Guest Blog 5

Strategy by Joanna Hughes

I am envious, as well as delighted, at the collapse of the intended privatisations involving the Land Registry, Child Protection and the student loan book. After all, the reasons against privatisation were the same or no less compelling in our case – a bogus rationale geared towards a multinational cartel that bred strike action, widespread professional and academic opposition, and the likelihood (now fact in our case) of small bidders pulling out – proof were it needed of the absence of a genuine ‘market’… 

Yet the Probation Service is still now split, in readiness for the ‘share sale’, for all of the widespread chaos evidenced by this blog. As if further proof were needed about the corporate ventriloquists behind Chris Grayling, the Justice Minister has recently announced that the much-feted under12 month group will now be electronically tagged.

So, what next, or put it another way: what can we do to make things change? Harry Fletcher has often said that there are three elements to defeating TR: legal action, industrial action and parliamentary action. I am not on the inside of either NAPO or parliament, but one has to speak as one finds, and I am just voicing what I know. As a proportion of us (a large one, I hope) are off to Westminster today, let’s look at where I think we are in terms of each.

Parliament:

On 22 August Harry Fletcher wrote about the possibility of reversing TR:

‘In the absence of a coordinated campaign within parliament and the press involving unions, managers and the Institute and with sound public support it seems unlikely. Most Parliamentarians seem unaware of events. There are excellent exceptions like Sadiq Khan and Lord Ramsbotham. Others like the Lib Dems, know the score but will not intervene. There are 3 months left to stop the rot. Officials and senior civil servants must be aware that the timescale is not deliverable and the next Government will be left to pick up the pieces and say so to politicians.’

Harry has also told me that today's lobby will only be worth it if there are hundreds of MPs there, so I hope you have all called on your representatives to turn up. I also hope that, unlike last time, NAPO have invited MPs of all parties as, to my mind, so much of our activity has been preaching to the converted.

From my own experience, I also have a certain amount of information on parliament. I have sent a so-called parliamentary briefing taken from quotes from this blog, to John McDonnell via Harry, for an adjournment debate in October. I have sent in PMQs via my MP for MOJ oral questions this month and I have persuaded my MP to ask Ursula Brennan for a meeting asap. We have received no reply as yet. 

If I mention these things it is purely to highlight what I (very) regretfully have come to consider as a failure of NAPO really to take the fight in evident ways to Parliament. At the least there is a failure of communication: we are at a critical juncture, but which of us knows what is going on in Parliament, and what NAPO is doing there? 

I cannot help but ask such questions, for instance, when I find that a reliable parliamentary source tells that there have been no PMQs since Harry left and that the quality of the parliamentary briefings is wholly inadequate. Like many I suspect, I feel very regretful at bashing my union, but after months, with so much at stake, I feel we have not been well-served. We are at a point where the Union has to provide leadership and resistance to TR, not modes of negotiation that are indistinguishable from compliance.

Legal action:

Many feel both that the Judicial Review (assessing the risks of TR before it goes forward) is vital to the fight, and that NAPO needs to show they are not dragging their feet on this. Ian Lawrence has dampened expectations by quoting to me the cost as in the region of £250,000. According to two sources of legal advice that I have sought (including an expert on Judicial Review) there is a real case to be made (with new information and new angles too given developments in recent months), and the estimated cost would be much lower. Further, it is common to make a ‘Protective Costs Order’ when the sides are unequal (which they are when one is the govt.) which would limit the costs to £50,000 – 75,000. I have no idea why NAPO are quoting such a high sum but I will ask Ian at the rally and hope you will too!

Harry Fletcher tweeted:

‘Probation selloff - Just how 'legal' is the contractual process? The MOJ must be put under pressure to make public its own lawyers advice!’

He also said in his blog that an MOJ official told him “aspects of the contacting process and of tagging would not hold up to legal scrutiny.” Anyone with any legal knowledge or thoughts about the bidding process please contact me or catch me later today.

Contributors to the blog have commented on the 'constructive dismissal’ element of being forced into the CRC and wondered if this could be pursued? All I have heard about this is that NAPO made a deal that means this is not viable, but again we need information about this, and the rationale. Anyone know anything about this?

Industrial action:

Everyone tells me that it will be very difficult to engage the NPS now they are in the Civil Service. I find it difficult to disagree with Simon Garden commenting on the blog:

“If the union leadership had been serious about industrial action - if they had built for a strike, organised, agitated, engaged and involved people, then things could have been very different.”

My own view is that real leadership in this situation on the part of the Union has been crucially lacking and that we have missed important opportunities, but also I feel that all is not lost, were the Union genuinely to address the needs and wishes of the members, and the exigencies of the situation.

In conclusion, we are not doing brilliantly on the three elements needed to defeat TR, but the bidding process is in disarray. Surely though, we should use the Union to focus robustly on that, and on the risks, and illegalities of the MOJ?

As has been mentioned in previous blog posts, this is an avenue worth pursuing, so any information on bidders would be helpful. Crucially, TR still has to pass Ursula Brennan and, while she is the person who still tries to praise the privatization of court interpreters, she has her reputation to think of and won’t proceed if we continue to show how risky it all is, and how far she is personally associated with the changes.

Finally, IF I get a meeting with her, I will need all the help I can get from readers and contributors to this blog in order to present our case.