Speaking as one who endured endless TR meetings with the MoJ on behalf of Napo, I can only welcome the current Justice Secretary’s decision to put the experiment out of it’s misery. Has he killed it off altogether? That remains to be seen though for the moment the continued involvement of the private sector in Probation seems likely and personally I have grave reservations about that.
At the time (2012-15) I often wondered whether the unions should have been engaging at all in consultations and negotiations over the plan. Many said it was a crazy idea, doomed to fail as indeed it has. As a trade union, it might have seemed a cleaner decision just to walk away and leave the MoJ to their mess but of course one has responsibilities to members and a responsibility to do the best for them. Could the process have been worse? Who knows - but probably. Back then I also thought to myself that Probation was entering a long dark tunnel, likely to last 10 years. Let’s hope that isn’t a conservative estimate.
What I do know is that the two year lead in time to TR contracts being let was ludicrously short. There was much to be done - TUPE arrangements, pension arrangements and revised conditions of service to name but a few. It was a testament to those involved, both civil servants and union reps, that so much was achieved in such a short space of time. Yes, I think it could have been worse. Now here we go again. Two years for another complete overhaul and so little agreement about the direction of travel. Not unlike Brexit really. My old CPO once told us, his staff, that change was normal and we should embrace it. I think that pearl of wisdom has its limitations.
What we also know is that any changes in 2020 will have to be achieved within the context of existing legislation. Mainly due to Brexit, domestic legislation is unlikely to progress very far, if at all, on any front. Personally I’d like the Government to have the courage to abolish custodial sentences of under 12 months, do something about those still subject to IPP sentences and re-visit the requirements of community sentences. I am no fan of RARs.
Little need be said about Chris Grayling - his record speaks for itself. Universal Credit, Probation and now the railways. At least UC was probably a good idea but poorly implemented. Certainly he should be recognised for his achievements and action taken accordingly.
Wales is interesting isn’t it? As some have already said, if it can be done in Wales, why not in England? It would certainly appear that the legislation allows for a unified service in Wales and therefore why not in England too. Section 3 (2) of the Offender Management Act 2007 allows the Secretary of State to make contractual or other arrangements with any person for the making of the probation provision. So it looks like anything is possible. Publicly run companies for example. The East Coast main-line contract springs to mind (another Grayling success). Temporary re-nationalisation? Might buy some time to get a more lasting model worked up. That might even mean permanent re-nationalisation. Who knows?
The other interesting thing of note in Wales is that the civil servant who is the current Executive Director of HMPPS in Wales is the self-same civil servant who headed up the TR project at the MoJ. I had a lot of time for her. She is smart and one could say that she did what she was tasked to do - latterly being rewarded with her current role. But I can’t help thinking that if the person who drove through TR is now herself rejecting the model outright, then that must tell us something.
It’s worth re-visiting the legislation to see what is and what is not possible, together with what should and should not be done.
The voluntary sector have been big losers in the world of TR. Their worst predictions of being put up as bid candy seem to have been realised. One implication of the proposed review is that they should get a better deal in future. Amen to that. Time was when Probation Trusts had to devote a percentage of their budgets (10% at one time?) to sub-contracting to the voluntary sector. Bit of a blunt instrument and often not well-liked because it restricted funds for other purposes. Nevertheless it kept the voluntary sector involvement afloat in the world of Probation. Much more than can be said for the current arrangements.
The idea of a professional register is, in my view, sound. I would say that as a Director of the Probation Institute wouldn’t I? Nevertheless it is my firm belief that this is right. My daughter, a nurse, just can’t believe that you can have a profession with no professional register. In her view it beggars belief and I agree with her. The Institute has developed a professional framework capable of being the basis for such a register and again I think it right that such a register is held and operated by an independent body and not, as now, effectively by the employer (MoJ) via the deeply flawed and largely both unworkable and unobserved PI 31/14 (Authorisation as officer of a provider of probation services).
What I do know is that the two year lead in time to TR contracts being let was ludicrously short. There was much to be done - TUPE arrangements, pension arrangements and revised conditions of service to name but a few. It was a testament to those involved, both civil servants and union reps, that so much was achieved in such a short space of time. Yes, I think it could have been worse. Now here we go again. Two years for another complete overhaul and so little agreement about the direction of travel. Not unlike Brexit really. My old CPO once told us, his staff, that change was normal and we should embrace it. I think that pearl of wisdom has its limitations.
What we also know is that any changes in 2020 will have to be achieved within the context of existing legislation. Mainly due to Brexit, domestic legislation is unlikely to progress very far, if at all, on any front. Personally I’d like the Government to have the courage to abolish custodial sentences of under 12 months, do something about those still subject to IPP sentences and re-visit the requirements of community sentences. I am no fan of RARs.
Little need be said about Chris Grayling - his record speaks for itself. Universal Credit, Probation and now the railways. At least UC was probably a good idea but poorly implemented. Certainly he should be recognised for his achievements and action taken accordingly.
Wales is interesting isn’t it? As some have already said, if it can be done in Wales, why not in England? It would certainly appear that the legislation allows for a unified service in Wales and therefore why not in England too. Section 3 (2) of the Offender Management Act 2007 allows the Secretary of State to make contractual or other arrangements with any person for the making of the probation provision. So it looks like anything is possible. Publicly run companies for example. The East Coast main-line contract springs to mind (another Grayling success). Temporary re-nationalisation? Might buy some time to get a more lasting model worked up. That might even mean permanent re-nationalisation. Who knows?
The other interesting thing of note in Wales is that the civil servant who is the current Executive Director of HMPPS in Wales is the self-same civil servant who headed up the TR project at the MoJ. I had a lot of time for her. She is smart and one could say that she did what she was tasked to do - latterly being rewarded with her current role. But I can’t help thinking that if the person who drove through TR is now herself rejecting the model outright, then that must tell us something.
It’s worth re-visiting the legislation to see what is and what is not possible, together with what should and should not be done.
The voluntary sector have been big losers in the world of TR. Their worst predictions of being put up as bid candy seem to have been realised. One implication of the proposed review is that they should get a better deal in future. Amen to that. Time was when Probation Trusts had to devote a percentage of their budgets (10% at one time?) to sub-contracting to the voluntary sector. Bit of a blunt instrument and often not well-liked because it restricted funds for other purposes. Nevertheless it kept the voluntary sector involvement afloat in the world of Probation. Much more than can be said for the current arrangements.
The idea of a professional register is, in my view, sound. I would say that as a Director of the Probation Institute wouldn’t I? Nevertheless it is my firm belief that this is right. My daughter, a nurse, just can’t believe that you can have a profession with no professional register. In her view it beggars belief and I agree with her. The Institute has developed a professional framework capable of being the basis for such a register and again I think it right that such a register is held and operated by an independent body and not, as now, effectively by the employer (MoJ) via the deeply flawed and largely both unworkable and unobserved PI 31/14 (Authorisation as officer of a provider of probation services).
Time was when Probation Officers had a ‘licence to practice’ enshrined as it was in the NNC Handbook (Section B2). With another person from the Probation Association I re-wrote this section for the final version of the Handbook that was issued in 2014 as a final record of what used to be in Probation. The Handbook was an invaluable asset developed, carefully crafted, over many years. Where is it now? To the best of my knowledge, the MoJ never took proper ownership of it as TR was implemented which was a very poor decision. Where is it now and is it worth dusting off and revisiting? Well the final version can be found if you know where to look and I believe it still contains much of relevance.
To return though to the concept of a Licence to Practice and professional registration. In 2011, Napo passed a resolution at AGM calling for a licence to practice - this in view of the old version of B2 having become out of date in light of revised training arrangements (PQF) etc. Furthermore, and I quote directly from the resolution (entitled “Being a professional: a licence to practice in Probation’) - “...AGM believes that attention should be given to the establishment of an independent and objective arbiter charged with the validation of licences to practice and the development of a register of licensed practitioners - a role usually bestowed on professional associations”. Really from this came the impetus for the development of the Probation Institute - initially a joint venture between Napo, UNISON and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP).
Along with the NNC Handbook, another disappearing/disappeared document is National Standards. A work in its various iterations that I both liked and disliked as time went by. But quelle surprise, the Review (“Strengthening probation, building confidence” - a phrase borrowed from the PI) asks, at Q2, and through paras 25 to 29 about frequency of contact - offenders/offender managers. Really, is it any surprise to learn that the confidence of courts in community supervision and therefore such sentencing, takes a bit of a knock when they learn that this can be no more than a six weekly phone call?
Which leads me on to what courts are told. I was and am a firm believer in a properly constructed Pre-Sentence Report. There always will be a place for ‘stand-down’ reports (Oral/FDR) but not to the ludicrous extent to which they are now employed. I commend to you the recent briefing paper by the Centre for Justice Innovation on just this subject. If you want to bolster community sentences and reduce the prison population, there is no substitute for a well argued and thorough PSR.
To return though to the concept of a Licence to Practice and professional registration. In 2011, Napo passed a resolution at AGM calling for a licence to practice - this in view of the old version of B2 having become out of date in light of revised training arrangements (PQF) etc. Furthermore, and I quote directly from the resolution (entitled “Being a professional: a licence to practice in Probation’) - “...AGM believes that attention should be given to the establishment of an independent and objective arbiter charged with the validation of licences to practice and the development of a register of licensed practitioners - a role usually bestowed on professional associations”. Really from this came the impetus for the development of the Probation Institute - initially a joint venture between Napo, UNISON and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP).
Along with the NNC Handbook, another disappearing/disappeared document is National Standards. A work in its various iterations that I both liked and disliked as time went by. But quelle surprise, the Review (“Strengthening probation, building confidence” - a phrase borrowed from the PI) asks, at Q2, and through paras 25 to 29 about frequency of contact - offenders/offender managers. Really, is it any surprise to learn that the confidence of courts in community supervision and therefore such sentencing, takes a bit of a knock when they learn that this can be no more than a six weekly phone call?
Which leads me on to what courts are told. I was and am a firm believer in a properly constructed Pre-Sentence Report. There always will be a place for ‘stand-down’ reports (Oral/FDR) but not to the ludicrous extent to which they are now employed. I commend to you the recent briefing paper by the Centre for Justice Innovation on just this subject. If you want to bolster community sentences and reduce the prison population, there is no substitute for a well argued and thorough PSR.
‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is a well-worn phrase that is at the heart of the drive to speed up justice through the courts. Commendable to a point but justice as dispensed should also be fair, understandable and properly informed. I will never believe that anyone gets a good deal - court, defendant, victim or public, when, except in the most straightforward of cases, ‘stand-down’ reports are employed.
So Standard Delivery Reports (the writing of which I fear is fast becoming a dying art) would be one means of reducing the short term prison population in particular. Again I think the Minister is on the money when he seeks in whatever way possible to reduce the short term (up to a year) prison population. And what better way to fund Probation and Aftercare than by reducing the cost of the prison population (and associated costs of high rate re-offending)? Though another source of money (savings to be made) might be by dismantling what has become an unwieldy business empire within the MoJ - the contract bid/management world. There is some recognition, it would seem, of the need to properly fund new arrangements for Probation. It was always a bit barmy to imagine that statutory support/supervision of short-term prisoners on release could be zero-funded as was the case within TR.
A quick word on PBR. Way back when (2011?), I had a meeting with a consultant who had been retained by the MoJ to work up the concept. I rapidly formed the view that neither he nor the MoJ had the first clue about how this would or could operate. It’s okay for double-glazing salesmen but not for Probation. Another largely incomprehensible and very expensive white elephant has been developed. I’ve not changed my view since 2011 and before. What to do with the concept? Dump it.
Coming to a close, and I apologise for rambling - increasing old age and a bit rusty on my report writing skills, I just want to say a few words on two things - the great divide and the centrality of a relationship based on end to end case management and the investment of time.
The design of TR has created a divide between NPS and CRCs. It is a testament to dedicated staff that the effects of this are not worse than they are, but personally I believe there is no substitute for a unified service. That may not be the recommendation of the Probation Institute when it replies to the Review, I do not know. I am but one Director/Fellow. We shall see. In my day as a Probation Officer, we were “officers of the Court’. That relationship has been severely attenuated and I believe that to be a mistake. Probation should work for the community through the Courts. Probation staff should not be guided by the demands of private companies to make a profit nor by the Executive as civil servants.
End to end case management should start pre-court forming a relationship with a defendant in the preparation of a PSR. There has to be understanding and hopefully some ‘buy-in’ on the part of the defendant. That has then to be built upon and capitalised through the nebulous development of a relationship based upon trust and the investment of time (not just the odd phone call). Trust after all is exactly what Probation means.
These words represent my personal opinions. The Probation Institute Directors and Fellows meet on August 14th to consider our response to the Review/Consultation. It would be fair to say that most of us are no longer young, thrusting and dynamic though perhaps with age comes some wisdom. I have great respect for my fellow Fellows and Directors. I believe it to be a good team but we recognise that there is a very real need for current practitioner involvement with the Institute. It’s not about feathering our own nest. With the exception of one part-time administrator the Institute exists on freely given voluntary time. So what is in it by joining and becoming involved with the Institute? It is a statement of intent and an opportunity to help rescue the profession of Probation from the sorry mess that is TR.
Mike McClelland
So Standard Delivery Reports (the writing of which I fear is fast becoming a dying art) would be one means of reducing the short term prison population in particular. Again I think the Minister is on the money when he seeks in whatever way possible to reduce the short term (up to a year) prison population. And what better way to fund Probation and Aftercare than by reducing the cost of the prison population (and associated costs of high rate re-offending)? Though another source of money (savings to be made) might be by dismantling what has become an unwieldy business empire within the MoJ - the contract bid/management world. There is some recognition, it would seem, of the need to properly fund new arrangements for Probation. It was always a bit barmy to imagine that statutory support/supervision of short-term prisoners on release could be zero-funded as was the case within TR.
A quick word on PBR. Way back when (2011?), I had a meeting with a consultant who had been retained by the MoJ to work up the concept. I rapidly formed the view that neither he nor the MoJ had the first clue about how this would or could operate. It’s okay for double-glazing salesmen but not for Probation. Another largely incomprehensible and very expensive white elephant has been developed. I’ve not changed my view since 2011 and before. What to do with the concept? Dump it.
Coming to a close, and I apologise for rambling - increasing old age and a bit rusty on my report writing skills, I just want to say a few words on two things - the great divide and the centrality of a relationship based on end to end case management and the investment of time.
The design of TR has created a divide between NPS and CRCs. It is a testament to dedicated staff that the effects of this are not worse than they are, but personally I believe there is no substitute for a unified service. That may not be the recommendation of the Probation Institute when it replies to the Review, I do not know. I am but one Director/Fellow. We shall see. In my day as a Probation Officer, we were “officers of the Court’. That relationship has been severely attenuated and I believe that to be a mistake. Probation should work for the community through the Courts. Probation staff should not be guided by the demands of private companies to make a profit nor by the Executive as civil servants.
End to end case management should start pre-court forming a relationship with a defendant in the preparation of a PSR. There has to be understanding and hopefully some ‘buy-in’ on the part of the defendant. That has then to be built upon and capitalised through the nebulous development of a relationship based upon trust and the investment of time (not just the odd phone call). Trust after all is exactly what Probation means.
These words represent my personal opinions. The Probation Institute Directors and Fellows meet on August 14th to consider our response to the Review/Consultation. It would be fair to say that most of us are no longer young, thrusting and dynamic though perhaps with age comes some wisdom. I have great respect for my fellow Fellows and Directors. I believe it to be a good team but we recognise that there is a very real need for current practitioner involvement with the Institute. It’s not about feathering our own nest. With the exception of one part-time administrator the Institute exists on freely given voluntary time. So what is in it by joining and becoming involved with the Institute? It is a statement of intent and an opportunity to help rescue the profession of Probation from the sorry mess that is TR.
Mike McClelland
That reads like a vote against Napo and Unison and for the Probation Institute - or am I being harsh?
ReplyDeleteHi Andrew. Yes I think you are. Napo and UNISON did what they could, supporting and representing members, trying to make the best of a very bad job. Should they just have walked away and left the MoJ to get on with it? As I said, I don’t think so. We probably made some bad calls along the way. For example I never thought a Judicial Review would fly, as indeed it didn’t. An expensive exercise that went nowhere, but there was considerable pressure from members to pursue it. Of course I’m promoting the Institute - why else would I be a Director and Felow, but I’m a member of Napo again and there remains a very important place for strong trade unions in all this. But I believe there is also an important place for a professional institute - not unlike pretty much every other profession
Delete"There was much to be done - TUPE arrangements, pension arrangements and revised conditions of service to name but a few."
ReplyDeleteNo TUPE arrangements were required for CRCs because Grayling & his weasels had avoided that procedure by creating 21 new companies in advance of share sale. Revised T&Cs were a disaster. EVR was a mirage.
"It was a testament to those involved, both civil servants and union reps, that so much was achieved in such a short space of time. Yes, I think it could have been worse."
It couldn't have been much worse for the hundreds who lost careers because of this disgraceful clusterfuck. Or for the untold numbers of supervisees who have had pisspoor service provision. Or the remaining staff who are stressed to fuck.
But I suppose it wasn't so bad for the civil servants who won awards, who were promoted, received bonuses.
Its a different world out here Mr McClelland.
I have to agree. A revision of history if I ever read one!
DeleteI agree it couldn’t possibly have been worse for us the unions should never have got involved in any TR negotiations which is why Napo is on its knees now
DeleteWe’ve been left in a sorry state with no hope
It is a bit like putting a gloss on a piece of scrap wood. Mr McClelland does not appear to recognise it was his job to prevent the affects of TR on the members of the union. he fails to acknowledge any failing whereby he should have been alerting members to the greatest battle. It is without parallel that Napo failed to protect members pensionable rights and in some regard may well have been duplicitous with the TR plan. This allowed the severance sub plot to offer staff to leave and the government and employers cash in on the lost pension arrangements. I would guess the same cannot be said for the author who no doubt picked up a tidy sum on ending his service and is drawing an unreduced pension. The devastation TR reaped on the professional grade was immense and we heard very little from the erstwhile Mr McClelland up to the TR split. Passive acceptance perhaps but certainly no proper objections in the sense that alerted members to their individual plights and that is not good at all. The mixing with his good friends and respected fellows. That is not a good thing either all of the fellows have a marked career in history of probation for attacking unions staff unfriendly and are all pro privatisation. Any supporter and member of that group deserve no confidence or support from members of staff. None whatsoever.
DeleteYou’re right. It was a Staff Transfer Scheme. Lazy recollection on my part
DeleteWhich was the backdoor route by which T&Cs could be eroded by the new owners - something the union should have challenged but failed miserably so to do.
Deleteis this an attempt to re write history.?
ReplyDeleteHa. Sorry 07:07 I wrote my comment (07:58 above) before reading yours :-)
DeleteAfter more than half a lifetime spent working as a probation officer what would be the benefits of me being licensed. I am qualified and there are several ways to stop somebody working if they transgress the rules to a huge degree.
ReplyDeleteThis article makes no mention of the biggest drain on NPS respurces, OAsys.
Like the author, I favour areturn to the days of the PSR and the abandoning of this unwieldy piece of bureaucratic nonsense.
If you’ve worked more than half a lifetime as a Probation Officer then you will have been licensed when you worked for Probation Boards/Trusts. That was the point of my reference to the section of the NNC Handbook. Back then, I,like you, were given a licence to practice. We got our qualification, did a probationary year and were then confirmed in post - that was the licence to practice. It is/was all there in the NNC Handbook, though you’d need an old version to see it. Like I said, the latest/last version (2014 from memory) contained a revision to reflect PQF etc. You may think there are several ways to stop somebody working if they transgress. Up to a point there are - discipline, capability etc., but ultimately no way to take away their licence to practice apart from that deeply flawed PI 31/14. I know for a fact that there are a number of people who have lost their jobs through discipline and capability proceedings who have popped up elsewhere, notably as agency staff
DeleteI fear the Probation Institute has no credibility precisely because of the people it took on as Fellows and Directors. The very fact that Mike doesn't know whether or not his colleagues will agree with him about the importance of a unified probation highlights the issue. CRC leaders are going to be about what's best for privatisation not what's best for the public. They're hardly going to be turkeys voting for Christmas are they?
ReplyDeleteI think that is democracy for you. I’ll let you know after the 14th.
DeleteFrom the Independent:-
ReplyDeleteA major firm condemned by MPs over a recent NHS outsourcing “shambles” has been given a lucrative contract allowing private companies to arrest people for dodging court fines.
Ministers have been criticised over the decision to hand over the collection of court fines to four private companies, including Capita, a major outsourcing firm accused of putting patients at risk by delaying transfers of medical records.
The results of the tender process were quietly published in the rush before the MPs’ summer break, finalising plans to transfer services done by civilian enforcement officers, currently employed by HM Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS), to the private sector.
It comes as a damning report by the Public Accounts Committee said 1,000 GPs, dentists and opticians were delayed from working with patients for up to six months and nearly 90 women were dropped from cervical screening programmes due to Capita’s botched delivery of backroom services for NHS England.
Capita has apologised for “unacceptable failings in relation to the initial delivery” of the contract.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has faced criticism in the past over the outsourcing of contracts to private security firms such as Serco and G4S, the latter of which won a multimillion contract for electronic tagging of offenders despite being investigated for overcharging the government for similar services.
And last week, it was revealed that private probation companies were being bailed out for the second time as ministers were forced to ditch “catastrophic” contracts two years early.
The outsourcing sector has also been under scrutiny since the collapse of construction giant Carillion in January.
Labour warned more people could be at risk of harm from “rogue private bailiffs” and accused the government of putting “private profits before the public interest”.
However an HMCTS spokesperson said the plans would save the taxpayer up to £46m over five years, which will be invested back into the justice system.
Shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon said: “This government continues to hand over lucrative contracts to a small handful of private providers despite repeated private sector failures across our justice system.
“This seems to be more about the Conservatives’ ideological fixation that the private sector is always right, rather than being about what works best for the public.
“Just as with the costly decision to privatise our probation services, the outsourcing of civil enforcement officers will see private profits put before the public interest.
“There is a real risk that the weakened oversight that accompanies privatisation will lead to more people becoming the victims of rogue private bailiffs. The government should scrap these plans.”
Former Lib Dem cabinet minister Sir Ed Davey echoed his calls, adding: “Just as one part of the Ministry of Justice ends the large parts of the privatised probation service for failure to deliver, a different part is privatising another arm of our justice system.
“Incoherent would be a kind description of this kind of chaos in this calamitous government.
“And to add salt into the wounds, ministers see fit to hand these new contracts to Capita despite serious concerns the company could have put patients at risk in the handling of a service contract with the NHS.”
Mark Serwotka, general secretary of PCS, the civil servants’ union, said his members would consider strike action over privatisation of the service, which has already faced “chronic underfunding”.
He added: “Our members believe profit should have no place in the justice system. This is doubly important when you consider civilian enforcement officers have arrest powers. Any contracting out would undermine the public service ethos that is vital to the role and administering justice.”
http://spendmatters.com/uk/end-of-term-provides-cover-for-difficult-government-announcements/
DeleteI agree with 8:29. I am not impressed. Not with NAPO, The PI or this article! Not good enough.
ReplyDeleteThe PI is full of people who want an excuse to continue to feel important. Well, go and do it somewhere else!
"CRC leaders are going to be about what's best for privatisation not what's best for the public."
ReplyDeleteNot having a dig, but what's best for the client is to my mind important to.
I think too, that a unified probation service is much more then it all being in the private sector or all renationalised, its about a common purpose held by all those that work in the service.
That can't be achieved until someone clearly defines what exactly probation services should be all about. In recent years its become a jack of all trades.
If its just about data imput and monitoring licence conditions, then I see no reason why that couldn't be done by someone like G4s.
However, if probation is to be about helping people change their lives, supporting them, advising them, then it needs to be a completley different animal.
The difference to me is the difference between just doing a job and having a profession.
Trying to play rugby and football on the same pitch at the same time is never going to deliver anything good.
'Getafix
"Where is it now and is it worth dusting off and revisiting? Well the final version can be found if you know where to look"
ReplyDeleteOh how you tease, Mr McClelland! Pray tell, sir, where might I find this mysterious, dusty tome aka The NNC Handbook?
It's on the Napo website! www.napo.org.uk
DeleteUse search facility
Thanks, 12:54. NNC Handbook now found, which MoJ/NOMS simply threw in the bin with impunity when they decided they wouldn't co-operate with the unions anymore because they wanted to crash TR through - and the CRCs inevitably followed them out the door.
DeleteAnd Napo? "the Officer Group assessed the response from those members who had taken part and after a considered debate, with differing views, it was collectively agreed that there was not yet sufficient evidence to support a move to a formal ballot for industrial action at this stage.
We have done everything possible to try and convince the employers to remain in the NNC, indeed we have been doing so ever since the employers threatened to withdraw from this over a year ago, but once NOMS had decided to carry out their long standing intention to pull out, the CRC owners followed suit. Nearly all employers have now withdrawn from the NNC or are in the process of doing so. The NNC mechanisms will not be restored. In light of these developments a vote was taken within the Officer Group which resulted in a clear majority decision to ask local negotiators to develop employer specific collective bargaining models, with full-time Napo Officials directly leading any negotiations."
The Officer Group did a lot of deciding & agreeing between themselves.
And thus, for example, EVR was scuppered:
"5. Qualifying Service
– For the purposes of establishing entitlement to, and the calculation of, a redundancy payment, continuous service will include service with any public authority to which The Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment in Local Government, etc) (Modification) Order 1999 applies.
6. Redundancy Pay
– Redundancy payments will be based on the employee’s actual weekly pay and not the statutory rate.
Voluntary Redundancy for those under age 55
7. Redundancy compensation will be paid, subject to a maximum of 67.5 weeks’ pay and reckonable service of 15 complete years, as follows:
Four and a half weeks’ pay for each year of completed service
8. Any statutory redundancy payment is included in the compensation payable.
9. A ready reckoner is set out at Annex A to this Appendix.
Voluntary Redundancy for those aged 55 or over
•Redundancy payment will be paid, subject to a maximum of 67.5 weeks’ pay, in accordance with Paragraph 6 above
•Immediate payment of standard retirement pension and a standard retirement grant (i.e. pension lump sum).
10. Where existing local arrangements are more favourable in individual cases, they will supersede the provisions of this scheme"
It is rumoured that as a direct consequence CRCs got away with paying staff around 40% of the EVR rate.
Glad you found the Handbook and you are right, the MoJ did pretty much put it in the bin, or at least on a very dusty shelf. That was a waste. An awful waste. My view, as I expressed at the time, was that we, the unions should have agreed earlier to setting up new negotiating structures for both NPS and the CRCs (the latter collectively) . I was outvoted in the discussions. What do you have now? More than two years on, no negotiating machinery for the NPS and no national structure for the CRCs either -though the latter was always a tall order.
DeleteI still struggle to understand how just a handful of folk who made up the union's 'Officer Group' were able to decide not to go to ballot, not to fight for collective bargaining, not to pursue JR or any exploratory tribunal regarding the abusive & significantly damaging loss of T&Cs as a result of the abandonment of NNC. It certainly didn't represent my views.
DeleteBack in the midst of the cull I was shown Legal Opinion (sought privately) that advised there WAS a 'winnable case' at Tribunal but that an individual stood no chance against a multinational. They couldn't understand why the union wouldn't back its members by challenging the new CRC owners & the SoS who holds the controlling Golden Share in all 21 CRCs; nor why the union agreed to such "kamikaze" terms of staff transfer, e.g. the time-limited "no redundancy" clause.
It doesn't surprise me that many strongly believe Napo failed in its duty to uphold "responsibilities to members and a responsibility to do the best for them."
But hey, what do I care? I now ply my long-standing probation service experience, knowledge & training as a barista in an over-priced coffee shop.
It was, is & continues to be, a sick fucking joke which has transferred £Billions from the public purse into the pockets of thieves, liars, cheats & charlatans - gilding the chumocracy.
I agree. Reunification of probation services, whilst being (IMHO) the only sensible way forward, will not be the immediate panacea that some may think (or hope for). There has been a cataclysmic drain of experience and 'inherited culture ''since the split. Many CRC staff are newly employed and so will have worked under a completely different ethos. Getting back to where we were (all singing from the same hymn sheet) will be a long trek. Worth it tho'!!
ReplyDeleteWhat is palpable within these comments is the anger that many have felt about the changes that have been wrought upon them. It is clear this anger is directed outwards towards many, be it government, unions, management, institutions various or the rapacious outsourcing corporations. Fundamentally people feel badly let down, unsettled and stressed. One of the problems with revolutions such as TR is that people get hurt and in this revolution it is far from obvious where the greater good has been served.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming this is the incumbent Mike refers to:
ReplyDeleteAmy Rees took up the role of Executive Director for HM Prison and Probation Service in Wales in July 2017. Amy started her career in the prison service and has worked at a number of establishments including HMP Lewes, High Down, and Bristol, before being appointed Governor at HMP Brixton in 2008.
Her previous roles include:
* Principal Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Justice
* Deputy Director for stakeholder and communications, and delivery on the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme
* Head of Workforce Strategy
Another civil servant steeped in the ethos of probation - or NOT, as the case seems to be.
Pob lwc Cymru.
Thus far TR has had a half billion in bailouts. Yet one of the civil servants closely involved was subsequently promoted to head HMPPS in Wales. She is described as 'smart' in this blogpost. I would imagine if you contributed to a reorganistion that was premised on saving money, but in actual fact lost your company a half billion, you would not get promoted – you'd probably be out of the door. When you consider TR's trail of tears, it's astonishing that anyone who was part of driving its agenda – in spite of all the informed opinion that cautioned against, including the MoJ's own risk assessment – can be complimented as smart. But I suppose it makes sense in the world of Orwellian doublethink and why you would have to be really stupid to have any trust and confidence in this latest MoJ sleight of hand consultation.
DeleteI speak as I find and that was indeed she. Sorry but she was good at her job even if I didn’t like the job she was doing. We might have been better off if she hadn’t been good at her job and the wheels had fallen off the project before it got off the ground. Another unknown. That seems to be the nature of things like promotion - do a good job in the eyes of the employer and you get promoted. But don’t miss my point - if she doesn’t like the model, what does that tell us?
Delete"just following orders" has long been a discredited position to take.
DeleteMike McClelland sounds like a defender of tr if it's bad you don't do it. Oh yes you do in the moj and that makes you good at your job destroying everything else. Yea well done and thanks for that. Any long walks you might be better making than peddling your support for what you helped in on us.
DeleteThat’s bordering on insulting. TR was and is the worst project ever visited on Probation. It makes me sick. But do you condemn the individual or the act? She was doing the job she was given by her political masters. It’s a matter for her own conscience if she chooses to walk away or ask to be re-assigned. But again I ask the question - what to make of the fact that she would appear now to be playing for a unified service in Wales?
DeleteWhat is your position here best friends are we . Defending the indefensible . Your supporting the supporting architecture of all that has led to deaths of staff and offenders. Get a people oriented agenda and less of your own pontificating about what you bring to a table which has been stripped by private profit out of crime.
DeleteJust following orders then are we, I think collaborators is not strong enough. More like junta supporters and wine tasting champions might just rattle you new found PI and shareholder friends. Drink up chums.
Delete"Trust after all is exactly what Probation means."
ReplyDeleteBut irony of ironies, Mike, 'Probation Trusts' proved to be the domain of many untrustworthy, sneaky, divisive, over-ambitious weasels who:
- laid the foundations for TR
- undermined the professional role of the PO
- began to dismantle relationships with local courts
- closed local offices
- imposed open plan hubs
- colluded with "The Centre" aka NOMS
- fucked off with bulging pockets when TR arrived
There ain't no Trusts left; and there ain't no trust left.
Anon@09:55 is on the money when s/he says "palpable within these comments is the anger that many have felt about the changes that have been wrought upon them."
And while I'm here, a thought for the day, Mr Spurr:
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.
Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will,
shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness
for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children."
It does NOT say: "Blessed is he who, in the name of self-serving ambition & spite, shafts his staff & leaves them wanting, for he is truly fat with bonuses & the owner of a rustic farmhouse in Provence."
Once upon a time not too long ago there was 40000 people in prison, and probation services were organised, functual and could provide quality support for those in its charge.
DeletePolitics got involved.
Now there's nearly 90000 people in prison, and probation services are a chaotic mess that can't provide any support for those in its charge.
Maybe instead of looking at future ways of delivering probation services, looking back to tried and tested services that actually worked would be a sensible way forward.
'Getafix
'sensible way' ah but your problem is that this conflicts with profit.
DeleteThere is no compelling rational argument that justifies reunification in Wales but not in England. Continued privatisation is about various self-interests, not the public good.
ReplyDeleteSome basic number crunching, 50,000 extra prisoners at an average yearly cost of £38,000 comes to ... Wow ... 1,900 million pounds per annum. Kind of makes you think a little ... Howard League (I think?) recently identified 12,000 easy reduction in prison population. Basic maths equals 456 million pounds per annum. Not a shabby number either.
DeleteI still need to take the time to read through everything in detail but it would make sense to me that they mentioned health and social care is locally devolved in Wales
Delete... my initial thoughts are that this it to be the ultimate home for probation... in local authorities with PCCs having a wider remit and running their local justice system including all commissioning etc. Makes sense then why Wales get different treatment. That's a garbled response but I'll try to put a more coherent one together in the next few days!
13:40. I can see that some services are devolved and have been for some time, but that did not keep probation reintegrated last time round. Suddenly the devolution argument matters to the MoJ.
DeleteThe police are devolved to PCCs and there could equally be an argument made for an integrated probation to be similarly overseen
was reason to unify wales was that working links was terrible and being challenged.
ReplyDeleteNot the most likely but actually they had to put Wales case work back in a professional structure. A poor young and innocent soul was brutally murdered there and that is the responsibility of those cost cutting thieves at working Links et al.
DeleteI find this on the MoJ website both shocking and dismaying:-
ReplyDeleteDetails of events for those interested in providing probation services in the future can be found on Bravo. If you are a potential suppler and wish to register for the supplier information events planned for Thursday 2nd and Friday 3rd August, please use the links below (password for both events is PROBATION2018):
London: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/probation-services-launch-event-london-tickets-48413522148
Manchester: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/probation-services-launch-event-manchester-tickets-48413916327
The Ministry of Justice is undertaking service and contract design activity for the future of probation services in England and would encourage the inputs of interested suppliers via structured market engagement activity over August and September 2018. The launch event will be an opportunity to understand the future vision for probation and gain more insights on the plan for market engagement.
"an opportunity to understand the future vision for probation and gain more insights on the plan for market engagement"
DeleteAs you rightly blogged yesterday, Jim:
THE SHAM CONSULTATION
MoJ Agenda Priority 1 - focus on splashing out & seducing further piratisation by greedy thieving ignoramuses wanting to plunder more taxpayer funds
MoJ Agenda Priority Zero - informing, considering & valuing staff employed directly (NPS) or indirectly (CRC).
Probation Services Launch Event- London
Deleteby Ministry of Justice
Free
Location:
Broadway House
Tothill Street
Westminster
London
SW1H 9NQ
Date and Time
Thu 2 August 2018
13:00 – 16:00 BST
That's THIS Thursday folks - get registering!!
Date and Time:
DeleteFri 3 August 2018
10:30 – 14:00 BST
Location:
Criminal Justice Centre
6th Floor
1 Bridge Street West
Manchester
M60 9DJ
Arriving at the Criminal Justice Centre
When arriving at the court you will go through normal security procedures, which involve going through a metal detector, bag search and emptying all items out of pockets. If this sounds an alarm the individual may need to be searched. There are no exceptions to this rule and both male and female security staff will be on hand to facilitate this.
When entering the court, you are NOT allowed to bring the following:
Food and drink, sharp items such as scissors or knives, perfumes and sprays, mirrors and cameras – no pictures can be taken in public areas with mobile phones.
If attendees take bottles of water, security will ask them to drink some in front of them as a precautionary measure.
Conduct
Manchester Crown Court and Civil Justice Centre are working courts with trials taking place throughout the day. Therefore, we ask all groups to respect the building and staff, keep noise to a minimum. Please do not eat or drink in court rooms or around the buildings.
Nearly forgot:
Delete"Clinks are hosting a number of events for the Voluntary Sector."
would love to go and cause a massive stink. unfortunately short notice managing cases. will it be like pre tr engagement days but with the dates replaced? who would be nuts to go to this?
DeleteAnd all while Parliament is in recess!.
DeleteNo Opposition, no urgent questions, no Justice Committee.
I’m not at all surprised at people’s anger and frustration and this does indeed look like decisions have already been made to continue with engaging the private sector via contracts which is prejudging the future and making the consultation rather less meaningful. Maybe my 10 years was a conservative estimate. I share the anger and dismay. ****ing up a very very good public service was criminal.Perpetuating the mistakes puts one in mind of persistent offenders. So do you engage with the consultation and try to make some difference to what is planned or do you just turn your back on it all and just stamp feet? The timing of these ‘events’ also reflects that this is all going to be a rush job which is very unlikely to make for a good result.
DeleteThanks for your guest blog Mike. Refreshing engagement with the great unwashed and as such appreciated.
DeleteAh yes Clinks:-
DeleteThe Ministry of Justice has announced a public consultation on proposals to stabilise the delivery of probation services over the next two years and a longer term strategy for probation services beyond 2020.
As part of the Ministry of Justice market and stakeholder engagement activity for this consultation, Clinks is hosting a series of events for the voluntary sector.
These events will provide an:
Overview of the proposals from the Ministry of Justice and how you can engage with the consultation process
Opportunity to ask the Ministry of Justice questions about the current proposals
Opportunity to feed in your views to the Ministry of Justice regarding how voluntary sector engagement can be improved in future probation services
Opportunity to feed in your views to Clinks’ consultation response.
You can read a Clinks blog on the proposals and our press release. For the consultation details on the Ministry of Justice website, click here.
The Ministry of Justice is also holding events for those interested in providing probation services in the future. Check back here for details of these. Separate events will also be held by HMPPS Wales.
Date: August 20, 2018 - 11:00am to 3:30pm
Location: Bristol
Date: August 22, 2018 - 11:00am to 3:30pm
Location: York
Date: August 28, 2018 - 11:00am to 3:30pm
Location: London
There is talk of a general election in the winter months to come great ! Also well done jim good to see a few posts are up despite most of them coming in from the guest blogger and equally some are very interesting on the pain but sadly generated by both the boring nature of the blogger views and the fact he remains complicit. The only show in town is not to get into this rubbish but get those MPs in their surgeries and do the work ourselves because NAPO and the PI sure is hell ain't doin a thing of value.
DeleteThere's a lot of talk about reunification of Probation. If anyone thinks that the NPS is currently working fine (or at least the same) as it was pre TR then they are sadly mistaken.
ReplyDeleteThe sum was bigger than its parts maybe?
DeleteLatest from Ian Lawrence posted out at 5.33pm:-
ReplyDeleteREUNIFICATION CAMPAIGN GATHERS STRENGTH
Last week ended with something of a flourish media wise, as the Government’s announcement on their ill-judged decision to ‘Carry on Regardless’ with their ‘Marketisation’ of the Probation Service was given full exposure by Napo and senior Labour Party representatives on a number of major broadcasting and radio channels.
Feedback from media contacts suggests that the MoJ have had much better days press wise, with confusion rather than clarity being the main outcome from the Secretary of State for Justice’s private briefing for Home Affairs correspondents last Thursday afternoon, some of whom rang me up asking which branch of the ‘Magic Money Tree’ I thought might have been given a good shake. A good question to which we will be seeking answers obviously.
All of this mystery was compounded by the avoidance by Ministers of so much as an: ‘Oh, and by the way’ parting announcement to Parliament prior to the recess. This of course avoided the inconvenience of fielding a range of questions and protests about the plans to cut short the CRC contracts (not before another scandalous bail out) and then to sell them all off again in bigger and very generous envelopes. I have had quite a bit to say already about last Fridays announcement in the two mail outs that we issued hence a shorter than usual posting today.
Clearly our members will have mixed emotions about what all this means for them. Most especially those working in the CRCs who face a second generation transfer to an as yet unknown employer, but not forgetting NPS members who will be wondering how these latest proposals are going to make one jot of difference to the operational landscape.
All I really wanted to add today is that we are wasting no time in analysing the consultative paper. Our activities will be focussed on preparing to field evidence to the MoJ and the Labour Partys recently announced review into the future of probation and the next steps in our public campaign to press for reunification of the service as well as the key priority of trying to arrive at a pay deal that can be recommended to members. It means a massive amount of work ahead.
Wales. Hello? Relevant? Clearly all our WELSH members will have mixed feelings about what this means for them and their comrades and brothers and sisters in arms (no pun intended) and the personal local national and international implications.
DeleteI try not to chip in my views ahead of others, but sometimes I feel exceptions are sometimes necessary. This latest missive strikes me as crass and a typical example of just 'going through the motions'. But the General Secretary has just won a new mandate, so clearly I must be in a minority in thinking there isn't a cat in hells chance of this GS being able to spearhead any effective resistance to what is a new existential threat to our profession. In fact, just like the last time.
DeleteThere, I've broken one of my self-imposed rules, but I feel I have to say how it looks to me.
Does he have a mandate ? with what he talked on what subject specifically? Less than a thousand votes cast what mandate is that then to lead us into a resale and then watch on as we all lose our jobs and conditions further and then blame the membership.
Delete"We are wasting no time in analysing the consultative paper" - Sorry, Mr Lawrence, but you're miles & months behind the game yet again.
DeleteMoJ & Clinks are already mobilised, venues booked, agenda set, chequebook in hand. Before we know it you'll be signing yet another fait accomplis agreement which entombs the next incarnation of pseudo-probation within T&Cs determined by HMPPS.
Frankly, its embarassing.
We need a guest blog from Ian Lawrence - we are at the beginning of a new campaign - but we do not have long.
DeleteAND what about the Unison Bloke Ben Priestly - what is he up to?
AND what about the former Chief's Union GMB do they have a say anymore?
- they were part of the National Negotiating Committee is there a "Les Harrison" type out there to come and explain it all to us patiently - like Len did to us in Merseyside Napo in the 1970s?
- at the time I did not realise how fortunate I was in being able to learn about negotiating from those at its heart.
Who else might be invited to write a guest post who can explain how we can use the system to get the pay DUE now and to get probation back on track - officers of the court - using social work skills with proper social work training for all writing proper PSRs - or am I asking for too much?
My thoughts are with my former CRC colleagues,those that remained at least, and the double injustice that you are now faced with through absolutely no fault of your own. Sold and soon to be sold again with all the uncertainty and stress involved. It does not look like you are coming home anytime soon. Instead of a consultation how about a Probation staff vote, Reunify or Remain?
ReplyDeleteThank you nice sentiment sorry we are so shafted too.
Deletewe are in a period of darkness at the moment, hold fast to your ideals in the face epic levels of idiocy.
ReplyDeleteTo Grayling, Romeo, Brennan, Spurr, Poree, Stewart, Gauke & Napo:
ReplyDeleteI've read this blog tonight & have to write something that I hope you'll read.
Many years ago as an angry, confused young person I was in Court a number of times for a variety of offences. I had a very positive experience with one Probation Officer. About ten years later I was given Home Office approval & funding for a CQSW course, after three years gained my qualification & with a further year's probationary period I was a PO myself. I worked damned hard, I knew my subject, I was comfortable in my own skin for the first time in my life. I realised I never wanted to be anything but a PO.
In 2013 I was shafted. In 2014 I was transferred. In 2015 I was bullied out of my career, had my redundancy entitlement slashed while my complicit Union was hapless, helpless & useless.
At the time of being shafted into a CRC I had a heavy caseload which included five long term cases who were damaged, volatile & unpredictable. I'd worked with them for between three & five years each. It was hard work. They should all have been allocated mental health specialists but there was neither the funding nor the appetite for PD diagnoses. The cases involved considerable commitment, especially given the onerous bureacracy, crap IT & target-driven managerialism.
The cases were reallocated in 2014, just prior to my transfer. Its now 2018. I'm no longer a PO. Three of those five cases are dead. The other two are serving lengthy prison terms for new offences. That might have happened anyway. I'm not such an egomaniac as to think I was their saviour. But we had developed significant working relationships. I knew their families. We'll never know what might have been & I have to live with the guilt that generates for me, however irrational or unhelpful. So,
I've really struggled to cope with my anger, guilt & grief at the impact of TR and that has surprised me.
This MoJ announcement beggars belief. The determination to repeat the same catastrophic mistakes is staggering. And Napo's response is equally a source of dismay. Groundhog Day.
And now I have no idea what else to say. Its shocking. I just want to scream in anger & frustration but its nearly 2am & that wouldn't be easy to explain to the police.
Just noticed that 01:54 is actually screaming, so maybe I will after all.
DeleteAaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhh!!
Thanks for giving us somewhere to scream together, Jim.
Thanks - pleae, please, put that in the consultation. I have nothing to say as amelioration.
Deletehttps://consult.justice.gov.uk/hm-prisons-and-probation/strengthening-probation-building-confidence/consultation/
Andrew, I never, ever intended to write anything. Last night/this morning proved too much to bear. Its out now. Thats more than enough for me. Thanks for the thoughts.
Delete