ViSOR and Probation Culture

At last there are signs of a fight starting for the values, ethics and culture of probation and with the likelihood of Wales shortly seeing reunification under civil service control, it looks as if ViSOR vetting is rapidly becoming a major issue there. Thanks go to the reader for forwarding this:-

Ian Barrow 

Director, National Probation Service Wales

Dear Ian,

(cc: Members of Napo Cymru)

Re: VISOR Vetting

I am writing on behalf of the executive to raise the matter of VISOR vetting.

For some time now the practice has been that a small number of Probation Officers and other staff, administrators and managers for example, have submitted information and been vetted for VISOR. We understand that until now the established practice is for one or two officers in a site to be approved for VISOR access.

This has its problems, which Napo nationally has been involved in, and we recognise the immediate logistical attraction of blanket vetting for all staff to be vetted and for VISOR access to be an expectation of the role of staff.

However, we now have an instruction from you that all Probation Officers and some other staff, should submit their information in order to be vetted for VISOR access, to a short and apparently urgent deadline. We have been inundated with calls from members concerned about the implications. These are:

• Those staff who “fail” the vetting process will be disadvantaged. You have undertaken that staff who “fail” the process will be redeployed. We expect higher numbers than can be easily accommodated within alternative deployment to “fail”. 
• Those staff who “fail” will have their careers limited and compromised by exclusion from VISOR access and the work that will then align with it 
• Members are required to submit information regarding their nearest and dearest. Some members report that they have been advised that their nearest and dearest do not wish their information to be given, which places them in a stressful and compromised situation. 

Napo Cymru is concerned that there is an increasing risk of Probation’s identity and role being subsumed and diluted. This process is opaque: the criteria; who makes the judgement regarding acceptability; whether the information disclosed is stored; the existence of an appeals process; are all unknown. It is likely to further exclude those with “lived experience” of crime and the CJS from probation practice, whose contribution can be significant – and lead towards an homogeneity of the workforce.

At the bottom line, this is a significant change to the values and culture of probation. It requires the leaders of Probation to make decisions taking regard of their role as leaders of an organisation and culture. It could be argued that acquiescence to a dictate from another organisation calls into question the leadership within our organisation.

This matter is to be raised at the next JCC and we ask you to:

• Negotiate for a small minimum of staff to be required to undergo vetting and the arrangements for working with our MAPPA cases that this will require 
• Engage further with staff and explain the proposed requirements for VISOR vetting and the details around appeal, data collection, and protection 
• Justify these in relation to Probation Values Ethics and Culture 
• Allow time for this to be properly negotiated and considered 
• Meet with staff to elucidate your understanding of what Probation is, (especially in light of the recent announcement) it’s Values, Mission and Purpose 

I look forward to hearing from you,

Lisa Robinson
Joint Chair Napo Cymru

--oo00oo--

This from Napo News last Friday:-

Update for Members – ViSOR Vetting

Members will be aware that Napo have been in discussion with the employers about the extension of ViSOR use (and therefore Police vetting) in the NPS since the E3 consultation. Our latest update gives the history and context as well as outlining the many concerns that members have about the vetting. An emergency meeting was held with the employers yesterday (9th August) to try to get some clarification in some issues and to seek some resolution which would mitigate the potentially significant impact of failure of this level of vetting. We are as frustrated as members about the lack of progress in this and the collective view was made clear yesterday. What was also made clear was the employers view that what they are doing is entirely reasonable and while they accept that this is causing high levels of stress the only concession they are willing to make is to ensure that their communications to Divisional Leadership teams include the requirement to support staff who are suffering the intense distress and indignity of this process.

Napo’s leadership group are due to meet next week and will discuss this and give consideration to all possible courses of action that are available to us at this point, including an industrial strategy and campaign. We are also consulting with Unison Leaders on a joint strategy.