Protecting the public from serious offenders
The White Paper focusses firstly on the most serious offenders. Because we believe it is crucial that sexual and violent offenders spend as much of their sentence behind bars as possible. This is what the public wants, and victims should be able to expect.
Automatic release and parole board oversight
Offenders who have committed serious crimes and who are assessed to be dangerous at the point of being sentenced can receive either a life sentence or an Extended Determinate term. This means there is no automatic release and these cases go to the Parole Board to assess whether it would be safe to release offenders.
But there are small number who, for particular reasons, are assessed as posing a serious threat to the public, for example through terrorism, when that is not the crime for which they are serving a sentence. At present, these offenders will be eligible for automatic release from prison and will not fall under Parole Board oversight.
By introducing a new power for the Justice Secretary to prevent their automatic release and instead refer their cases to the Parole Board, we will now ensure that these offenders are properly assessed before being released – to determine whether or not they do pose a threat to the public, or if it would be safer for them to serve the remainder of their term in prison. This represents a major change and will reassure the public that dangerous criminals will be properly assessed before release.
Around 2,000 more serious and violent offenders who receive a standard determinate sentence of 7 years or more will now spend at least two thirds of their sentence behind bars, thanks to legislation already brought in by this government. We are going to widen that approach, so that offenders serving a fixed sentence of 4 to 7 years will also spend longer in prison.
Sentence lengths for serious offences
The public rightly expects child killers to feel the fullest and the harshest extent of the law. We will therefore ensure a Whole Life Order is not just available to sentencers in these cases, but that it will be their starting point. In exceptional circumstances we will also give judges the discretion to impose a Whole Life Order on those aged 18 to 20, where currently only those aged 21 or over may receive this severest of punishments.
Adult offenders who are given life sentences in other circumstances often do not serve enough of that sentence before they come before the Parole Board to consider their release – certainly not as much as the public rightly expect.
We will now ensure that these offenders spend longer behind bars before they can be assessed for release. By changing the way in which discretionary life sentences are calculated, we will see to it that judges base the minimum tariff to be served on what two thirds of an equivalent determinate sentence would be, rather than half, as they do at present. We will also increase the time that must be served in prison for those who commit sexual offences against children and receive a “Sentence for Offenders of Particular Concern”. At the moment such offenders may be considered for release by the Parole Board after serving half their custodial term, but we will up that to two-thirds before the Board may look at the case. There exists in law a minimum custodial sentence for those who commit key offences, including a “second strike” for possession of a knife or offensive weapon and a “third strike” burglary of someone’s home. These are serious crimes that put the public at risk of both physical harm and deprivation of their hard-earned possessions, and of their wellbeing when it comes to safety at home.
But too often these types of offenders receive sentences below the statutory minimum, failing to properly punish or act as any kind of meaningful deterrent and protect the public. We are proposing therefore to modify the criteria for passing sentences below the statutory minimum, making it less likely that a court would depart from the minimum term.
The public want to know that custodial sentences for these sorts of crimes do what they say on the tin. They want to know that when serious and violent offenders go to prison, that’s where they’ll stay for as long as possible. These reforms will restore their faith that the system will keep dangerous criminals off our streets for longer.
Supervising offenders in the community
It is imperative that judges and magistrates have the power to impose short custodial sentences, where they are appropriate. I have seen first-hand on many occasions cases where this is the right and frankly the only sentencing option that is realistic for the court to hand down.
But protecting the public is also about making sure that we make smart interventions to prevent low-level and repeat offenders from going back and forth to prison, for short custodial sentences that hold little rehabilitative value for them.
Offenders in this category often live chaotic lifestyles, sometimes driven by drug and alcohol misuse, or poor mental health. Their backgrounds are often characterised by entrenched poverty, absent role models, and a lack of any decent education. This makes for bleak prospects and many offenders believe that they have few options but to get involved in criminality.
There is no doubt that they deserve punishment but, if we are to have any chance of turning their lives around – and in the process preventing crime – then we need to divert them towards lives that hold the promise of the things we all want from life – a place to call home, meaningful work, a future that’s better than the past.
If we’re going to offer offenders opportunities to work hard towards those things, then we must identify their individual needs and ensure that the sentencing toolkit is able to meet them.
Other alternatives to custody
At the same time, we will encourage courts to look at other alternatives to custody, such as. deferred sentencing. These can make use of services such as NHS Liaison and Diversion, to divert offenders away from criminal justice, into services that can support them to address mental health problems or substance misuse, with any breach of conditions imposed by the court potentially putting them into custody.
We will also simplify the out of court disposals framework so that low-level offenders can be dealt with quickly and effectively, by avoiding court and saving the taxpayer valuable money but still preventing ongoing crime. This will require a mixed framework of legislation, with community resolutions and conditional cautions used to modify behaviour.
In one of the most innovative ideas in this White Paper, we will also pilot 5 “problem-solving” courts, which will take a completely new approach to dealing with low-level offending. Utilising the most up to date evidence, these new courts will use elements such as judicial monitoring and graduated sanction incentives for those who have high needs or prolific offending histories, to look at innovative solutions to their offending without taking them into custody.
Empowering Probation
Something that will be vital to these reforms is a world-class probation service.
At a minimum, probation ‘manages’ offenders through their sentence, putting in place requirements from the courts as part of licence conditions and checking compliance. But when probation is at its very best, it goes much further. It is in the proactive ‘supervision’ of offenders, by dedicated probation staff, that lasting change can happen. By influencing the way sentencing works throughout the process, adjusting to the unique journey made by each offender under supervision, and having the professional discretion to tighten up restrictions, we can better protect the public and address underlying offender behaviour.
In order to do that, probation practitioners must be able to build meaningful relationships with offenders – to understand the risks they pose and their individual needs, so that they can put in place not just what is required by a court or licence, but what is most likely to drive successful rehabilitation in each case. Ultimately, that is the best way to reduce the number of victims.
In recent years, the probation service in England and Wales has come under significant scrutiny and last year we announced large-scale changes to improve the way the service operates, bringing the system under a unified National Probation Service, to be responsible for the delivery of community sentences, licences and other forms of post-sentence supervision.
Improving the way probation interacts with sentencing starts with how it informs the way sentences are handed down. Under the new system we propose, we will unify sentence management under the National Probation Service – growing confidence with sentencers, with whom they have a much closer relationship than they did under the previous Community Rehabilitation Company model, for example, to compile the crucial high-quality Pre-Sentence Reports that I talked about earlier.
The 12 new probation regions will create a unified approach, as well as working more closely with local justice partners, meaning they can commission and deliver solutions based truly on local needs. A new Dynamic Framework for rehabilitation will enable these services to be more easily delivered by voluntary and specialist organisations that can really get results – particularly for vulnerable offenders and those with complex needs. More than 160 organisations have already signed up to bid for contacts, of which 60% are from the voluntary sector – an excellent start.
At the true heart of a successful probation system is its practitioners. Something I saw time and again in my career was that a really good probation officer can make all the difference. Through the Workforce Programme we launched in January this year, we’ve set ourselves an ambitious target to recruit 1,000 new probation officers and to train probation staff to be better equipped for the modern demands of the criminal justice system.
Building relationships with offenders is critical to influencing rehabilitation, but we also want probation staff to have the powers necessary to do their jobs where other methods fail. We will now legislate to give probation officers greater flexibility to take action where an offenders’ rehabilitative needs are not being met or where they pose a risk to the public, meaning that they will be able to act swiftly, using their professional judgement to warn offenders about their behaviour and to advise courts to take enforcement action.
Taken together, these changes will empower probation services to be more dynamic in the way they operate and more useful at every point at which they interact with other criminal justice agencies – informing better sentencing and carrying them out to much better effect.
Reducing reoffending
Too often it is sadly the case that offenders find themselves back within the criminal justice system over and over again, with rates of reoffending remaining stubbornly and disappointingly high.
More than three-quarters of people convicted or cautioned in England and Wales already have at least one other criminal conviction or caution to their name. What this demonstrates is that the criminal justice system is too often unable to rehabilitate offenders the first time around. If we are to bring down crime rates and stop individuals from posing a menacing and continued threat to our communities, there are a number of options we must now consider.
As I have mentioned, technology already plays a role in sentencing but, for offenders who blight our neighbourhoods and burgle homes for example, it’s time we looked at how electronic monitoring and GPS tagging could better protect the public and drive offender behaviour change.
For some offenders who are stuck in cycles of crime, not being able to get a job can be both a major driver in their offending, but also a major barrier to their rehabilitation. Evidence suggests that offenders who find P45 employment in the twelve months after release from prison have one-year reoffending rates that are 6-9 percentage points lower than similar offenders who did not find employment. It doesn’t sound much but literally we are talking about thousands of crimes, thousands of lives, thousands of victims we can safeguard.
We want to now reduce the time period after which some sentences can be considered spent for the purposes of criminal records check. This will enable offenders who do not pose a risk to the public to finally get a job that could be a significant milestone on their route away from offending once and for all.
Prisons and probation must provide the opportunity for individuals to rehabilitate, so we will also deliver a Prison Education Service, focussing on getting them the skills and training to re-join society as contributing, law-abiding members – that helps to bring down crime too.
Robert Buckland QC MP
It is imperative that judges and magistrates have the power to impose short custodial sentences, where they are appropriate. I have seen first-hand on many occasions cases where this is the right and frankly the only sentencing option that is realistic for the court to hand down.
But protecting the public is also about making sure that we make smart interventions to prevent low-level and repeat offenders from going back and forth to prison, for short custodial sentences that hold little rehabilitative value for them.
Offenders in this category often live chaotic lifestyles, sometimes driven by drug and alcohol misuse, or poor mental health. Their backgrounds are often characterised by entrenched poverty, absent role models, and a lack of any decent education. This makes for bleak prospects and many offenders believe that they have few options but to get involved in criminality.
There is no doubt that they deserve punishment but, if we are to have any chance of turning their lives around – and in the process preventing crime – then we need to divert them towards lives that hold the promise of the things we all want from life – a place to call home, meaningful work, a future that’s better than the past.
If we’re going to offer offenders opportunities to work hard towards those things, then we must identify their individual needs and ensure that the sentencing toolkit is able to meet them.
High-Quality Pre-Sentence Reports
Pre-sentence reports should give crucial insights into the individual needs of offenders. These are often complex but with an accurate picture of the offender’s history, a court has the best opportunity to pass a sentence likely to drive better outcomes. More information being available also reduces the space for assumptions to creep in, which, too often, can be the entry point for stereotyping.
Evidence suggests that some offenders are sent for short custodial sentences without a PSR ever being produced. I know from my own experience as a practitioner that PSRs can be an invaluable tool, but two questions would always cross my mind in court: will a PSR even be available; and, perhaps more importantly, will it be of any use?
We will now pilot new ways of delivering high-quality PSRs, identifying the offenders who would benefit most.
Pre-sentence reports should give crucial insights into the individual needs of offenders. These are often complex but with an accurate picture of the offender’s history, a court has the best opportunity to pass a sentence likely to drive better outcomes. More information being available also reduces the space for assumptions to creep in, which, too often, can be the entry point for stereotyping.
Evidence suggests that some offenders are sent for short custodial sentences without a PSR ever being produced. I know from my own experience as a practitioner that PSRs can be an invaluable tool, but two questions would always cross my mind in court: will a PSR even be available; and, perhaps more importantly, will it be of any use?
We will now pilot new ways of delivering high-quality PSRs, identifying the offenders who would benefit most.
Other alternatives to custody
At the same time, we will encourage courts to look at other alternatives to custody, such as. deferred sentencing. These can make use of services such as NHS Liaison and Diversion, to divert offenders away from criminal justice, into services that can support them to address mental health problems or substance misuse, with any breach of conditions imposed by the court potentially putting them into custody.
We will also simplify the out of court disposals framework so that low-level offenders can be dealt with quickly and effectively, by avoiding court and saving the taxpayer valuable money but still preventing ongoing crime. This will require a mixed framework of legislation, with community resolutions and conditional cautions used to modify behaviour.
In one of the most innovative ideas in this White Paper, we will also pilot 5 “problem-solving” courts, which will take a completely new approach to dealing with low-level offending. Utilising the most up to date evidence, these new courts will use elements such as judicial monitoring and graduated sanction incentives for those who have high needs or prolific offending histories, to look at innovative solutions to their offending without taking them into custody.
Empowering Probation
Something that will be vital to these reforms is a world-class probation service.
At a minimum, probation ‘manages’ offenders through their sentence, putting in place requirements from the courts as part of licence conditions and checking compliance. But when probation is at its very best, it goes much further. It is in the proactive ‘supervision’ of offenders, by dedicated probation staff, that lasting change can happen. By influencing the way sentencing works throughout the process, adjusting to the unique journey made by each offender under supervision, and having the professional discretion to tighten up restrictions, we can better protect the public and address underlying offender behaviour.
In order to do that, probation practitioners must be able to build meaningful relationships with offenders – to understand the risks they pose and their individual needs, so that they can put in place not just what is required by a court or licence, but what is most likely to drive successful rehabilitation in each case. Ultimately, that is the best way to reduce the number of victims.
In recent years, the probation service in England and Wales has come under significant scrutiny and last year we announced large-scale changes to improve the way the service operates, bringing the system under a unified National Probation Service, to be responsible for the delivery of community sentences, licences and other forms of post-sentence supervision.
Improving the way probation interacts with sentencing starts with how it informs the way sentences are handed down. Under the new system we propose, we will unify sentence management under the National Probation Service – growing confidence with sentencers, with whom they have a much closer relationship than they did under the previous Community Rehabilitation Company model, for example, to compile the crucial high-quality Pre-Sentence Reports that I talked about earlier.
The 12 new probation regions will create a unified approach, as well as working more closely with local justice partners, meaning they can commission and deliver solutions based truly on local needs. A new Dynamic Framework for rehabilitation will enable these services to be more easily delivered by voluntary and specialist organisations that can really get results – particularly for vulnerable offenders and those with complex needs. More than 160 organisations have already signed up to bid for contacts, of which 60% are from the voluntary sector – an excellent start.
At the true heart of a successful probation system is its practitioners. Something I saw time and again in my career was that a really good probation officer can make all the difference. Through the Workforce Programme we launched in January this year, we’ve set ourselves an ambitious target to recruit 1,000 new probation officers and to train probation staff to be better equipped for the modern demands of the criminal justice system.
Building relationships with offenders is critical to influencing rehabilitation, but we also want probation staff to have the powers necessary to do their jobs where other methods fail. We will now legislate to give probation officers greater flexibility to take action where an offenders’ rehabilitative needs are not being met or where they pose a risk to the public, meaning that they will be able to act swiftly, using their professional judgement to warn offenders about their behaviour and to advise courts to take enforcement action.
Taken together, these changes will empower probation services to be more dynamic in the way they operate and more useful at every point at which they interact with other criminal justice agencies – informing better sentencing and carrying them out to much better effect.
Reducing reoffending
Too often it is sadly the case that offenders find themselves back within the criminal justice system over and over again, with rates of reoffending remaining stubbornly and disappointingly high.
More than three-quarters of people convicted or cautioned in England and Wales already have at least one other criminal conviction or caution to their name. What this demonstrates is that the criminal justice system is too often unable to rehabilitate offenders the first time around. If we are to bring down crime rates and stop individuals from posing a menacing and continued threat to our communities, there are a number of options we must now consider.
As I have mentioned, technology already plays a role in sentencing but, for offenders who blight our neighbourhoods and burgle homes for example, it’s time we looked at how electronic monitoring and GPS tagging could better protect the public and drive offender behaviour change.
For some offenders who are stuck in cycles of crime, not being able to get a job can be both a major driver in their offending, but also a major barrier to their rehabilitation. Evidence suggests that offenders who find P45 employment in the twelve months after release from prison have one-year reoffending rates that are 6-9 percentage points lower than similar offenders who did not find employment. It doesn’t sound much but literally we are talking about thousands of crimes, thousands of lives, thousands of victims we can safeguard.
We want to now reduce the time period after which some sentences can be considered spent for the purposes of criminal records check. This will enable offenders who do not pose a risk to the public to finally get a job that could be a significant milestone on their route away from offending once and for all.
Prisons and probation must provide the opportunity for individuals to rehabilitate, so we will also deliver a Prison Education Service, focussing on getting them the skills and training to re-join society as contributing, law-abiding members – that helps to bring down crime too.
Robert Buckland QC MP
--oo00oo--
This from Frances Crook, Howard League, via Twitter yesterday:-
"Good to hear the Justice Secretary promising a 'world class' probation service after the years of Grayling's failed restructuring. But, haven't we heard promises of world class services recently that have not delivered!"
"We had a world beating probation service, so much so that people from across the world would come to copy and learn. Then it was dismantled and destroyed by Grayling. Now it is being rebuilt, but will not be properly independent, local or resourced. So not really world beating."
"Justice secretary announced problem solving courts, seven years after closing the problem solving court."
From BBC website:-
ReplyDeleteEx-Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has landed a £100,000 job advising the owner of some of the UK's top ports.
The Conservative MP is working for Hutchison Ports, which operates Harwich and Felixstowe among other terminals.
According to the MPs' register of financial interests, he will be paid for seven hours work a week for a year. The appointment has been approved by a Whitehall watchdog despite it raising concerns of a "perceived risk" that it may give the firm an unfair advantage.
The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments said Mr Grayling had reassured them he would not be advising the company on its commercial maritime activities or risks and opportunities associated with Brexit. The watchdog said the role would be limited to advising the firm, which also operates London Thamesport, on its environmental strategy and its engagement with local enterprise bodies. It said the MP must comply with these and other conditions, including a ban on him lobbying ministers on behalf of the company or giving advice on UK government tenders, until July 2021, two years after he left the cabinet.
Mr Grayling stepped down as transport secretary when Boris Johnson became PM in July 2019, having served under his predecessor Theresa May for three years. Critics say he made a series of poor decisions during his time in the job, including awarding a contract to a group of ferry operators to provide extra capacity after the UK left the EU - one of which had never sailed a vessel.
The contracts, which Mr Grayling described as an insurance policy, were later cancelled. The National Audit Office estimated that the costs incurred to the taxpayer could be as high as £56.6m.
Mr Johnson sought to install Mr Grayling as chair of the powerful Commons Intelligence and Security Committee in July. But MPs on the committee voted to back his colleague Julian Lewis instead. Mr Grayling has since quit the committee.
The MP for Epsom and Ewell is the latest former cabinet minister to get a lucrative job in the private sector while remaining in the Commons, ex-Chancellor Sajid Javid having recently been signed up as adviser by investment bank JP Morgan.
As my mother would say - He wants to have his cake and to eat it
ReplyDeleteIf the justice secretary wants a ‘world class’ probation system, he should start by sorting out pay.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the award for this year, and have they started talks for next years award given that it is due in April
Yes!!! and why don't they stop creating more crappy forms and pointless processes and let us see offenders rather than be chained to a computer which now also involves monitoring others work by more crappy forms
DeleteSo Buckland left out;
ReplyDeleteProbation in England and Wales was privatised and the results were so bad that the position is being reversed at huge cost to the taxpayer.
Probation reunified will continue to sell off huge parts of its service to private and charity services that will receive huge revenue.
Probation is currently and will continue to be understaffed, really badly resourced and staff very poorly paid.
Probation is controlled by politicians and the civil service which has corrupted its integrity, values and purpose.
Due to political meddling probation policy and practice has a zero evidence base and is dominated by the prison service.
People on probation are increasingly called Service Users and SU’s but nobody knows why.
Probation Officers are called Offender Managers, Case Managers and Responsible Officers.
Probation Officers are vetted by the police and sacked if they or their family members have past convictions or financial problems.
There is a Probation Institute and are Probation unions that do not represent probation.
The reoffending rate has remained at 50-60% for the past 20 years.
BBC News.
ReplyDelete"It is an empty and insulting promise for any minister to declare a war on crime if a government can't fund a system that keeps us safe - and ensures crimes are swiftly investigated and cases come to court on time."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-54173891
'Getafix
From Prison Reform Trust on inews:-
ReplyDeleteTougher prison sentences don’t work – it’s time the Government changed the record
If serious about increasing public confidence, politicians should start telling the truth about how heavily we already punish the most serious crime
“After 30 years of confusion, it’s time for a tougher criminal justice system”. So says the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, writing in The Sun newspaper. A mini blizzard of announcements followed, foreshadowing a white paper guaranteed to please a forthcoming party conference.
Organisations like mine, that look to protect the rights of those in prison, need to acknowledge that confidence in the criminal justice system is low. But for all the political posturing, we know there’s a real problem to solve. The trouble is that Robert Buckland’s approach has been tried and failed.
Ratcheting up punishment on the back of public concern about very high profile cases is what governments have been doing throughout the 30 years he describes.
Let’s look at life sentences – reserved for the most serious offences there are. If you get a life sentence, the court sets a minimum term which must be served in prison, no matter what. At the end of it, you may or may not get released, depending on the risk you still pose, but you will be liable to be recalled to prison until the day you die. In 2003, the average minimum term given was just over 12 years. Now it’s over 21.
Sentencing for all serious crime has got much, much tougher. It’s the biggest single reason why we have more people in prison per head of population than any of our European neighbours. Politicians have actually been doing what Robert Buckland says for a very long time, and it’s made absolutely no difference to public confidence – partly because there’s no evidence that it makes a shred of difference to public safety.
Research on public attitudes to sentencing consistently shows that people underestimate the existing severity of sentencing. Perhaps that’s because politicians have spent so much of the last 30 years trying to outbid each other on punishment, and in the process failed to give the public the facts.
It’s easy to understand why, in the aftermath of a terrible crime, many people look to sentencing for an answer. Exacting retribution is a perfectly proper part of what the law should deliver. But that’s exactly why the state has to approach its task in a measured, restrained way, and not fall into the trap of allowing a single hard case to turn into bad law with effects that go far beyond what was intended.
In a civilised country, we should expect our politicians to understand that justice requires retribution to be tinged with mercy, however few votes they see in it.
Surely tougher sentences deter others? But there’s little evidence that that is true. Certainty of detection and conviction do seem to have a deterrent impact, but that’s about policing and prosecution, not the punishment that follows. In a system where less than two per cent of rape allegations are even leading to prosecution, it’s hard to argue that a change in sentencing is likely to deter. It gives the appearance of a response to public concern, but it’s only diverting attention from where the system is failing worst.
Public protection is the Lord Chancellor’s watchword. If someone’s inside, at least they can’t be committing more crime. He wants prisons that rehabilitate. But where have these decades of sentence inflation left our prisons? Overcrowded and crime-ridden is the answer, with record levels of self-harm and assault.
Almost twice as many people are in prison as when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, but do we feel safer as a result? Less than half of released prisoners go to settled accommodation. Around 17 per cent are in PAYE employment a year after leaving jail.
DeleteAll the fine ambitions that governments have for reducing reoffending are founded on a prison system that is sinking under the weight of the sentence inflation that the Lord Chancellor’s review of the last three decades fails to mention.
If the Government is serious about increasing public confidence, it should start by telling the truth about how heavily we already punish the most serious crime. And it should commit to a timetabled programme to end overcrowding in our prisons and close the many that are no longer fit for purpose. Instead the Government is repeating the failed “prison works” mantra of nearly 30 years ago. Isn’t it time someone changed the record?
Peter Dawson is Director of the Prison Reform Trust
The north in lockdown tonight. getting it right up there then voting Tory and betrayed by their desire to float a greedy economy before health. Tory tricksters don't care for working people's lives wait and see .
ReplyDeleteI hadn't noticed this before, and I'm not too sure of its implications for the future.
ReplyDelete"it is open to parliament to change the definition of a charity."
Secure Schools today but where next? Unpaid work or even prisons?
https://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/article/moj-plans-to-change-legislation-to-allow-charity-to-run-first-secure-school
'Getafix
More crap from NAPO today about how great they were at moving motions through the TUC and other stuff.
ReplyDeleteNot a word about wages!
It’s getting ridiculous now.
Napo are not a union they just kick the ball around hands in pockets and it is because the players are just not able nor demonstrate they have the appropriate experience.
DeleteEdited highlights here:-
DeleteTUC 2020 – Napo makes its mark
For the first time in its history, the Trades Union Congress met on a remote basis on Monday and Tuesday of this week, and the online ‘Zoom’ audience surpassed all expectations.
Napo had submitted two motions to this year’s Congress, one on Probation Reform and another on the future governance arrangements for CAFCASS. These were formally carried by the General Council without the usual Congress debates which this year were replaced by a series of policy statements by the General Council which were the subject of contributions from the ‘online’ delegates from the TUC affiliated unions.
The proceedings of Congress 2020 can be viewed here and the contributions from National Chair Katie Lomas and General Secretary Ian Lawrence can be seen in the day 2 section. Katie (see 21:41 onwards in the stream) took part in the debate on economic recovery beyond the C-19 Pandemic and was able to ask Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer a question on the future of the Probation Service (1:14 onwards). Following this, Ian spoke in the ‘Tackling Racism at work’ debate (2:04:56 onwards) where he gave practical examples of Napo’s work in this field.
The Napo General Secretary was also successful in the contested election for the General Council seat representing Black Workers in unions of less than 200k members.
TUCG debate on the International Response against Racism and Facism
The previous evening saw a keynote online event organised by the Trade Union Co-ordinating Group which was Chaired by Ian Lawrence and featured a range of speakers including guests from the USA and Anguille.