Friday, 12 October 2018

Reflections on the Spurr Era

It's been a couple of weeks since we heard that Michael Spurr would be departing from the MoJ and I didn't want to miss this bit of historical analysis from Rob Allen:-   

Spurr's Relegated

A few years ago, I attended a leaving do for a NOMS official with whom I’d worked closely. Michael Spurr paused his generous speech a couple of times as he wanted to be kept updated about a hostage taking incident. His warm words and care about realities on the ground- in this case thankfully resolved peacefully- show why he has been such a well-liked leader in the prison service. Having worked his way up from the wings at Armley Jail, few know or care more about prisons in this country. But there’s no getting away from the fact that his period in charge has coincided with their catastrophic decline. The probation service has all but been destroyed and the oft and much heralded development of electronic monitoring something of a fiasco.

How much responsibility should Michael bear for these failings? Not much is the emerging consensus. I agree that the lion’s share of the blame for the deterioration of prisons lies with the first three Justice Secretaries Spurr served as NOMS CEO. Kenneth Clarke offered enormous Departmental savings to the Treasury predicated on prison population falls that he could never deliver. Chris Grayling made a Faustian pact with Unions resulting in much lower levels of staffing as an alternative to privatisation as well as signing unsustainable maintenance contracts for prisons. Michael Gove’s lofty rhetoric of redemption merely acted as a distraction from the growing problems of safety and control in many jails. (Unsurprisingly an evaluation of Gove’s six Reform Prisons due this summer has not materialised)

Michael fared slightly better with his second trio of Lord Chancellors, particularly the underrated Liz Truss who managed to obtain much needed funds to recruit more staff. Davids Lidington and Gauke have continued a pragmatic approach to repairing the enormous damage inflicted by their predecessors. But Gauke has now decided that the uncomplaining Spurr should be relieved of his duties. Maybe last week’s POA action has prompted the move.

I have no doubt that Spurr will have spoken truth to power when giving advice about policy options, but as Julian LeVay has argued, his job was then to implement whatever Ministers decided. Could he have done more to blow the whistle about the likely consequences?

As accounting officer, Spurr might have sought ministerial direction about the feasibility of some of the measures he was asked to implement- particularly the probation reforms whose risks were so widely voiced in and outside government. It’s worth recalling that it was warnings about the consequences of overcrowding made by Spurr’s predecessor Phil Wheatley which forced Labour ministers to introduce a temporary early release scheme in 2007. I hope Spurr and the Permanent Secretary gave clear and explicit warnings about the impact of staffing cuts on violence, self-harm and disorder in prisons. If ministers ignored them, shame on them. But maybe that advice was not given with sufficient force.

In 2016 the National Audit Office found that Permanent Secretaries appear to lack confidence to challenge Ministers where they have concerns about the feasibility or value for money of new policies or decisions, not least because standing up to Ministers is seen as damaging to a civil servant’s career prospects. That’s nothing new. I remember when Kenneth Clarke dreamt up the absurd idea of Secure Training Centres for 12 year old persistent offenders, we officials hoped the Permanent Secretary might intervene, joking that he was “keeping his powder dry”. When he reluctantly attended a meeting with Clarke, the PS said virtually nothing other than berating me afterwards that my submission was too long.

So what are the lessons for Spurr’s successor? Prisons need a Whitehall heavy hitter able to stand up to ministers more than they do a knowledgeable and experienced practitioner. Someone like Simon Stevens who has carved out some freedom of manoeuvre as head of the NHS . And whether Probation should stay linked with Prisons should be carefully considered. Probation has not gone well in NOMS or HMPPS. I'd devolve it but lets see what the consultation brings.

Rob Allen

*****
Comments:-

"And whether Probation should stay linked with Prisons should be carefully considered. Probation has not gone well in NOMS or HMPPS"

It is an unequal and damaging coupling. That the CEO of HMPPS will never come from Probation ranks is an oft quoted given, and demonstrates the problem. I wonder if the D word might actually be Divorce. It's an unequal partnership where one is suffering at the hands of the other, and whose identity is being swallowed by the dominant other.

Leave! I want to cry, you are brilliant and strong and have so much to offer the world: you just need a bit of support to get back onto your feet again. The point of leaving is risky, so you need a good plan and some strong support, but you would be so much greater and happier and safer without him.

I am stretching this analogy because there is a more direct gender issue going on here too. Gauke under pressure from a resisting public servant threatened to "get macho"... an extraordinary and revealing thing to say. If we ascribed gender to Prisons and Probation, (and I suspect you could do this also by looking at the gender ratio of staff)… could we say that Probation is the departments feminine side?

*****
What?! I hadn't the honour to hear any of Mr Spurr's 'generous speeches', but do remember his formulaic responses to disturbances, including terrible suicides in prison. They would go something like this: to be regretted - complex prison - we are now setting up some measures for the future- here are some good things done - confidence in the governor and staff. And the suffering, with same responses, would go on and on elsewhere. Of course he had to support those working in prisons, but never any sense of the primacy of the need to fundamentally change - the politicians' responsibility I know, but they could go to bed comfortable after Mr Spurr's musings.

Grayling is doing enough to confirm his incompetence without further comment needed, but as for Ms Truss, a know-nothing do-nothing stop-gap, completely out of her depth, she has the residual function of making her successors look competent if not overly bothered by much, while a moment could have been taken to note Ken Clarke's description of the continuing iniquity of the IPP sentence, a preventive measure to keep people inside just in case they might do something in future, a measure against all notions of justice, as a 'stain on the justice system', a stain all of the above, & Gauke, are obviously perfectly at ease in letting continue. The prison service is a disgrace and starved of money by politicians who don't care is not the only issue.

85 comments:

  1. The true measure of Spurr will perhaps be made clearer by what he does after he leaves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alternatively: Spurr has been a self-serving, passive-aggressive pernicious bully whilst wanting to portray himself as a warm, caring soul; a teflon coated civil servant happy to apportion blame whilst pocketing those golden coins; an empire-builder who, bizarrely, despised the Probation Service & dedicated the last twenty years to dismantling it, absorbing it into his control & command structure. It could be argued Spurr's dogmatic, formulaic approach is symptomatic of the evangelical religion he subscribes to - a belief he is, of course, entitled to hold - but the unquestioning implementation of cruel policies alongside a culture of fear & blame would surely have created some ripples in the soul of a compassionate person? Those who have the warmest words seem to be similarly enthusiastic friends of Jesus, which makes it more about 'friendship' than about the professional? It is a concern occasionally expressed that people in positions of power use religion, particularly the more evangelical religious belief systems, as a cloak of respectability.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Our prisons have become shameful horror shows and a once internationally respected Probation Service is now struggling to claim mediocrity. Whatever the level or lack of personal culpability that is fairly attributable to Mr Spurr maybe he can go quietly, with clipped and muted fanfare or none, given what has happened on his watch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I think all those that have some responsibility for steering the CJS on to the rocks it now finds itself on should all be made to experience the full fruits of their decision making. Three months in any local prison should help them understand and care a little bit better.

      Other news, (it won't be welcomed I'm sure).

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/judges-pay-rise-salary-senior-salaries-review-body-thousands-a8580061.html

      'Getafix

      Delete
  4. I think that there is something in the air over recent decades, arguably linked to the neo-liberal agenda and the rise of the Right in politics in general and social policy in particular.

    Brexit, Trump etc are symptoms of this; Gove's suspicion of experts in favour of a common sense' approach. Grayling's 'gut instinct', superficial consultations that are ignored, the naïve confidence in the private sector as the source of all wisdom, the 'fecklessness' of the vulnerable (a rebranding of the 'undeserving poor'), the celebration of 'hardworking families' whilst withdrawing benefits paid to families who work damn hard for minimum wages that have remained static for a decade. Politicians who lie but who are not held to account by Murdoch's media for doing so. The list is pretty much endless.

    We had the Neolithic age, the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, the Industrial Age. The first two decades of the 21st Century have to go down as the Age of Stupid, when ignorance, deceit and corruption are not only in evidence but are also celebrated.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A prison officer was left unconscious after being attacked by an inmate. The officer was assaulted overnight at HMP Lindholme, near Doncaster, and later went to hospital, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed.

    Prison staff initially refused to go back on to the wings following the attack and staged a protest in the visitors centre, BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said. The prisoner involved had been segregated, an MoJ spokesman said.

    Full details of the attack are not yet known but the MoJ confirmed the officer was found unconscious and treated at the prison before receiving hospital treatment. An investigation had started, it added. Staff at the Category C jail went back to work following the protest and a meeting with the governor over safety concerns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prisons-safety-violence-attacked-officers-refuse-posts-hmp-lindholme-strangled-strike-a8580556.html%3famp#ampshare=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prisons-safety-violence-attacked-officers-refuse-posts-hmp-lindholme-strangled-strike-a8580556.html

      Delete
    2. Good job the officer wasn't armed, or there'd be a weapon on the loose in the prison. Rory?

      Delete
  6. Sorry Jim but pay is the only show in town right now and the blog has to concentrate on it. I don't grudge anyone a penny of pay rise but here's an eye watering differential to thonk about. A PO with 17 full years in will be £3.19 an hour better off than a PSO at the top of the scale. I leave readers to draw their own conclusions on that one. Here's another illustration of how many are being shafted. A PSO 14 full years in will be £1887 worse off than a colleague who started a few months before them. Drill into the detail and many hundreds are being fucked over after one to two decades of loyalty. This deal is not fit for purpose and should be rejected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To 14.02: a PO with 17yrs in will now be on 34004 who by 2010/20 will be at their maxima of 37174. PSO new maxima in 19/20 will be 28200. That is a difference of 8974. That's a difference of 747 @ mth and divided by 148hrs = a differential of £5.05 an hr I think not £3.19. Currently if you compare current 17yrs PO salary with current PSO maxima the PO hourly difference is approx £3.72. If you compare current P0 maxima with PSO maxima the hrly difference is £4.89

      Delete
    2. Further to 14:02 a PSO currently on 25043(14yrs in)Will be at 26313 by 19/20 and at maxima of 28200 in 20/21. Those who've been in 16-23 yrs get to the maxima by 19/20. The PSO in your example jumps 9 paypoints to get to maxima by 20/21 whilst the colleague who has done 16yrs already jumps 7 paypoints to get to max by 19/20

      Delete
    3. How do you know what anyone will be on in 20/21? The deal only goes up to 19/20.

      Delete
  7. Anyone on any Band with between 14 and 17 years service is being kicked in the teeth by the pay offer. We've all had years of real terms cuts and now this. I predict many more will vote with their feet and leave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Helps please.I have 14 years as a Po. Currently on 32688. What will i go on to from April18 and April 19. Not seen a calculator as not been in work for a couple of weeks. Cheers

      Delete
    2. You are currently on spine point 92. Under the proposed deal you will move to 33,344 this year and then to 34,342 on 1 April 2019. That is spine point 5 of the new scale for band 4. Spine point 6 is the top of the new scale at 37,174 so you will not progress to the top of the scale. You will therefore, be 2,850 worse off than you should be with no idea currently of how you might evidence professional development to progress to the top of the scale in pay year 20/21. Good luck mate, you'll need it.

      Delete
    3. Automatic progression to the top of the scale is only available to those on spine point 94 (33,344)and above.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for this. Not exactly the deal as recommended for the judiciary is it?

      Delete
    5. Well, they clearly need it more than us. Those wigs can't be cheap.

      Delete
    6. Widely reported that judiciary are suffering from "low morale" so govt report suggests they should get around 30% pay rise, meaning up to £60,000 hike for more senior judges, £180k to £240k.

      No money, all in it together, etc etc etc.

      A vicious cruel bunch of right-wing hate-weasels who are determined to wring every last groat out of the great unwashed in order to fund their own ermine-lined lifestyles.

      Delete
  8. I'm getting the equivalent of five spine points on the current scale over the two years of the deal. If employers had stuck to two points a year as promised under the last pay modernisation I'd have been on that money in 2013. Good deal, I don't think so!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The deal leaves me £1343 a year better off than I would've been if we'd stayed at one spine point a year. Who says austerity is over?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have not seem anything related to calculating pay- I have been qualified 2.5 yrs and am on 29039. Where will this leave me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 29609 -18/19
      30208 - 19/20

      Delete
  11. Where is everyone getting all this information about the pay deal from? I'm in NAPO and haven't received any information at all. The communication is completely non-existent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s Napo comes for you don’t know what the officer responsible for this actually does ?

      Delete
    2. To 18.18 the person to go to is your local Branch Chair as they will have attended special meeting at AGM.

      Delete
    3. But we were told to keep it secret!

      Delete
    4. But info has been coming out in various branches and on the FB group which includes National Officers

      Delete
    5. An email has gone out tonight from Napo to all members with loads of info

      Delete
  12. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-claim-private-jail-firms-13401883

    ReplyDelete
  13. So based on all the information above, it looks like there will be 6 points within band 4:
    1. 29039
    2. 29609
    3. 30208
    4. 33344
    5. 34342
    6. 37174
    If that's the case then it's an insane structure - essentially two tiered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people with the new payspine points + other info are Napo Union reps(though presumably Unison + GMB reps have them too). I understand they've got them in advance to get heads round the info and prepare to hold meetings for members. Individual Napo members will get Napo sendouts in time for Napo ballot starting 15th Oct
      according to latest Napo mail out. Given the number on this blog proficient in negotiating skills, Unison,GMB and Napo should have plenty of volunteers to join negotiating committees

      Delete
    2. 1-5 of those pay band points are the same or a few pounds away from the following points on the 2014 band 4 payscale (80, 82, 90, 94 and 97). Number 6 is top of the scale plus a 3% uplift. This means that the salary of a PO is virtually unchanged since 2014, it's just individual staff will progress to the top faster. However this is after years when progression was artificially slowed. Anyone remember the old days when we moved up the payscale, but the salary at each spine point was increased to reflect the cost of living?

      Delete
  14. Is there anyone who can explain the new pay structure and what the scales will be as would appreciate it. Thanks very much

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wait til Monday ffs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Napo has information about the pay deal. Here is the link https://www.napo.org.uk/nps-pay-offer-2018

    Some of the comments above are misleading. 16.48 says if you are a PO at 92 on the band 4 payscale (14 years in) you will be affected by the competency framework. Napo says you will be at the top of the payscale in 18 months before it comes in. See below from website.

    BAND 4
    All staff currently earning £32054 or more will reach their new maxima by 1st April 2020, 11 years earlier than now.
    All staff who remain in post can expect to reach the new maxima on or before 1st April 2023.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also the aim is to bring in the competency framework from April 2020, to be paid from 2021/22.

      Delete
    2. I think you need to look at the numbers again. The scales I have indicate that I will rise to point 5 of the six point scale on 1 April 2019. Not a peep about any further increase from 1 April 2020. How do I then progress? Do I need to prove myself via the as yet undecided competency framework over the course of pay year 19/20? Do I get automatic progression on, and not before, 1 April 2020? If you're relying on statements on the NAPO website then my advice is, don't. They're not famous for getting things correct. The confusion on this is purely due to the patronising nonsense that collectively we couldn't possibly understand the deal as it's too complicated for our pretty little heads. Shame on them. They must publish the full offer for all to see. Only then can anyone make an informed decision.

      Delete
  17. Just a flavour of how low our government will stoop to impose a knowingly broken ideological policy.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.uk/news/politics/universal-credit-charities-criticism-esther-mcvey/amp/#ampshare=https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/universal-credit-charities-criticism-esther-mcvey/

    ReplyDelete
  18. The organisations that didn't get contracts are the only ones criticising UC, those who received money are keeping their traps shut. No real surprise that 'charities' are playing ball, as they have some fat salaries to protect.

    As for Ester, I see her long-time suitor is another reactionary Tory MP, Philip Davies, well-known for his criminal justice rhetoric of the string 'em high variety.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Im interested to know also. Will we receive full details on Monday? I’m 4 years qualified currently on £29907. Where will I be on the new pay scale? Also, where is everyone getting their information from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Info from Branch reps and Napo website. No idea how Unison/GMB informing their members.Only Union members can vote on offer

      Delete
  20. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/trade-union-pay-bank-of-england-andy-haldane-chief-economist-a8577696.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. What about staff who were put on protective pay after E3 restructure which subsequently demoted them what do they get. Seem like a number of NPS staff may get nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 13.17 no that's not case. Every band gets increases. Napo has sent info our to all members. Presumably Unison & GMB have done same

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 17:28 Yes every band get a increase. But NAPO has been silent on those subject to protective/marked pay due to E3

      Delete
  23. So it becomes clearer. Unison are not recommending the deal because progression from 2020 onwards is not guaranteed. Napo on the other hand offer a touchingly well meant belief that the employers are being truthful when they say that they expect to offer automatic progression if the competency framework is not agreed and in place. It will of course need to be in place in its entirety by 1 April 2019 in order that those below top of scale can demonstrate they're worth it. Chances of that happening, to paraphrase elvis costello, less than fucking zero. We've been fucked over by jam tomorrow promises before but IL et al seem to be bending over on our behalf once more. It's clear none of them have ever been in practice as if they had they'd know the best indicator of future behaviour is what's happened in the past. Disgraceful!.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is about right and the belief is forming this leader is calculating we fall for another round of misleads.

      Delete
  24. Once again 'You've been had' folks. Smoke&mirrors, sleight of hand - everything. And still you continue to believe its ok.

    MoJ & HMPPS staff must be in 7th heaven, pocketing their financial target bonuses by stealing YOUR money.

    This is the culmination of putting probation in the hands of noms, where opportunist, self-serving, career-orientated Chiefs & Trust senior managers were encouraged to trade their staffs' futures for personal gain.

    It was simply manna from heaven for Spurr etc when Ledger couldn't control his urges & Lawrence landed - a new kid on the block, eager to please, ambitious & wanting create a good impression, not wanting to upset too many fruit barrows; he swallowed the negotiator's bullshit in good faith & was therefore happy to trade members' interests for the employer's benefit.

    "The salary of a PO is virtually unchanged since 2014 [aka 2009]... its just that its now quicker to get to the top of the scale"

    Find The Lady, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This pay offer is a joke. In 2008 NAPO recommended the reduction in leave, essential car user allowance, etc, in exchange for MOJ/NOMS giving us their 'word' that we would all go up 3 salary points per year. Then the pay freeze came in and we were f***ed, whilst the NHS, schools, etc got healthy incremental rises because that was a contractual entitlement, rather than being based on the 'word' of the employer. Fast forward to 2018 and NAPO are now recommending a new deal whereby after 2020 the MOJ/HMPPS have given their 'word' they will introduce a competency framework for pay progression. You couldn't make it up! Kudos to Unison for at least recognising that fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Giving up incremental entitlement is one of their deal breakers. Instead nafo should be taking enforcement action for the contractual right.

      Delete
  26. Any statement that anyone will get any pay progression from 20/21 onwards is a lie. There is only an apparent vague promise that it is the employers intent to offer automatic pay progression after the proposed deal. This deal is fair for some and spectacularly unfair to others however, if it's not fair to everyone IT'S NOT FAIR! Vote No and send them back to sort it out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you clarify where it is spectacularly unfair? Thanks

      Delete
    2. Whilst I'm not the poster in 08:46, I'd say it's spectacularly unfair because the new pay points are so unevenly spread out. Plus whilst the top of the scale is being increased, the bottom is staying the same, meaning the gap between top and bottom will be even greater than now. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if those at the bottom were guaranteed to reach the top in 6 years. But there is no guarantee - instead they will go up two small increments until 2020 and then be stuck on £30206 when the next pay freeze kicks in in 2020.

      Delete
    3. 08.46 here. The unfairness is that nobody between 10 and 17 years service will get to the top of the scale. Those with 14 to 17 years will be one point shy of the top. That is an eye watering 2,850 shy of what they should be on. For those 10 to 13 years in the differential is even worse.

      Delete
    4. My read of the band 4 scales(12:21) is:
      Those with 7-10yrs from spine point 86 to 89 will be at £32688 by 2020
      Those with 11-14 yrs from spine point 90 to 93 will be at £34342 by 2020 and
      Those with 15 yrs onwards 94-101 move to £37174 the new maxima by 2020.

      Delete
    5. That's exactly right 23.27. Tha Napo statement that anyone over point 86 will be at the top of the scale under this deal is just plain wrong. Unless there's some as yet unknown reason otherwise it looks like a trade umion is trying to sell its members a pup on behalf of the employer. Scandalous. Now go to bed. You've got some public to protect in the morning.

      Delete
  27. If it's to be believed that new starters will be at the top of their payscale in 6 years why isn't everybody with more than 6 years service being offered that deal. I believe that is achievable. It's a no from me Napo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely no one genuinely believes new starters will be earning £37k in 6 years time? As has been posted above, the new band 4 salary points are really uneven, with 1, 2 and 3 clustered together, then a big jump to 4 and 5 and then another big jump to 6. I believe that's been done with another pay freeze in mind from 2020 onwards and as a way of ensuring that those at the bottom of the scale don't cost too much by moving up bigger increments.

      Delete
  28. How long will it take to agree a fair, transparent, universally available, funded and staffed competency standard? Bear in mind it'll need to be in place by 1 April 2020. The process will have to happen at the same time we undergo another massive reorganisation into ten divisions, implement whatever probation 2020 throws up and endure a significant reduction of OM staff to prison under OMIC. Hard pressed SPO's will no doubt be expected to administer it adding to their already onerous HR management workload leaving even less time to ensure best practice. The Birmingham SFO report clearly says that SPO's need to be freed up to concentrate on the core of our work. This proposal looks as if it'll ensure further that they can't. The potential consequences could be horrendous.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The new scales are prompting a change to our terms and conditions. Does this change include the loss of the contractual right to incremental pay progression to be replaced by progression via a competency framework? If so then the employers could easily drag their heels over the agreement of the framework and we'll get nothing for years to come. BREXIT is likely to send the economy into a nosedive for years to come meaning further austerity regardless of the the government. To put it bluntly there will be no money in the bank to pay anyone. This deal allows for a backstop position where pay will be frozen again. It's clear that the employers side has run rings around NAPO once more. Maybe the GS knows this and is using his cherry picked headlines to make it look like he's effective or maybe he's thick as mince. Duplicitous or stupid, either way we're being shafted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Last four lines in most opinions.

      Delete
    2. I agree. The only reason MOJ have paid any increments at all since 2010 is because they were contractually obliged to. And they were pitifully small. When the 2020 pay freeze kicks in there will be no increments and no cost of living rises for anybody. I can't believe NAPO are stupid enough to recommend this rubbish

      Delete
    3. So can I but branches need motions to help stop them getting pay so wrong. Vote no and then organise a search party to find Napo officials some basic eductation.

      Delete
  30. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/14/anjem-choudary-extremist-preacher-free-parole

    ReplyDelete
  31. BBC NEWS

    A 29-year-old inmate has died at a prison criticised for its "tragic and appalling" death rate.

    Robert Frejus died on Tuesday at HMP Nottingham, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed.

    A cause of death has not been revealed, but a spokesman said the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman would investigate.

    In May, the chief inspector of prisons reported a "dangerous" and "disrespectful" environment at the jail.

    There have been eight self-inflicted deaths at the Category B facility since 2016, including four in as many weeks last year.

    Peter Clarke said inmates may have taken their own lives because they could no longer face life at the "drug-ridden jail".

    In response, the MoJ said it had made improvements to the prison.

    A statement from the ministry on Mr Frejus' death said its thoughts were with his family and friends.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This is just an amazing statistic. Nearly 40 years lost in just one year.
    Wonder how it compares with HMPPS?

    https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/38-years-sick-just-12-15273620

    ReplyDelete
  33. All of a sudden the comments are filled with those who, apparently, can predict the failings of NAPO in these negotiations without having been privy to them, and presumably believe they would have done better themselves.

    Isn't it nice of those incredible negotiators to wait in the wings to let the novices play before providing their expertise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, why are UNISON and GMB not accepting this offer? They are better negotiators than our.

      Delete
    2. GMB are recommending the offer. Unison are not because there's no agreement on progression after 2020 , only a vague undertaking that they'd like to give automatic progression until the competency framework is in place. Napo appear to be choosing to believe that the employer will be true to their word and pay up after 2020 whatever happens. Strikes me that their position is akin to basing a risk assessment entirely on an offenders self report. Not the best quality work I think you'll agree.

      Delete
    3. Napo no longer include genuine members involved in negotiating process.

      Delete
    4. For me it’s not a question about the failings of Napo we know our employers are awful and have treated us badly for years. What upsets me is Napo trying to claim it is their excellent work that has secured this “good” offer I would have more respect for them if they were honest and said it’s all they could get and left it up to the membership to decide instead of urging them to vote yes We also know that there’s not a lot we can do about the rubbish offer as there no chance of members taking action on this matter

      Delete
    5. 1930 no reader here could have believed such incompetence yet here it is.

      Delete
    6. How to negotiate 101.

      1. Put forward your offer.
      2. Don't move until you get it.

      It's honestly not rocket science.

      Delete
    7. 19:30 - the same 'incredible negotiators' who agreed the split and did not foresee redundancies and the EVR ripoff.

      Delete
    8. UNISON are not recommending acceptance of the offer because it fall very short of their claim. What was NAPO's claim? How was it formulated?

      Delete
  34. All people are doing is flagging up the apparent flaws in the proposed deal. I for one would welcome input from IL and others on this blog, which I'm sure he reads. The official line is that there's a blog on the Napo site but nobody ever looks at it. I think that maybe 19.30 is IL as the use of language reminds me of his particular haphazard style. It's not possible to predict something that's already happened. If anyone can tell me what concessions were wrought from the employers I'd be happy to hear about it. In the meantime all we have to go on is the information we are being allowed to know. It indicates that there is no agreement on pay progression from 1 April 2020 onwards and that anyone in the middle of their band will not go to the top of their scale under this deal. These are two things IL insisted in his reps presentation would happen. Please Ian, if it is you, tell me I'm wrong. I want to be wrong. I want everyone to fully benefit from this deal but as it stands it doesn't look as if they will. As a previous poster said, if it's not fair for all, it's not fair.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing at all for CRCs paying to nafo for nowt.

      Delete
  35. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/14/number-supervised-offenders-accused-violent-crimes-rises-england-wales

    ReplyDelete
  36. Does anyone know what a 'High Intensity Officer' is? Or a 'Specialist Services Officer?' It's just that these are the posts currently being advertised by Interserve across their CRCs at the same time as they're trying to get rid of Probation Officers:

    'High Intensity Officers who will work with service users managed by the CRC, in custody and in the community after release.

    Specialist Services Officers who will work with service users managed by the CRC or National Probation Service to ensure that planning and coordination is in place to ensure successful rehabilitation after release from prison'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Start at band 3 £22039,surely NPS PO OMIC jobs being filled on the cheap by CRC's. Also TTG roles by the looks of it.

      Delete
  37. Does the Interface advert require applicants to have any particular qualifications?

    ReplyDelete