just need to know when & how to use it. You don't need shitty NAPO to tell you that - let them shovel in the glorified PI while the work force suffers.
... and they announce this a week after the strike :( As for the plan B challenge... I don't hold out much hope. The counter argument will be that the spec' requires 'x,y,z' and that there will be quality assurance measures... so job done.
ReplyDeleteI resigned from NAPO this week. Never thought I would but quite frankly think its no use at all in terms of myself Think its about time there were a few emails asking members what support they need or how the union can help. Not the same old same old we have been getting for months. May as well save the £20 a month for something else. Like wine!
ReplyDelete