Down to the Sea 2

Day two in Eastbourne began with Napo General Secretary’s address. For the sake of brevity let us just say that Lawrence’s speech was the wide ranging summary of the last 12 months with an emphasis on preaching to the already converted members have come to expect. This is basically the world according to Ian Lawrence delivered perhaps in a slightly less soap box preacher style than is his norm. He has previously been known to use visual aides such as magic wands and on this occasion he used a cat soft toy to represent Larry the Downing Street cat. Not an utterly cringeworthy moment but close. Not much on probation that many would agree is a wise move as this is hardly his specialist subject. 

Although the tropes, topics, and references were familiar and predictable throughout the speech he did make a larger than expected number of references to racism. This is not that unusual as we are two weeks into Black History Month and Napo rightly supports anti-racist initiatives but some more cynical commentators might wonder whether Lawrence now has his eye on a new position somewhere in the trade union movement post-Napo or fancies himself heading up a commission etc. References to Uganda and immigration indicate he may be aligning himself in some way. Of course he may also be trying to garner support from members of some of the larger branches with a view to some future election (subject to some troublesome constitutional technicalities to sort out) blah blah blah. Watch that space with interest. 

In conclusion he made what some might regard as perhaps unintentionally revealing, confusing, and somewhat awkwardly articulated comments about his future that left some of us wondering whether he might in fact be actually trying to find some desperate way of extending his time as General Secretary beyond his term by exploiting a constitutional technicality. What? The plot thickens. This seemed unlikely as without the support of former Chair and GS handler Katie Lomas to do the thinking and strategic bit he must be feeling like the Ides of March are approaching rather than holding out any real prospect of carrying on - or so we might have reasonably presumed. 

You could feel what supportive atmosphere there might have been in certain scattered sections in the room quickly evaporating as the speech now left a lot of questions unanswered. Perhaps the most telling immediate response was the fact that very few people could be bothered to rise from their seats to give him a sustained standing ovation – Ian certainly has some fans that cannot see past the bluster and possibly have not known better. The applause was hardly rapturous for a General Secretary who has much to fight and likes a convenient crisis, but even some of those that did hesitantly stand up, soon sat down.

We now know there will be no disclosure of the numbers of persons actually voting in the pay ballot. Just a comment slung in to deal with those who want to see the figures. You won’t. We can assume that if these were revealed then these would not reflect well on those touting the line that this was the best deal possible given the circumstances and the membership voted to accept the deal.

Mariela Kohon TUC Senior International Officer was beamed-in and she is obviously a good contact for Lawrence if he does harbour ambitions to navigate himself into a similar role. It was a timely reminder that there is a dangerous world out there where in some countries workers can be killed for being a trade union activist and our freedoms, even when subjected to Tory attempts to restrict trade union activity, are still largely intact. The fact we don’t use the freedoms we have is a disgrace but then again if protest worked too well then the present government would ban it.

The next notable session was the professional session focusing on ‘Hidden Sentences, the impact of parents in prison’. Interesting contributions from Lord Fred Ponsonby, Sarah Burrows CEO Children ‘Heard and Seen’ and Jack Cordery Director of Operations CAFCASS. Angela Cossins RPD South West was a no show. It is a tough gig for senior probation managers who are relatively powerless to do anything meaningful in the present command and control structure. Best stay at home with a nice cup of coffee. 

This session was interesting and informative and many of those present who are not Family Court staff were provided with a useful window into that world. Sarah Burrows presentation (available soon on the Napo website) was particularly poignant – some good work by good people for kids. It brought a tear to my eye and quite a few others in the hall to hear about this work.

Members had to wait until later in the afternoon for what was billed as a session on probation reform. This was originally meant to involve a panel consisting of Amy Rees and Phil Copple as well as Jim Barton. Members were no doubt ready to give them a very warm welcome. Predictably Amy and Phil pulled out leaving Jim Barton carrying the can and reading out a statement from Amy (deja vous?) 

On the plus side Napo pulled a bit of a blinder by inviting former Napo activist and current head of the Probation Institute Helen Schofield. Helen is smart and articulate and more than a match for Jim Barton who is after all a career civil servant rather than a probation expert. Helen knows her onions. Readers of this blog and Russell Webster blog will recall that the PI has recently become a lot more vocal regarding HMPPS’s 'One HMPPS' programme that poses an existential threat to probation as we know it. Joint letters have been written and Jim Barton has been fielded to deal with the opposition. Katie Lomas returned as Chair of the session. Members might have reasonably expected someone from Napo to be on this panel in addition to Jim and Helen, but alas no.

Jim was no doubt anticipating a rough time at the conference and Helen gave it to him. Members did not disappoint - "Tell Amy and Phil enough with the constant change Jim!" In the MoJs corner Jim did his civil servant best to defend the indefensible. Forces are ranged against probation as reductions have to be made blah blah blah etc etc Various points were repeated by Jim such as …. "This is the best way to retain hard won investment. Smaller HQ – probably devolved. Currently 130 improvement projects – Amy says halve them." All a bit lame and unconvincing really.

Helen countered with what many of us would welcome. "Cut costs for the MoJ by releasing the probation service from the stranglehold of the Civil Service" (How about as Probation Trusts?). "If savings are what is required then close down some prisons. They don’t have to do it." Helen emphasised the fact that 'One HMPPS' is not the solution most likely to succeed for whatever problem HMPPS think they have as there are huge differences between the training, style of leadership and cultures with neither being superior to the other, but certainly different with a separate history. Here we go again. 

It was a reasonably good debate revealing that HMPPS are already advanced in their planning for the merger. Shame Amy and Phil were not present. Helen was quite right though to encourage resistance to the whole crock of wetsuit. If probation is to change to benefit the effectiveness of what we do, then it should be moving in an entirely different direction as a more localised service free from the civil service yoke. It was good to hear that talks are already commencing with the shadow justice team as Tory incompetence and infighting has meant that Labour is transformed, almost overnight, into a government-in-waiting. 

We should now be turning or attention to talking to Shadow Justice Secretary Steve Reed and for goodness sake let us get it right this time around. Well done Helen for saying what Napo has not felt able to say as strongly. The PI has stepped up at last. Join a union and dare I now say join the Probation Institute (forget the previous crap as they are clearly our allies and we need all of them now) for a voice as we are facing tough times.

We then moved into motions which were not really controversial. Then we came to Constitutional Amendment 3. I think the top table were hoping this would be a quick matter and they fielded Katie Lomas to propose it. Then things got tricky as it was realised that the vaguely-worded amendment to the constitution was in relation to the re-election of the General Secretary. There was much toing and froing with some uncertain chairing and lots of consultation with steering and Ian Lawrence flitting backwards and forwards in a desperate attempt to salvage things, that if passed, were clearly of considerable value and importance to him. 

It came to light that if the amendment had been passed, then Lawrence could potentially have extended his term to nine and a half years. In the end London branch stalwart Jeremy Cameron did the most sensible thing to end the madness and moved 'further business'. This was put to a vote that was won by just two percentage points. The motion therefore fell - mischief managed - but what barefaced cheek orchestrated in such a way likely to befuddle most members who wouldn’t have had a clue about the constitutional technicalities that might mean being stuck with Lawrence past his sell-by date. 

This would all have been above board and in line with the constitution as voted on at the AGM. Afterwards both Lawrence and Lomas looked defiant but whatever game plan they’d cooked-up between them was thankfully thwarted – for now. Let’s make sure that never happens. So plenty on day two to contemplate and there’s more to come…….

A Reader