No Easy Answers

In the wake of the Labour Party conference and as the following recent discourse on Facebook demonstrates, there are no straightforward answers to try and repair the damage inflicted on the Probation Service:- 

Richard Burgon shadow Justice Secretary has just said labour government will return all Probation to public sector.

Fantastic news.

Katie Lomas He has been saying that for some time! Napo working with his team on the Review being chaired by Lord Ramsbotham...

Yvonne Pattison It's not a straightforward task either but it was myself and Ian that first suggested the round table review to look at what is needed to facilitate this. 

Don’t think a lot of members know that.

Yvonne Pattison He has written to a number of key people asking for input, including us, academics, done chiefs/ex chiefs etc. It's in written format so far but there will be face to face meetings further on. I believe Ian has mentioned it more than once in his blogs

Frontline staff should be fully involved in any review. Many chiefs/EMT have NO idea what it's like on the frontline.

Or about the impact on the risk to the public with some of their decisions.

Yvonne Pattison I do know some members have given their views as they were asked locally...the consultation will widen out further down the line I'm sure.

Maybe if it's only chiefs or EMT that get involved with any review, they would like to come 'back to the floor' in every office for AT LEAST a whole week - before any review meetings - to see what it's really like.

Yvonne Pattison I attended our local consultation on Strengthening Probation. The initial date for input has passed...more information will come out after the first paper which lord Ramsbotham s drafting...

Katie Lomas He did say it at Napo AGM last year and we have been writing about it during this year as the review emerged...

I know he did as I asked him to say it in words of one syllable, but it hasn’t been mentioned on any national tv so really really good to hear it being reaffirmed.

I dont believe it will ever happen. He will say anything to get votes. Who else in his party agrees with him? Too much damage has been done already. It would be such a massive upheaval and CRC have had their fair share. Don't get me wrong...would be great...but what are the chances of that happening.

The shadow chancellor for starters. A long term friend of NAPO, he would hold the purse string that could be relaxed to renationalise and from what I’ve seen of John he’s no free marketeer. It would be one of an entire raft of renationalisations.

That would be a dream come true for all of us.

Supposedly contracts for CRCs are being cut short in 2020 instead of 2 years after! Who knew it wouldn't work out. 

The contracts are going back out for tender to secure new terms. It's nowhere near the end of privatization.

David A Raho Richard has said it before. However, the part of Probation that is currently in the public sector is currently grossly underresourced therefore renationalising probation would require a definite relaxation of the purse strings to achieve something near satisfactory This may take at least a few years to accomplish. As others have said previously if Labour does form a government and John McDonnell remains in his present position then he would no doubt be sympathetic and indeed support this ideologically. However, Labours anticipated programme is highly ambitious and big-ticket pledges will no doubt take priority. My view is that you cannot sort probation out properly without sorting prison and the court system and the police out as well. Reforming the entire criminal justice system is a big ask of any government even if it has a large majority and clear plans. I am not aware that Corbyn has clear plans in many key areas and I do not think this is a matter of faith even if I prefer the direction of travel towards renationalisation and public ownership of rail and utilities such as water and power.

Change has to start some where.

David A Raho Can he say where he is planning to start? We know his team is working with Lord Ramsbothams review but is this going to be in the manifesto? Is he going to make a statement at the Labour conference?

Katie Lomas  It is the shadow justice team who commissioned Lord Ramsbotham to chair the review for them. They are championing it! The aim is not “nationalisation” but public ownership and local accountability.

David A Raho  Glad to hear it but to be fair a commitment to undertaking a review into the privatisation of probation was in Labour’s 2017 manifesto (let's be generous and assume they were thinking about this in 2016 or earlier) - the point being they were not necessarily committed to an outcome of full public ownership - no matter who said what. The review may arrive at that point (I would welcome it) and I do hope that there is more local accountability but there is much to do before reaching that position and a whole parliamentary term of work to do to come up with something that will satisfy most of the main players. Incidentally just looking at Burgon's programme for conference there is no mention of probation - I suspect a lot of probation folk are desperately trying to find a mention from anyone anywhere. So I guess he is kind of low key championing probation publicly whilst we hope he is doing lots of good stuff behind the scenes. I guess we must also hope that this is a cunning strategic approach to ensure broader cross-party appeal that he will surely need to get anywhere with it.…

You seem pessimistic.

David A Raho Skeptical and cautiously realistic. Probation could not have been privatised without radical intervention by a Labour government (opposed by 40 MPs including McDonnell and Corbyn Burgon was in Uni) and it probably can't be put back into public ownership without solid cross-party support. I think this article 'Dissenting Labour MPs force government climbdown on bill' from 2007 is illuminating. I'll continue to follow Dylan's advice and watch the parking meters.

Katie Lomas Richard was quite clear in saying they are considering ‘how’ to bring Probation back into public ownership and not ‘if’ they will...

David A Raho  I'm Sceptical about the how. If you examine his voting history Burgon is no fan of PCCs and devolution so he may not favour that option, McDonnell is talking about employee share ownership schemes today (would that be his option?). We know the NPS is bankrupt and probably not in a fit state to reabsorb communities. Public ownership does not necessarily mean private companies will not be involved in delivery like PFI.

Katie Lomas  John McDonnell’s speech today made it clear that no new PFI deals would be done. I don’t personally think that moving from the CRC/NPS split to everything in the NPS would be in any way positive. Hence why we shouldn’t talk about “renationalisation” but instead bringing probation back together, in public ownership and with local accountability...

David A Raho  Renationalisation and taking formerly public bodies back into public ownership to rejoin colleagues in a public sector organisation or whatever is fine by me (better together etc). I don't think that any government will easily abandon the NPS idea without something pretty robust to replace it seamlessly. A lot fewer people now in positions of real influence in the private probation companies are probation people and those now in charge strongly believe that losing their grip on probation contracts will never happen as easily as Richard Burgon appears to believe unless they want it to. They have their fingers in a lot more contractual pies than just the probation contracts and are getting themselves positioned in order to challenge/resist a weak administration. The government relies on the private companies to deliver a whole raft of services now. Would Labour seriously want to take on the multinationals that run the shadow state aided and abetted by ex-MoJ consultants etc? Very doubtful. If they did they would have to demonstrate a high level of unity and some slick manoeuvres that would require expert statecraft and superhuman politicking not seen on the Labour benches since Attlee last warmed the governments front benches. I am also aware that politicians stock response to a complex problem is to form a review committee to look at the evidence and consider options - all positive and good. Then they set up another committee to look at the preferred option to cost it and rhino test it for feasibility. Labour want to do a lot of things and with a crammed schedule they risk running out of time to put the required legislation on the statute books only to claim that they had a contingency plan and end up implementing the lowest cost option as a stopgap that never gets filled.

I don’t favour the local accountability model at all. I think probation has been used as a political football in the past and putting it under the PCCs which seems to be the preferred decision will make that even more likely. Also move into the NPS was a dawning realisation of how in a single service there could be so much variance in practice and policy, staff pay and benefits etc. I do t think the NPS is at all perfect but I favour a national service with some local flexibility to work in partnership with local charities and providers to the old trust system.

David A Raho Depends who is in power Jamie as to what the model will look like. At the moment the Tories are calling the shots but concerned about mounting pressure from the backlash against Grayling who is finally becoming the whipping boy for neoliberal excess. I have a preferred option and a realistic option given that some CRC owners have been consolidating their position and may well act collectively to put pressure on whatever the government to ensure a continuation of their income streams. Not all owners of CRCs are the same or equal and the MoJ bar is not that high. My preferred option is a devolved model with a funding link with local authorities eg providing offices and facilities and learning from Youth Justice. I would create local adult justice boards and involve a host of agencies with probation taking the lead. Some smaller central body like the YJB would be helpful. The CRCs would like bigger areas longer contracts and more money that is not linked closely to performance.The more realistic option I fear long term will be a further break up of probation with bits of both NPS and CRC hived off and run as separate operations or absorbed by other departments such as HMCTS HMPS CP a separate standalone thing and communities becoming private-public sector joint operations. Between times CRCs are likely to get bigger contracts. If these were 7 years then they would make commercial sense as they need to sign leases on office space etc. Ian Lawrence has just blogged about Napos opposition to this.

--oo00oo--

Edited version of Ian's latest blog here:-

Bidders Beware!

Our wholesale opposition to the calamitous decision by David Gauke to retender the shortened CRC contracts, and offer new ones within a reconfigured 10 region structure was again reinforced in our submission to the ‘Strengthen Probation Building Confidence’ consultation last week.

Anyone who believes that this consultation is meaningful, as in the Government actually changing their mind as a result, cannot have been following the script. Those harbouring such hopes would have seen that for themselves if they had been able to attend the latest attempt by the MoJ to smooth the path for would be contractors.

I have always worked on the basis that consultation of this nature is about learning from the mistakes of the past and ensuring that all steps will be taken in the future not to repeat them. Unfortunately, there is little sign that this will happen and just as was the case in the initial engagement events that many of our members have attended, the intended direction of travel from last week’s gathering in London - akin to a "wild west medicine" selling show without the waggons and horses - was very clear.

It goes something like this. The last Secretary of State for Justice destroys an award winning Probation service and opens the floodgates to a social engineering disaster, despite over 90% of those responding to another so-called consultation telling him that he really ought not to have gone there. Said Minister later departs the post-Transforming Rehabilitation dystopia that he and a number of spineless senior NOMS leaders were responsible for creating, and is rewarded with another high profile political post as Secretary of State for Transport.

As for TR four years on, nearly every report from HMI Probation describes it as a failure save for a few pockets of good practice. Findings which are then endorsed by what for me is one of the most damning Parliamentary inquiry reports I have ever seen from the Justice Select Committee which also says it’s a failure. Incidentally, news just reaches me that another hugely critical report is due from HMI Probation tomorrow and it will make for some seriously unhappy reading yet again for the private providers who are yes, collectively failing yet again on their contractual responsibilities.

A different universe

Anyone watching Chris Grayling in his TV interviews last week (it is very difficult I know) on the plans to launch a major review into our railway system will have found the language to be depressingly familiar to the mantra that preceded TR, e.g. "public/private partnerships can work, innovation and flexibility is all that is required, freedoms to make decisions, trade unions to blame", etc.

What I find especially disconcerting is that in the face of what is by any standards about the most catastrophic privatisation I have ever seen of its kind, and granted we have seen plenty more examples, the only response that I can see from Government is to simply repeat the processes that led to where Probation is now.

For Government, it’s as if TR never happened; that the systemic failure of CRC providers to heed the signals from our members that we put out before TR such as be careful what you wish for as well as bid for, never happened either. Documented evidence from Napo and scores of other organisations that spelt out the risks and likely results are just something to be ignored, as millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is ploughed into TR Mark 2 and the creation of another highly dubious re tendering exercise where the likely results are already writ large. Against that background, anyone seriously contemplating bidding for the intended next round of contracts ought to think again. It’s as corrupt a process as it was four years ago and we will not baulk from saying so.

SFOs - let me be clear, we will protect our members

According to one of my media sources we are seeing more Serious Further Offences being committed in England and Wales. These incidents are highly emotive and require timely and accurate investigation to determine what lessons can be learned and whether certain things might have been done differently by an individual or by the various agencies involved. Victims' families also demand (and are entitled) to answers.

SFOs occurred prior to TR, they happen now and they will in the future. Inevitably, they become highly political because Ministers and Governments are responsible for presiding over a justice system that is supposed to minimise the risks to public safety.

In such a climate, politicians may seek to blame individuals and not their own failures for the ensuing human tragedies that occur in a probation service which is less safe than it was, where staff are under intense pressure. A service that has become hugely fragmented since it was irresponsibly thrown open to the market.

Now we see it start to unravel. Napo, heavily involved in representing several members since our last AGM whose practice has been called into question despite having undergone the initial SFO review, only to hear later down the line that another investigation has arisen because of a pending inquest or by way of a Ministerial intervention.

Members occasionally ask me whether I intend to publicise our position in relation to individual members who are in proceedings following an SFO and the answer is an unhesitant no. Our first duty is to represent the interests of the members involved and given the propensity for these cases to gravitate to inquests or the attention of Ministers, we need to say nothing that could complicate matters.

I think members will agree that this is a sensible approach, but I can certainly promise this: that Napo will not stand by and see our members made scapegoats for systemic failure by their employer or for situations that would never have happened if those responsible for making previous decisions, or for providing the necessary resources, support and protections for staff, are the ones who really ought to be answering some very uncomfortable questions. Even more reason for having a trade union at your side come the day when you might need us.

Ian Lawrence