Sunday, 15 October 2017

News From Nottingham 3

My guess is that there will be widespread relief amongst the Napo top table that things went so well at Nottingham this year. I won't pretend to have been a regular AGM attender over my career, but I'm willing to bet this just might have been a first for the union when all the business was concluded by close of play on Saturday. 

This was no mean achievement given the cheaper, shorter format and achieved largely by consistent quoracy and a marked absence of contentious motions. I heard mention of 260 or thereabouts as the high point of attendance, comfortably above the new 150 threshold and it won't go unnoticed that having most attenders ensconced in a hotel onsite gave much less scope for members going AWOL, which has been a bit of a tradition built up over many years. 

If Richard Burgon was the star performer on day one, then fellow MP Bob Neill provided much of the inspiration for day two, and I'm not just saying that because he somewhat surprisingly referenced the blog not just once but twice, probably to the chagrin of the General Secretary sat closeby.

Having announced his Justice Committee inquiry into the whole TR omnishambles only the day before, the timing of his contribution was impeccable, as was his obvious enthusiasm to get stuck into uncovering the unvarnished truth about a matter which he firmly acknowledged "we got it badly wrong". This is no mean statement coming as it does from a Conservative MP and clearly someone who enjoys a high degree of cross-party support having been elected unopposed for a second term as Chair of the Justice Committee.

In an engaging and forthright presentation, Bob made a number of things very clear indeed, including stressing the importance of whistleblowers to an effective democracy. In hearing about the impending BBC Panorama programme and the possibility of some contributors having had their cover 'blown', he made it absolutely clear that any person giving evidence to his inquiry would benefit from Parliamentary protection, enforced if necessary by the Speaker. Time is short though with evidence required by November 17th and not withstanding such high-powered assurances, it would seem prudent that anyone tempted to submit evidence had the protection of a trade union.

On this very point and in the context of the now-delayed Panorama programme, it was sobering that the only Emergency Motion put before conference concerned providing protection to whistle-blowing members:-
"It has come to the attention of London Branch during the last 2 weeks that a Panorama programme will be shown in the next 10 days that is looking at Probation post privatisation. Several people interviewed in the programme have been contacted by legal representatives amid allegations of bringing the NPS and CRC into disrepute. This AGM calls on the Officers and Officials' Group to take action to protect those Napo members involved, including contacting and working with the MoJ." 
I suspect like many members, I came away from Nottingham somewhat buoyed-up with the notion that at long last all the chickens regarding the TR omnishambles appeared to be airborne and about to arrive home to roost very soon. Bob Neill joked about the MoJ having appeared to have been 'spooked' by the announcement of his inquiry and as a desperate response set up the 'Whole System Improvement Programme' mentioned yesterday. Things are definitely happening folks and the celestial bodies appear to be aligning at last.

19 comments:

  1. There was no point in there being an election in the Justice Committee for Chairman.

    Although, I have not checked the membership and their party affiliations I think I read that all the House of Commons committee memberships are skewed with a government majority assured; so presumably as long as the Conservatives on the committee were agreed to support Neill, he would have gotten elected whether or not anyone stood against him.

    I am very pessimistic that much of consequence will result directly from the Committee at least of no more consequence than the problems and public dangers that arise directly as Probation Employers further struggle along, trying to gag employees from telling the truth in public.

    Nonetheless it will be good if some practitioners do now come forward to the Justice Committee, independent of the various Unions and organisations like the Probation Institute, who will presumably all have their say.

    I guess the first step will be for practitioners to send written submissions of their actual experiences since before they were transferred from the employment of a Probation Trust or NOMs to either a Community Rehabilitation Company or the National Probation Service.

    I imagine the committee will also be open to consider the opinions of others in the system, sentencers and magistrate's Court Clerks and Victims and Community Punishmentt Beneficiaries etc.etc.


    Maybe the group who have the most to contribute in terms of what help and support is provided (that is what Grayling and Wright and McNally said was the point of it all) and how the intervention of the whole Rehabilitation input had better enabled them to live crime free, are the supervisees and those who had pre sentence court reports prepared about them by probation workers or received attention from the state funded voluntary organisations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim, thank you for your report. I am not surprised that the blog is mentioned so often. For me it is the only reliable, truly honest source of information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I agree vote for Jim if we could as all read this blog. The lamentable and rather backward anodyne NAPO GS garb and trite on Friday effort best kept in the draft folder.

      Delete
  3. Hi Jim. Please can you give some clarity on what is the legal definition of a whistleblower? It is difficult to know what protection we have when it is not made clear by the unions/ napo. Many of us have already whistleblown but does that involve within or outside of the organisation? If you have exhausted all optikns within the organisation or within napo are napo now saying we can legitimately go to the press with our concerns? I looked on the probation inspectorate website and it seemed to be saying they did not deal with complaints about individual CRC's! I left a message anyway to say I felt very strongly that the CRC I work for should be inspected immediately, and a few reasons why! Prior to privatisation I never heard of any staff going to the press. I believe staff are now doing this quite regularly because they have exhausted all other options and are frustrated and desperately worried about how things are going and the risks to themselves, public and the service users. I will contact the government via the link you have given as I too am not prepared to cover up for the CRC I work for and staff have been ignored when they do complain or unions powerless to deal with it. So basically 'bring it on'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can you remind us of that communityjustice link for contacting with our views? Are you saying we can contact this link anonymously and have protection as a whistleblower?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 09:31 and 09:37 you raise important queries and I am not qualified or experienced enough to give meaningful answers - I've just tried to convey what Bob Neill told conference.

      In the absence of sound advice from any union or similar body, I guess contact with the Justice Committee secretariat for advice and guidance would be a good place to start. A link to the website is in the body of the above blog post or copy and paste:-

      http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/news-parliament-2017/transforming-rehabilitation-17-19/

      Delete
    2. From the Justice Committee website

      Notes on making a submission

      Those making a submission to a Committee inquiry should note the following:

      Committees publish most of the written evidence they receive on the internet (where it will be accessible to search engines).

      If you do not wish your submission to be published, you must clearly say so and explain your reasons for not wishing its disclosure. The committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish. If you wish to include private or confidential information in your submission to the committee, please contact the clerk of the committee to discuss this.

      A committee is not obliged to accept your submission as evidence, nor to publish any or all of the submission even if it has been accepted as evidence. This may occur where a submission is very long or contains material to which it is inappropriate to give parliamentary privilege (see Guide for Witnesses (PDF PDF 1.25 MB) Opens in a new window for further information on parliamentary privilege).

      Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a submission, in which case it should be clearly referenced, preferably with a hyperlink.

      You should be careful not to comment on matters currently before a court of law, or matters in respect of which court proceedings are imminent.

      If you anticipate such issues arising, you should discuss with the clerk of the committee how this might affect your submission.

      Once submitted, no public use should be made of any submission prepared specifically for the committee unless you have first obtained permission from the clerk of the committee. If you are given permission by the committee to publish your evidence separately, you should be aware that you will be legally responsible for its content.

      Committees do not normally investigate individual cases of complaint or allegations of maladministration.

      Delete
  5. I would expect NAPO to put out guidance on public interest disclosure. Might be a long time waiting.
    Meanwhile, this link takes you to TUC guidance.
    https://worksmart.org.uk/health-advice/health-and-safety/employee-rights/what-are-my-rights-under-public-interest-disclosure

    ReplyDelete
  6. So they could publish our names? Great, that is going to encourage loads of us to come forward! No wonder people go to the press. It is massive whitewash and they are all in on it..no matter how touchy, feely they are at the napo conference..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about a round robin with lots of signatures ?

      Delete
  7. Panorama: out of jail: free to offend again. Exploring the effect of part privatisation of probation. Appears to be going ahead on Wednesday 25th October from what I can see. Must have sorted out the legal red tape. It is about one particular company in particular. Any guesses who will be squirming next week? These companies are out of their depth and MOJ.should have left the job to the experts. What a shambolic mess. These companies are stripping the CRC's of any independant thought or identity which goes against what MOJ appear to have wanted. As managers and even frontline staff continue to leave they are replaced by their own staff! This means that once the contract is up for renewal the MOJ will either have to award it to them again or risk their pulling out all their staff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks!

      Out of Jail: Free to Offend Again?
      Panorama Wed 25th Oct 19.30 BBC1

      An investigation into the government's reforms of the probation service, which many critics say are putting the public at risk as well as failing offenders themselves.

      Reporter Daniel Foggo meets two women whose sons were murdered by offenders on probation following the reforms, which saw part of the service privatised. They believe that failures in supervision contributed to their sons' deaths.

      The programme also reveals evidence that offenders being supervised by one private company have missed thousands of appointments and no action was taken.

      Delete
  8. Sounds like one of the CRC's is working links!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better known as Working Stinks to those under the regime. Working in anything is questionable as they certainly are not capable of that in Wales.

      Delete
    2. Or South West! Often wonder how things are in Wales!

      Delete
    3. Lurking Winks seem to have wholeheartedly adopted a policy of "hitting the target but missing the point" - POs and PSOs forced to spend hours completing bureaucratic tasks like updating HETE data and those infernal BRAG reviews; no wonder we don't have time to see our clients, or follow up if they don't attend!

      Delete
    4. Working links remain in dispute and staff protections held for now largely because of our branch chair Dino with Denise et all holding position. No evidence of national NAPO involved and that may be why the Dispute continues. Working Links are disgusting, greedy asset strippers and will take everyone's pensions given half a chance. We owe a great deal to South West branch local reps!

      Delete
  9. Part time job being advertised, involves leading local domestic homicide process, based in East Mids in case anyone interested: https://www.indeed.co.uk/m/viewjob?jk=f6b1afd426238213&from=serp

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you for your report JB. Interesting version of conference. My last memory of my last conference (a fair few moons ago) was of sleeping off a killer hangover on someone's (still don't know who's) hotel room floor after innumerable hours of drinking, singing & dancing.

    NB: For those wanting to be critical of an irresponsible delegate I had (a) taken annual leave, (b) funded my own travel & accommodation & (c) discharged my professional duties before getting "mullered". No double-entry ledger for me!

    I have already drafted my submission to the JSC; just waiting for informal feedback from a tame barrister before hitting 'Send'.

    ReplyDelete