IT and TR

As the results of the government review into the TR omnishambles are awaited, I was reminded of just how crap the legendary IT is in probation by the following forlorn query on Facebook:-

Anyone else's pc on a go slow?

Always. The moz-proxy error is a nightmare!

It's on a stand still

Last week was worse

Was it? Ours wasn't too bad then

System went down for a few hours and for those who didn't get thrown off the system it was very slow.

They're slow all the time

Today Is painful

I mean more slow than normal

Yes was more of a nightmare than usual!!!!

Ours were grrrr xxxx

We were told yesterday that the new HMPPS is going to sort out the IT. So that's alright then. What they mean is that they will try to make a badly designed and unfit for purpose system functions slightly less badly. Par for the course.

--oo00oo--

The Public Accounts Committee have been utterly scathing, as reported here last September on the Government Computing website:-

PAC: probation service ICT is “inefficient, unreliable and hard to use”

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has warned of the impact poor ICT systems have had on efforts by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to transform probation services.

In 2014, the PAC said it reported on the changes underway to probation services in England and Wales, outlining several risks and challenges. Now, two years on, it has warned that there is still no clear picture of how the new system is performing in important areas of the reforms. In addition, the “failure to deal with ICT problems” coupled with “serious uncertainty over the impact on providers of lower than expected business volumes” have also undermined the pace of change, the parliamentary watchdog said.

In 2012, the MoJ said it would deliver a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ by reforming probation services. Subsequently in June 2014, it split 35 probation trusts into a public sector National Probation Service (NPS) as well as 21 new community rehabilitation companies (CRCs). The NPS advises courts on sentencing all offenders and manages those individuals presenting higher risks of serious harm or with prior history of domestic violence and sexual offences, while CRCs supervise offenders presenting low- and medium-risk of harm.

The CRCs were in public ownership until February 2015 and then transferred to eight mainly private sector providers working under contract to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS).

However, the ability of the CRCs to transform their businesses is being undermined by delays in resolving commercial negotiations. The new owners of the CRCs were chosen on the basis that they would invest in and transform these businesses, with promised innovations including new “one-stop” service centres and the use of ICT systems to free up probation staff time to interact more effectively with offenders. But the transformation has been slower than expected due to difficulties connecting the CRCs to ICT systems within NOMS coupled with lower volumes of business than originally estimated.

The PAC went further in its criticism of probation service ICT systems, describing them as “inefficient, unreliable and hard to use.” The report maintained that successful probation services depend on effective joint-working across various partners, supported by “well-functioning ICT systems”.

But it said, “Probation ICT systems have long been unfit for purpose, which hinders collaboration and frustrates staff who already work under pressure. We were told that the nDelius case management system used by NOMS had to be stripped back so it could be operated by CRCs and NPS regions nationwide as a single system. As a result, this reduced the usability of nDelius and NPS staff regularly raise ICT issues with senior leaders in NOMS.

“Improving nDelius is a priority for NOMS and is particularly important for the NPS who will continue to use the system for the foreseeable future.”

“Most CRCs are installing their own case management systems and ICT infrastructure to increase efficiency and productivity. For this to happen, CRCs needed the ministry to provide a “strategic partner gateway” to link NOMS and CRC systems. The ministry initially planned to deliver this gateway in the summer of 2015 but this was delayed by other priorities and subsequently by increased scope. Though the gateway is now in place, the delay has impacted some CRCs’ ability to transform their ICT systems at the pace they had planned. As a result, the ministry has had to pay a total of £23.1m to 17 CRCs.

The PAC concluded, “In a service that relies on successful joint working between multiple partners, it is essential that ICT supports, rather than frustrates, effective and efficient collaboration. This is far from the case for probation.

“Systems are still fragile and precarious, not least the ICT infrastructure and NOMS’ nDelius case management system, which puts added pressure on already hard pressed staff. The nDelius case management system had to be stripped back so it could be operated nationwide and improvements to its usability were deferred. There have also been delays in providing CRCs with a gateway into NOMS ICT systems.

“The ministry has paid £23m compensation to CRCs as a result. It is crucial that nDelius, the gateway and wider ICT systems are fully functional as soon as possible otherwise NOMS risk further demoralising essential staff and delaying planned service transformation.”

The PAC recommended that NOMS should “without delay” meet its commitments to improve the usability of nDelius and to implement a fully functional and reliable link between NOMS and CRC systems by the end of 2016.

PAC chair Meg Hillier said: 

"There is a real danger the Ministry of Justice has bitten off more than it can chew. It set out with some fervour a programme of reforms not just to rehabilitation but also to the courts and prison systems. Ambition is one thing but, as our committee continues to document across government, delivering positive results for taxpayers and society in general is quite another. Reintegrating offenders with the community is vitally important yet the quality of arrangements to support this is patchy. There is also a continued failure to provide hard-pressed probation staff with adequate computer systems. None of this paints a picture of probation working effectively towards the goal of reduced reoffending. The ministry must not allow other projects to distract it from the task at hand during what is a critical stage of rehabilitation reform and we urge it to act on the recommendations set out in our report."

--oo00oo--

According to this published in December 2016 on the same Government Computing website, the MoJ are not much closer to fixing things:- 

Sopra Steria awarded transitional two year probation ICT services deal

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has awarded a two year outsourcing contract to Sopra Steria that will provide the probation service with ICT functions and support ahead of a delayed move to a ministry-wide common technology infrastructure.

As part of the outsourcing agreement, which is valued at up to £53.8m depending on how long it is required, the company will provide IT services including auditing, testing, programming and consultancy for hardware and software among a number of other functions.

The scope of the contract will relate to supporting probation services in England and Wales before they transition to the common ICT infrastructure intended to be introduced by the MoJ. However, an exact timeline for the proposed switchover has not been provided at present.

“The intention is for some, if not all, of the services to end before the expiry of the term; in which case, the actual cost of this contract may be lower that the estimated amount,” said the contract award notice.

In January, the MoJ awarded Sopra Steria a limited contract extension of up to 12 months in length to provide the probation services with Offender Management National Infrastructure (OMNI) systems as a result of delays to the availability of the ministry’s common ICT infrastructure. OMNI, like the rest of MoJ's ICT estate, was due to be replaced by a combination of contracts under the broad Future IT sourcing (FITS) programme.

By February, a review of FITS saw the MoJ announcing an intention to opt against awarding the second lot of an Application Maintenance & Support (AMS) services contract for the Prisons and Probation Service.

"Following a review of the Future IT Sourcing (FITS) programme, we have decided not to proceed in awarding this contract,” a spokesperson for the MoJ confirmed at the time.

In the intervening months, both the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) have raised concerns about the effectiveness of IT use and planning with regard to the probation service. The spending watchdog warned in September that poor ICT systems were hampering MoJ efforts to transform probation services, urging a need for particular improvement of case management systems.

PAC chair Meg Hillier also raised concerns that the MoJ had been overambitious with planned reforms to rehabilitation services as well as the courts and prison systems.

“Reintegrating offenders with the community is vitally important yet the quality of arrangements to support this is patchy. There is also a continued failure to provide hard-pressed probation staff with adequate computer systems. None of this paints a picture of probation working effectively towards the goal of reduced reoffending."

Latest From Napo 143

Napo victory on Harmonisation package

This negotiating update alerts you to an important breakthrough by Napo in the long running negotiations with the NPS on the maternity pay and harmonisation policies.

NPS members will be asked to indicate their agreement to this package in a separate communication that will follow shortly. As the circular points out Napo has been seeking a conclusive outcome on the maternity and and harmonisation package for some time and have had to persevere despite the barriers in our way.

This circular summarises the success for Napo negotiators in these talks and also sets out your unions future objectives around pay and our efforts to push for solutions to the chaos within the Shared Service Centres operation on a host of pay and pension related issues.

More news about these will follow soon, meanwhile NPS members are asked to look out for further communications and ensure that you take the opportunity to respond to the consultative exercise.

--oo00oo--

Members update for all Napo members in the NPS and CRCs

MATERNITY LEAVE VICTORY IN THE NPS - MEMBERS HARMONISATION CONSULTATION – reply required by 17th April

All NPS members should shortly be receiving an e-consultation from Napo on proposals to harmonise several MoJ/NOMS policies, including maternity leave and annual leave for new starters. The proposals are a vast improvement on the initial offers and reflect prolonged and difficult negotiations at national level. Napo is recommending the package as a whole following endorsement by Napo's Probation Negotiating Committee. Members will be asked to indicate their view by no later than 17th April.

Napo is the only union who has consistently pressed for urgent harmonisation of maternity leave since the time of the TR staff split but at various stages this has been prevented. In recent months the hold-up involved the NPS insisting that any improvement in maternity leave should be linked to a cut in annual leave. Napo very forcefully opposed a move that we considered to be discriminatory. Our campaign on International Women’s Day highlighted members’ frustration with the NPS, with hundreds posting pictures online saying #maternitymatters. This helped persuade the NPS to drop the link to leave, although the proposals do harmonise leave for new starters this will not be effective until the new policy commences in September 2017. The harmonisation of leave year for existing staff is March 2018.

NPS still have great concerns about their capacity to actually pay staff on maternity leave without several months lead in. This reflects the chaos and fundamental failings in the SSCL arrangements (see more below). Napo however proposed a compromise which was accepted. This means the package takes effect from 3rd September, except for maternity leave which will apply for members with an EWC of 30th April, 2017 albeit with NPS stating that they may have difficulty paying people impacted properly. This is an honest, albeit shocking admission fro a major government department but Napo’s view was, unless there are major changes to the SSCL contract, we couldn’t be confident they’d be any better placed to pay people accurately in September. An earlier or backdated application of maternity pay however would have been too chaotic.

Members who have not received an e-consultation to their preferred e mail address by Monday 10th April should contact Napo directly. New members in the NPS joining between now and 17th April can also join in the consultation.

PAY CLAIM COMING TO NPS, CRC and RISE

Hot on the back of the consultation about the NPS harmonisation package, Napo is also submitting their National Probation Pay Claim in the next few days. All members will be sent a copy of the claim so look out for it in your inbox over the coming week.

The claim is the same for all Employers, recognising that the same challenges of a broken pay and grading model have been transferred into the CRCs. The claim highlights how uncompetitive probation pay has become as a result of both the government’s prolonged pay freeze and the negative impact on pay progression in probation. Napo’s view is that these problems must be urgently addressed if probation employers are to have any chance of competing for staff or avoiding huge recruitment and retention challenges.

The recognised unions have been involved in pay reform negotiations with the NPS for some months and we remain hopeful that reform supporting the aims of the pay claim will be possible. The creation of HMPPS adds further pressure on the NPS, as staff being expected to move into a custodial setting could be asked to provide support and quality assurance for prison staff. We are also conscious however of the huge risk to the CRCs’ capacity to compete for staff if NPS unilaterally introduces a significant pay gap. The same principle applies regarding softer terms such as maternity leave. For this reason, Napo are lobbying government to make sure that the Probation Services Review (which is reviewing CRC contracts) recognises this risk and allows for a price adjustment so that CRCs can compete and members working in CRCs are protected. This is in line with our mandate to defend collective bargaining.

To support the claim and the campaign around it Napo Branches will be asked to organise a series of meetings and briefings for members. Please look out for details of these.

Ongoing pay and processing problems in the SSCL

Napo has had real difficulties trying to resolve the many different processing failures in NPS HR. These currently include some new starters not being paid at all; continuing problems with staff not having the correct PAYE amounts deducted leading to tax issues; staff changing their working pattern (e.g. maternity leave; going part time; increasing their hours) not being paid or taxed correctly; pensions contributions not being correctly collected; staff moving roles being issued with the wrong contracts; etc. We are extremely conscious of the increased risks arising from more staff being moved towards working in HMPPS.

The SSCL contract is clearly another example of the failed, rushed TR sell off. Put bluntly, any shared-service model can only work if all those covered are on shared terms and conditions. The insistence from HM Treasury that the split was dependent upon probation staff remaining in the local government pension scheme alone means this isn’t possible. Failures to address pay issues just exaggerate the differences whilst differences in maternity and leave have further highlighted the problem. Napo has been willing to address harmonisation to try and solve members’ problems but as we close the gaps the scale of the problem becomes ever clearer.

Napo is now of the view that this cannot be fixed without starting over. We are now lobbying Ministers and the Justice Select Committee to call for an enquiry into TR and asking them to call in the SSCL contract.

PLEASE SHARE THIS NOTE WITH COLLEAGUES WHO MAY NOT BE MEMBERS OF NAPO.

Remember you can get cheaper subs by paying directly through Direct Debit and can also access our extensive new Napo members’ Benefits Package and save the cost of membership in full.

Ian Lawrence (General Secretary), Dean Rogers (Assistant General Secretary
Yvonne Pattison, Chris Winters (Co-Chairs)

Focus on Liz Truss

Here we have yesterday's MoJ Press Release:-

Justice Secretary launches HM Prison and Probation Service

A new frontline service focused on reforming offenders and cutting crime has today been launched by Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss.

• New frontline service tasked with reforming offenders launched by Justice Secretary
• Prison and probation staff to be given increased training and clear career progression
• HMPPS launch coincides with prison governors being given greater control of establishments

HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) will have full responsibility for the operational management of offenders in custody and the community, including strengthening security in prisons, building intelligence about criminal gangs and supporting offenders when they are released.

The introduction of the new service coincides with prison governors being given greater control over how they run their establishments – a key commitment in the Prison Safety and Reform White Paper.

The Secretary of State pledged in November to recruit 2,500 staff to bolster the frontline as well as introducing a comprehensive package of measures to improve safety and security across the estate.

Probation services will also be more empowered in providing support to offenders both under our supervision and in the community when they come out of prison. As part of the further growth opportunities we are enhancing professional qualifications for probation officers and increasing the integration of prison and probation services.

The launch of HMPPS, alongside development opportunities for staff, will further professionalise and build pride in the service.

Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss said:

"The creation of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is part of our far-reaching changes that will ultimately reduce reoffending and make prisons places of safety and reform. 

We are building a Service that is focused and driven to make our prisons safe and reduce the risk of reoffending, in turn creating fewer victims of crime and safer communities.

The launch of this new organisation is a crucial step towards achieving our reforms. Staff will be given the training and support they need to succeed so they can be proud to work for an agency that will help to transform lives."

The new operationally focused service will be supported by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) taking on responsibility for overall future policy direction, setting standards, scrutinising prison performance and commissioning services.

As part of the Government’s commitment to boost opportunities for staff in the newly-formed HMPPS, we are creating 2,000 new senior promotion opportunities for valued and experienced prison officers to progress into.

Apprenticeship schemes are being launched to give recruits a clear progression pathway, underlining the Government’s commitment to develop the skills of prison and probation staff.

HMPPS Chief Executive Michael Spurr said:

"The launch of HMPPS is being backed by new investment which will make a real difference to the work we do with offenders both in prisons and in the community.

We have a compelling reform agenda and the new Agency will focus relentlessly on improving performance to better protect the public and reduce reoffending."

From today (April 3), governors in all adult prisons in England will take control of budgets, allowing them to decide how they spend money rather than being given specific budgets for different things.

They will be able to develop local commercial relationships with businesses to provide work opportunities for their prisoners, and reinvest income to deliver additional services in their prison.

Governors will have more flexibility in setting staffing structures and the ability to hire people with the skills they think their prison needs, whilst they will also be directly involved in the decision making process for commission health services for their establishment.

The launch of HMPPS will be supported by measures in the ground-breaking Prisons and Courts Bill, which sets out a new framework and clear system of accountability for prisons. For the first time, it enshrines into law the purpose of prison and sets out that a key aim for prisons is to reform and rehabilitate offenders.

It is further backed by measures in the Prison Safety and Reform White Paper, which identifies a clear structure of accountability for delivering reform.

--oo00oo--

While we're at it, lets see what Liz Truss is saying. Here we have her writing on the Reform website:- 

Where next for criminal justice reform?

Reforming our criminal justice system is my top priority. Since my first day as Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, I have been clear that we must create prisons that change lives and a court system that works for all. The ground-breaking Prisons and Courts Bill is a crucial step towards achieving that vision. It is a firm commitment from the Government to overhaul the system for the better.

Prisons will be transformed, protection for victims and witnesses will be boosted and the courts will be revolutionised so justice can be delivered more swiftly. Making prisons work is something in which we all have a stake. They keep some of the most dangerous criminals locked away from society, depriving them of their liberty and putting an end to the misery they have heaped on so many. And of course, it is right that prisons are there to punish people who break the law.

But I am clear that there is more to do in order to reduce the likelihood of them reoffending after they’ve been released. The burden on society caused by those who are caught in a cycle of reoffending is staggeringly high. It costs society £15 billion every year. And then there is the emotional turmoil faced by the millions of blameless victims who come home to find their home has been ransacked or car stolen.

I’m absolutely determined to get a grip on this and that is why the changes in the Prisons and Courts Bill are so important. They will give prisons a clear and direct instruction that they must achieve more than simply act as offender warehouses. This is a crucial change that will, for the first time ever, set out that reforming offenders is a key aim of prison. We will require prisons to show progress in areas such as getting prisoners off drugs, boosting their English and maths skills, and into meaningful employment.

This matters because we know that prisoners who are drug-free, are able to read and write, and have a job to go to are less likely to go on committing more crime when they’re on the outside. But when offenders do commit crime, the system must support victims. I know from conversations with those who have had to appear in a courtroom that the process is a daunting one, so we must do all we can to help make it a smoother and less-traumatic experience.

That is why I have included specific measures within the Prisons and Courts Bill that will extend the use of online courts and virtual hearings, allowing more witnesses to give evidence outside the courtroom to help deliver swifter justice. As a result of this legislation, many more people will be able to take part in court proceedings without actually being in court.

The legislation will also give courts the power to end the appalling practice of domestic violence victims being cross-examined by their abusers in family proceedings. The bottom line is I want victims to have real confidence in the system and to feel empowered to come forward and speak out. And I want prisons that provide offenders with the best possible chance of turning their lives around for good.

It will take time to make these substantial changes and there is a great deal of work to do. But there should be no doubt that the Prisons and Courts Bill is a critical component in our mission to drive reform.

Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

--oo00oo--

I notice that the Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies is on Liz Truss's case over her enthusiasm for prisons being drivers of economic development:- 

Letter to Justice Secretary on prison jobs bonanza claim

Date: Friday, 24 March, 2017

Our Director, Richard Garside, has written to the Justice Secretary, Liz Truss, calling for her to publish a secret Ministry of Justice report on the economic impact of new prisons.

On Wednesday, the Ministry of Justice announced plans to build four new prisons in Yorkshire, Wigan, Rochester and Port Talbot. According to the Ministry, the new prisons will 'act as a boost to regional economies' and create 'new opportunities for local businesses.'

According to the Justice Secretary, the prisons would be an 'economic lifeline for the local community – creating hundreds of jobs for local people'.

The Ministry's claims of a jobs bonanza are based on a secret report written by consultants, Peter Brett Associates, called Economic Impact of a New Prison. The report remains unpublished, despite a Freedom of Information request made by our Senior Associate, Rebecca Roberts.

In his letter to the Justice Secretary, Richard writes:

As the Ministry embarks on this latest stage in the prison-building programme, it is important that its plans are subject to proper scrutiny by parliamentarians, independent experts and members of the public, particularly in those areas where the new prisons are planned to be built. The publication of the Economic Impact of a New Prison report will assist the scrutiny process and I ask that it be published without delay.

Richard's letter can be downloaded below.
Download: Letter to Liz Truss, 23 March 2017.pdf

Goodbye Nightmare - Hello HMPAPS

So, on the first day of rebranding, whilst we soak up the fake hype on being officially subsumed into the Prison Service and grimace at an unfortunate acronym (who remembers the possibility of being CRAPO?), lets join with John Podmore writing on the Justice Gap website and reflect on the passing of NOMS:- 

A farewell to NOMS: We need more than a name change

As Secretary of State Liz Truss announces the demise of the National Offender Management Service, few will mourn its passing. NOMS, known as the Nightmare on Marsham Street after its initial prestigious Westminster location, was born on 1 June 2004 following a review by Labour peer Lord Carter.

There was a prison crisis even then with the prison population having risen by over 60% in the previous decade. Home Secretaries Michael Howard, Jack Straw and David Blunkett had seen to that with their ever more ‘tough on crime’ policies and sentences. Blunkett’s kafkaesque Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection was perhaps Government’s most grotesque act of penal mismanagement, the effects of which still plague the prison system today.

The first NOMS Chief Executive was Martin Narey, rapidly succeeded by Helen Edwards, the first and last person in a senior position in the organisation with a probation service background.

For those of us running prisons at the time there was some initial enthusiasm. Declared principals of ‘end to end offender management’ made sense. Many prisoners were repeat offenders, most would eventually be released at some point, so bringing together prisons and probation, the custodial and community parts of the justice system, seemed eminently sensible.

We were however, naive over other key phrases emanating from Carter’s report: commissioners, providers and above all contestability. We had little idea what was to come in the form of contracted services that we as Governors would have no control of. Over the early years we had Regional Offender Managers (ROMS) which were quickly replaced by Directors of Offender Management (DOMS). The management of public sector prisons however remained under a separate prison service director, Phil Wheatley.

The prison crisis continued unabated with the prison population continuing to increase and controversies over foreign national prisoners seeing the end of Home Secretary Charles Clark’s career. John Reid succeeded Clark, by May 2007 Government had concluded that the Home Office was too unwieldy and disaster prone. Courts, prison and probation were hived off to form a new Ministry of Justice with Jack Straw back in the driving seat for justice.

By January of the following year, Phil Wheatley became CEO of NOMS with responsibility for all aspects of prison and probation. The prison service effectively annexed the probation service and probation expertise became increasingly marginalised. Michael Spurr replaced Wheatley in 2010 at which point the coalition took charge. Ken Clark briefly talked sense on reducing prisoner numbers and was summarily sacked for his efforts. While Clark had seen mass privatisation as the way forward his successor Chris Grayling demanded more rapid cost savings and slashed staffing numbers. The result is well documented and the prison system is now in its most parlous state for decades.

Politicians must take some of the blame but under them NOMS became a bureaucratic behemoth emasculating prison governors under a deluge of dictates. Demands for a better prison system have conflated sentencing and prison reform. They are separate; the former political dynamite, the latter long overdue. David Cameron and Michael Gove showed in the 2015 Queen’s speech that they understood that NOMS was part of the problem. The architects of top down managerialism were hardly likely to effect the change to governor autonomy and localism that was now recognised as essential. Swept away on the Brexit tsunami, Cameron and Gove have handed the baton to May and Truss.

For Truss the jury is still out. A few thousand new staff is a mere sticking plaster on a gaping wound. The establishment of a National Prison and Probation Service may just herald the cultural change so desperately needed. But as Truss has acknowledged, it is a long way back. Grayling’s treatment of probation was tantamount to going on to the battlefield and bayonetting the wounded. Community Rehabilitation Companies are slowly being revealed as the car crash everyone predicted.

And we now have flagship prisons such as Manchester and Belmarsh that no current prison governor wants to take on and at a basic salary of £65K remain unattractive to outsiders. If we are to have safe and decent prisons it will be Governors who will deliver them. Some out there are already doing so. Other are struggling. There are individuals working in health, education and business who we need to attract to a vital service. They need to paid at least as much as head teachers and above all be allowed to look downwards to their staff and prisoners and outwards to the communities they serve but not upwards to crushing bureaucracies intent on command and control.

NOMS was never an organisation that its employees proudly declared they belonged to. Creating a National Prison and Probation Service that people aspire to join and importantly to stay in and develop skills and careers is an important step forward. But it must be much more than just name change.

Civil Servant in Firing Line

It has been suggested that the Daily Mail's article at the weekend concerning the TR omnishambles, and one of the senior civil servants involved, just might be a bit of 'news management' in order to cover the back of one Chris Grayling MP:-

Britain's not so Ab Fab Brexit fixer: High-flying diplomat in charge of new trade deals was behind botched £4billion probation scheme which is on the verge of being scrapped

The high-flying diplomat in charge of drawing up new trade deals after Brexit was behind a disastrous £4 billion privatisation of probation that is about to be scrapped. Antonia Romeo started work last week as Permanent Secretary at the new Department for International Trade, with the key role of ‘promoting the UK as an outward-facing, free-trading global nation’ once it leaves the European Union. Extraordinarily, until the summer she will be commuting to Whitehall from New York, where she was Her Majesty’s Consul General.

But The Mail on Sunday can reveal that in a previous role at the Ministry of Justice, she was the ‘senior responsible officer’ for a botched shake-up of supervision for criminals leaving prison, which is facing a major overhaul this month. In a letter to MPs seen by this newspaper, Ministers have admitted the entire system is ‘falling short of our ambitions’ and multi-billion-pound contracts with private firms will have to be renegotiated as part of a review’.

Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said last night: ‘The chief behind the botched probation scheme is now being asked to organise the biggest series of simultaneous trade negotiations in history. ‘Only this Government could give a promotion for failure. This Government has no plan, no clue and no staff and it is starting to show.’

Mrs Romeo, an Oxford-educated mother of three who has been pictured at glitzy events with celebrities such as actress Joanna Lumley, was a director-general at the MoJ when she led the probation sell-off. She told MPs in 2014: ‘I am accountable for delivery of the benefits of the programme.’

It saw the 35 existing probation trusts across England and Wales dissolved, with lower-risk offenders put in the care of 21 privately run Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), and the most dangerous inmates looked after by a new state-run National Probation Service. But the scheme has been a costly failure. The firms have been given far fewer offenders to supervise than they were promised, making them unviable as businesses. Some have laid off staff while others are planning to hold virtual meetings with criminals on Skype.

Bosses of the CRCs told MPs last month they will have to walk away from the deals they struck with the MoJ – worth £3.7 billion in total – unless they are renegotiated. Watchdogs have also highlighted problems in the new system, with HM Chief Inspector of Probation, Dame Glenys Stacey, warning last year that services in London have deteriorated ‘due to the poor performance of the CRC’ and the city is now ‘more at risk’.

Figures obtained by MPs show that since the new regime was introduced in February 2015, a total of 1,021 Serious Further Offence reviews have been carried out into crimes committed by prisoners on probation.

This newspaper can now reveal that the Prisons and Probation Minister, Sam Gyimah, has admitted the system is in need of a complete revamp just two years after it was introduced. In a recent letter to the Justice Select Committee, the Minister said the ‘comprehensive review’ of probation was ‘looking at all aspects of the system’ including the ‘contractual arrangements’ with CRCs.

He acknowledged a ‘key factor in the performance of the probation system’ has been the lower-than-expected numbers of offenders for CRCs to handle, ‘which have had an impact on CRC revenue and their ability to transform their businesses’.

Liz Saville Roberts, Plaid Cymru’s Justice spokesman, said: ‘It would be astonishing if senior officials responsible for these failings are now being put in charge of developing international trade agreements.’ 

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘We hold providers rigorously to account for their performance. ‘We are carrying out a comprehensive review of the probation system to make sure it is preventing future victims and will set out our plans for reform in due course.’ 

The Department for International Trade declined to comment.

--oo00oo--

As someone who lost my job because of this I can't believe what I'm reading. Two years on and people are still being let go. Blunt and Grayling booby trapped the deal by inserting massive penalty payments if the home office tried to reverse it. Something tells me that the massive outsourcing companies will have made sure that they had no such clauses on their side. Utterly sickening.

******

It is a pity that the DM and other newspapers did not properly report the destruction of probation in England and wales as it happened - then it might have been stopped. Sadly nobody, especially our MPs, would take any notice of people like me with thirty years front-line probation and prison experience.

******

Absolute disgrace. Private company Working Links CRC responsible for Devon, Dorset and Cornwall (DDC) taken over by asset strippers Aurelius. Up to 40% of staff to lose their employment. Caseloads doubled or tripled, morale down, sickness up and the companies still rubbing their hands. When is this Government going to waken up and smell what they are standing in. The review will, like everything else they touch, be a whitewash. Magistrates have no confidence in the new Companies as these companies are not represented in court.

******

And all that the Government had to do to get the offenders serving 12months or less supervised upon release would have been to give each Probation area a few thousand (probably less than a million per area) so that they could employ a few extra PSO's to provide the extra supervision. Problem solved. Millions if not billions saved.

******

The privatisation is so botched, that MTC Novo, the company that runs probation in London, failed to pay staff yesterday.

*******
Meant to say they weren't paid on Friday. Also the article lays the blame at Ms Romeo. It was Chris Grayling's and the Conservative's idea, she just implemented it. The country re-elected them and Theresa May promoted him in the cabinet.

Select Committee Special 4

The transcripts of evidence given to the Justice Committee on Tuesday in relation to their half-hearted inquiry into the TR omnishambles have been published and here we have that given by the unions:-

Witnesses: Ian Lawrence and Ben Priestley.

Q159 Chair: Mr Lawrence and Mr Priestley, thanks very much for coming to assist us with the inquiry. For the record, could you introduce yourselves and your organisation?

Ian Lawrence: My name is Ian Lawrence. I am the general secretary of NAPO, which is the trade union and professional association for probation and family court workers.

Ben Priestley: Good morning. My name is Ben Priestley. I am a national officer with Unison, a public sector trade union. We represent members working in both the National Probation Service and the 21 CRCs.

Keith Vaz: Chair, may I declare an interest? I am a member of Unison.

Q160 Chair: Thank you for mentioning that, Mr Vaz.

Gentlemen, there is a problem with transforming rehabilitation. It seems generally accepted that things are not going as people would wish and that there are difficulties and challenges. How do you think that has come about? Where does the responsibility lie? What caused us to get into this challenging situation, and what do you think is the way out of it, in a nutshell?

Ian Lawrence: We forecast some time ago that there would be difficulties with the programme, even though we felt that there were elements of it that were useful. We asked the MOJ to look carefully at the likely impacts. We felt that our representations fell on deaf ears. It was pushed through politically and expediently. Many of the problems that you see now are because of the haste with which it was implemented.

Q161 Chair: Did you raise those issues when it was brought in?

Ian Lawrence: Indeed we did. Secondly, the CRC estate and the owners of CRCs have had their own difficulties. It would not be fair to blame everything on them. There are a number of things that they could have done better, but the way the contracts were predicated has not helped matters.

Q162 Chair: Mr Priestley, what is your take on how it has come about?

Ben Priestley: It is very clear from the way our members feel about their work and what they have been through in the last two or three years that the blame for what has happened to probation must be laid at the door of the Government of the day. There was no support anywhere, from any organisation that had anything to do with the probation service, for the transforming rehabilitation reforms. There may have been some support among some of the private companies that hoped to benefit from it, presumably financially, but you would have been hard-pressed to find any other proponents of it. Some of the voluntary and charitable bodies that hoped to get some work out of it soon became disillusioned. As we now know, the vast majority of the work was hoovered up by large multinational outsourcing companies.

Ian mentioned the haste with which it was done. As Paul mentioned, the idea that you would take the existing budget and use it to expand the service quite radically to supervision of service users leaving prison after short-term sentences, at the same time as maintaining all the existing provision and making whatever profit or cut the private companies wanted, was always going to be a real difficulty.

There was no agreement between the Ministry of Justice and the trade unions about how the service was to be split. At the 11th hour, the trade unions were sitting around a table with the Government to sort out the split of the workforce, and the Ministry of Justice, in effect, torpedoed those talks. We ended up with a situation where an almost arbitrary 50:50 split was put in place and hurried through. That left the community rehabilitation companies with more staff than they needed, apparently, although we would probably contest that, and the National Probation Service with fewer staff. The companies that had inherited or bought the contracts then set about reducing their workforces by between 20% and 40%, centralising a lot of services. The reality was that they had to do what they did in order to make their cut, I guess, but the blame clearly has to be laid at the Government’s door.

Q163 Chair: Was there Ministry involvement in the talks where you discussed the split and so on? Was it just Government officials?

Ian Lawrence: Yes, but not for some months. It was a very frustrating experience.

Chair: Understood.

Q164 Mr Hanson: Welcome, colleagues. Following on from the Chair’s comments, do you think the Government were aware of the elements of risk in the proposal? You said that, in your view, the consequences are a result of Government policy and that there is some responsibility on the CRCs. The issues are about case load estimation, incentive design and through-the-gate resettlement. Was there an awareness by both parties—Government and CRCs—that there was a risk that some of those things could go wrong?

Ian Lawrence: I think the CRCs were misled, to be brutally honest with you, in terms of what the contracts were based on—the data on which they were based and the envelope in which they were expected to work financially. However, they bought the contracts in full knowledge of that. We urged the Ministry and the former Justice Secretary to run a pilot scheme before implementing it. We could have tested it thoroughly and seen what the pitfalls and the commercial aspects were. Everybody would have been better informed as a result.

Q165 Mr Hanson: Misled is a very strong term. Do you think they were inadvertently misled? Was it to do with the speed of the process and not thinking it through, or was there a genuine understanding that there were going to be problems, but once the contracts were signed it was up to CRCs to sort them out?

Ian Lawrence: Overwhelmingly, the view of our members, Mr Hanson, is that it was politically expedient.

Mr Hanson: Mr Priestley?

Ben Priestley: On the issue of the contracts, and what was or what wasn’t in them and the discussions that took place between the client—in this case, the Ministry of Justice—and the contractors, it is of course impossible for us to know. That is commercially confidential information that you may be able to get hold of, in your capacity here, but we cannot, because that information is denied to us, as indeed it is to the general public. That may remain a mystery forever more. What we now know is that there appears to have been a mismatch.

The difficulty that we now have—I am sure we will come back to this in relation to the probation system review—is the question of how that is to be resolved. Is it to be resolved simply by throwing more good public money after bad? I hope we get a chance to reflect on that, in particular. It would be very helpful if we were able to have a better insight into the commercial undertakings that were given, because at the moment it is a mystery.

Q166 Mr Hanson: Finally, do you think that the CRCs’ eyes should have been slightly wider open when they went into the contracts?

Ian Lawrence: We could only do our best to warn about the consequences. They had their own commercial agendas and different reasons for getting involved in the whole process—some of them quite honourable, I am sure. There was enough of a warning sign out there for them to pause and maybe question the MOJ a bit more about what they were purchasing.

Ben Priestley: What we know, as I mentioned, is that all the small and medium-sized enterprises fell away relatively quickly during the competition, probably for the reasons that Ian mentioned. They probably saw the writing on the wall. Two big multinational companies now run half the community rehabilitation companies. They captured that. Those of us who work in the field probably have the sense that those companies were taking on the contracts as a loss leader. As you are well aware, two large companies were barred from bidding, having been involved in some difficult relationships with the MOJ—in fact, Chris Grayling had relieved them of their contracts—so the field was slightly smaller than it would otherwise have been. There was a kind of “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” frame. They are companies that probably wanted to get into the field of rehabilitation. They are large companies, with very deep pockets. To that degree, they were probably willing to take the risk, even if they probably did not know at the time what the risks were.

Q167 Kate Green: Since transforming rehabilitation came in, we have seen a rise in the number of recalls as a result of offenders breaching supervision requirements. I wonder what your members are saying about what might be going on in the CRCs. On the one hand, are there deficiencies in the capacity to supervise properly? On the other hand, are CRCs disincentivised from breaching because of the payment-by-results model?

Ian Lawrence: There are a number of factors—far too many to cover in the time available. You have to look at a number of issues, principally case load. I may differ from previous witnesses on this, as our members say that case loads are increasing. It seems that there is an issue between the CRCs and the judiciary on the efficacy of the sentences handed out and the capacity of CRCs to undertake rehabilitation activity requirements, for example. There is anecdotal evidence that there is some pressure on people not to recall. I have yet to see it documented. Possibly, because of the financial pressures on the CRCs, they have to focus on their principal targets.

The key thing for us is the fundamental difficulty with the payment-by-results mechanism. That has to be addressed before you will start to make a difference in how things are done locally and in the NPS. At CRC level, we need urgent review of the funding mechanism, to allow CRCs to do what they contracted to do. They tell me that many of them are suffering a 30% or 40% decrease in income at the minute.

Ben Priestley: Recently, we did a very quick survey of our members. We did it partly in order to inform our appearance here, but we would be very happy to provide it to you, Chair, and I may touch on some of it elsewhere. The answer to your question around breaches is complicated, as Ian said, but one of the things that came through very clearly from our survey is that the CRCs cannot get the breaches into court in time, because of problems with staffing, delays in administrative systems and delays in IT. Once those breaches get into the system, they are rejected because they are simply out of time. That is something the Committee may want to look at in a little more detail. I do not have the detail of how that works, but you will be able to interrogate the community rehabilitation companies around it. Ian mentioned case load, which is clearly also a problem. I do not think that it is just about disincentives for the CRCs; it is about their administrative inability to get the paperwork to the courts in due time.

Q168 Kate Green: Are you picking up any pressure on your members from the CRCs to behave in a particular way?

Ian Lawrence: One of the pressures members report they are under is not to take annual leave when they want it. Many of them are under such pressure that they are working their own hours; they are working weekends in order to meet targets. You can understand that, as they have pride in what they do, but it cannot go on forever. It will not get the results that the CRCs or any provider wants if staff are driven into a stress situation.

Ben Priestley: I will quote an anonymous member. He or she says, “Constant changes in systems processes that rarely work. Everything takes twice as long. Ongoing IT problems that impact on ability to manage case load effectively. Poor communication with NPS at the point of sentence results in misallocation of cases and time delays in completing initial sentence plans. The emphasis appears to be on quantity and not quality. The whole organisation feels like it operates on a crisis basis, making things up as it goes along.” That is from a member working for a CRC. It goes on and on and on. That is a common refrain.

I would really like to get across to the Committee that for those who work in the service this is a heartbreaking situation. These are professionals who, in many cases, have worked for a considerable period of time in probation and have seen their organisation torn apart, in an experiment that nobody said would work. Frankly, everyone knew at the time that it would fail. All the evidence is there for the Committee to look at, in the words of warning that NAPO, Unison and others put forward.

Staff do not feel valued. They are under pressure, both in the National Probation Service and in the community rehabilitation companies. In fact, in the survey we have just completed, over 50% of National Probation Service staff say they never feel valued at work, which is higher than the percentage of community rehabilitation company staff—about 42%—who say that. It is a desperate time for our members. They really want their voice to be heard at this time.

Chair: If you could share that survey, where appropriate, we would be very grateful to you, Mr Priestley. That is great.

Q169 Victoria Prentis: Where do we go from here? Mr Priestley mentioned that you would like to see the contracts, effectively, with the commercial providers. How would that help you to plot the way forward?

Ian Lawrence: There has to be some accountability and better transparency about what has gone on and what the financial position is. I wrote in my blog to members the other day that it is about time that people came clean. Unless we know what the position is—yourselves, us, the NPS and contractors—we will never make things better. We could look back, but we want to look forward. We look forward to the probation and prisons merger perhaps changing the emphasis on rehabilitation. We agree that there are too many people in prison. Unless you want them back in prison, you have to do something tangible while they are in incarceration, but it is as important not to decrease the quality of standards outside—care in the community. You have to look at that holistically. That is the key element we want to see brought forward. Payment by results must change. Through the gate, which has been an abject and total failure, has to be put right—quickly.

Q170 Chair: What are the key things you would do to put through the gate right?

Ian Lawrence: There should be some clarity around what is expected, and there should be some funding. It is always down to money, isn’t it? As people have said, there should be a greater role for the third sector to be commissioned to provide services. That was the formula under the old trusts. You commissioned people to do things, and it worked. We want to see more of that.

Q171 Chair: It has been suggested that through the gate is really signposting, and not much more.

Ian Lawrence: It is £46 and a leaflet now, as opposed to 46 quid before. It is not good enough.

Ben Priestley: In relation to your question about the way forward, our concern is that the probation system review is looking at a sticking-plaster approach, in effect. It is not questioning the fundamental basis on which the contracts were let or the architecture that is now in place. From that point of view, as I mentioned earlier, it will probably involve throwing more good public money after bad. In effect, the companies have the Government over a barrel.

It is very rare for a Government to take a service back into public control. That could be done, if contracts fail, and there are contracts on the verge of failing. As other witnesses said, the probation inspectorate has delivered some quite strong statements in relation to public protection being at risk. At some point, the Government need to consider whether some contracts are not fit for purpose and need to be brought back into the public sector. As we understand it, the plan for that is that the National Probation Service would again take over ownership of the community rehabilitation company that was taken back into public control, as was the case when TR started out. They were managed by NOMS under those circumstances.

It goes further than that. These reforms have finished a job that Governments have done over a period of time—to reduce to a point of nothing local democratic control of probation. As the probation committees became probation boards, became probation trusts and became community rehabilitation companies, all the last vestiges of local authority influence and control were withdrawn, to the point where, clearly, there is now no local interest. It is no longer a local service.

Probation is a local service; it is not a national service. Unison would encourage the Committee to interview police and crime commissioners and chief constables. A few months ago, I was at a conference of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, where I sat at a table with chief constables and police and crime commissioners. All of them, to a person, were saying that transforming rehabilitation has failed. One chief constable said, “I have just rearrested our most prolific burglar for the 50th time. What is TR doing here?”

There is a view among many police and crime commissioners that the oversight of these contracts, at least in the interim, should accrue to them. We know that Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, has gone in on the task force that the MOJ sent into the ailing London contract, following the inspectorate’s report before Christmas, but he has said, “If it can’t be turned around, I want control of probation in London.” That must be right. Unison’s view is that we must revert to local democratic control. Probation is a local service. It has good links with local statutory providers, all of which have been totally fragmented.

Q172 John Howell: The Government are reviewing transforming rehabilitation. How would you assess the process they are going through?

Ian Lawrence: It is not as transparent as I would have hoped. NAPO provided detailed evidence to the probation service review. We have had some discussion with Ministers, which was helpful up to that point, but now, nearly two years on, we really ought to know a little more about what the Ministry is planning and what the problems are—what we have been touching on today. There should be some indication of what we could put in place to make things better.

We have talked quite a bit about payment by results. That is just one aspect. Colleagues have talked about a licence to practise. NAPO certainly declares an interest there and supports the concept, because we are extraordinarily concerned at the erosion of professional standards, both in the NPS and in the CRCs. Whatever you put right still needs a skilled and efficient workforce to make it work. Those are areas where we think the review could do some things.

There should be transparency on the financial position of the contractors. Many of them say, “We’re not going to tell you this because it is commercial and in confidence, and our competitors might get an idea.” Well, many of them are in difficulty. Let’s be clear about that. Let’s be honest. Let’s start with a clean sheet about where people are. Let’s see how much money is required to make emergency resolutions and let’s look at things in the medium to long term.

We had been told that the review you spoke about, Mr Howell, was due to reach some interim conclusions last October. The Minister said there weren’t any. If the Minister says there aren’t any, there weren’t any, but I would have expected some. The review needs to report, and soon. I urge the Committee to look very carefully at its conclusions. As Ben said, we will be happy to provide further evidence in any area you choose.

Q173 John Howell: Apart from the things you have already mentioned in the course of this interview, what would you like to see included in or excluded from the review?

Ian Lawrence: There must be a fundamental look at where contracts have totally failed. Maybe I do not come at this in quite the same way as Ben. Piecing it all back together would be a mammoth task. Whether the NPS itself is capable of taking it all back is another thing. I am told by a CRC, in reliable evidence, that even if it gets through the current contract and does not get any more service credits—fines for non-delivery—it will be £15 million down at the end of the contract. That has to be cause for concern. That is just one; I do not know what the rest of them are like. I do not see that that justifies what has happened. I think something particularly important must happen in that respect.

Ben Priestley: As I mentioned before, the problem is that the focus of the probation system review is very constrained. It is looking at allocation, payment mechanisms, through the gate, performance, financial and commercial health—presumably of the CRCs—and contract management. It is looking just to mend a system that many people think is fundamentally broken. I do not think there is any chance of any of us being able to persuade the Ministry of Justice to widen the scope of the review. It is to do a very limited job of saving the contracts in the short term, to allow them to limp through—presumably until they get to the end of the seven years. At that point, we hope there will be a fundamental re-examination by the Government of the day of how to put right the manifest failings of the system.

Q174 Keith Vaz: Morale must be at an all-time low for the probation service. However, in all the time that I have been in politics, morale has been very low in the service. Is it lower than ever before?

Ian Lawrence: I would say that it is now. I do not know whether it is universal, right across the estate. There will be people who could show you otherwise. I can only go on the reports we receive from our members—the feedback I get when I am out and about in the field, talking to people. It is low because they feel de-professionalised. It is also low because of something completely different, which I will mention, if I may: the lack of investment in staff. Probation practitioners are among the lowest-paid public servants, on a professional basis, that you will find anywhere.

Q175 Keith Vaz: Could you remind the Committee how much a newly qualified probation officer gets?

Ian Lawrence: Into the low 20,000s. Even a skilled practitioner—

Q176 Keith Vaz: What is the low 20,000s?

Ian Lawrence: I would need to look up the exact figure. It is about 23 or 24k.

Q177 Keith Vaz: That is after a university degree and training.

Ian Lawrence: Indeed.

Q178 Keith Vaz: Mr Priestley, don’t you think the Government have a point? If you look at the figures, you would expect a service that is professional to have delivered better outcomes as far as rehabilitation is concerned. To me, the probation officer is the critical part of the criminal justice system. When people come out of prison, you want to make sure that they do not go back. Ken Clarke and other Lord Chancellors have been saying this for years and years. Do you accept that there is some responsibility on those who have had to deliver the Government’s agenda over a period of time, under successive Governments, that it has not been delivered and therefore they had to do something pretty radical? I am not saying that that is my view. I am just putting the view that they had to do something, and this is what they have done.

Ben Priestley: All the evidence is that successive Governments have sought to meddle with the probation service. It is not politically influential. This would never have happened to the police service. The police service would never have been split in two, with half of it privatised.

Q179 Keith Vaz: If you asked the Police Federation, I am not sure that they would agree with you after what has happened in the last six years, but never mind.

Ben Priestley: Probation has always been the fall guy, because it has been a relatively small institution and it was local. It was an easy target, in a sense. All the evidence was that, pre-TR, the probation service was performing well. It needed a period of stability, after a lot of change over many years. Of course, that is exactly what we have not had over the last three or four years.

Q180 Keith Vaz: Yes, but Ministers want results, don’t they? The figures show that people who have been on probation are going back to jail. They expect to see a decline in the number of people going to jail, because of the money that they are spending. That has not happened, has it? Something has gone wrong.

Ben Priestley: It has, but it has gone wrong in the whole system. If we were to attach performance targets to the Prison Service, it would be a manifest failure, given the fact that so much recidivism happens. All the blame for that cannot be laid at the door of the probation service, as the Government might like to do. The Prison Service itself is failing, and has failed for many years. It is a failing institution. There are plans to reform it now. Maybe those will help it to work.

In relation to your point about morale, as Ian said, it is incredibly low. Staff are desperate for a period of stability and calm, in order that they can get on and do their jobs properly.

Q181 Keith Vaz: How many people do you represent between you?

Ian Lawrence: Ten thousand or 11,000.

Q182 Keith Vaz: Do you think that there is a case for your adopting an alternative plan? There you have the professionals, as your members. Why are you waiting for Government to do things? If you have an alternative plan, why don’t you put forward one that is properly costed and that will deliver for the Government what they and the public want: a reduction in the number of people going back to prison? That must be the kernel—the most important part—of the probation service. Take them into the community, get them back into civilian life and make sure that they do not go back to jail.

Ian Lawrence: We agree entirely. Our services are at your disposal in that regard. We have any number of experts who can come up with solutions.

Q183 Keith Vaz: Why are you waiting for us? Why don’t you go off and get your plan?

Ian Lawrence: Mr Vaz, you have a position of authority here. You can order inquiries; I cannot. You can go to the Minister and say things that I would like to say, but probably cannot. You are in that position. Let’s face one fact. We see 40,000 more people who have been on short-term sentences now than we saw before TR. There has been no extra money for that anywhere. That might explain why people are in the recidivism cycle. We want to stop that. We have solutions and suggestions.

Q184 Keith Vaz: So you can put those solutions and suggestions forward to this Committee and to the Government.

Ian Lawrence: We can certainly do that.

Q185 Keith Vaz: In a coherent, funded way.

Ian Lawrence: As best we can, in terms of funding, given the limited access that we have to financial figures.

Q186 Keith Vaz: Finally, could you pass on my thanks to the members of the probation service? Probation officers do a fantastic job, under huge pressure. They need to be commended for what they have done and what they continue to do every single day.

Ian Lawrence: That is appreciated.

Q187 Philip Davies: If we listened to your evidence in isolation, we would think that everything was hunky-dory in the probation service before transforming rehabilitation came to pass, and that the service was flawless before that. That was not the case, was it? You gave the illustration of a police officer’s frustration at arresting a burglar for the 50th time. The police have been complaining about that for donkey’s years—long before transforming rehabilitation. The probation service was a bit of a shambles before all of this, wasn’t it? This has not created a shambles. The probation service had a long catalogue of failures long before this came into place, didn’t it?

Ian Lawrence: You can look at the failures, as you describe them, Mr Davies, and at the failures since. It would make for interesting reading. None of us here would suggest that the probation service, as was, was utterly flawless. What it had done was reduce reoffending to the best level for 10 years. That does not mean that you would not get incidents occurring of the type that you have no doubt experienced. It goes back to our suggestion that there are too many people in the system anyway. People who ought not to be incarcerated ought to be given the opportunity of reparation that works for the community. If there is a failure, it is that things like unpaid work have not been properly supervised or funded. In many cases, it is even worse now. That goes some way towards explaining it. I do not agree with your analysis that it was a shambles before. Sorry.

Ben Priestley: I agree with Ian. I think that misrepresents the case and the hard work, skill and expertise of staff who, for not very large salaries, do a very difficult job. The problem, as I mentioned, is that the probation service has to work in the context of a criminal justice system that is not delivering. This is not just a spotlight on probation; it needs to be a spotlight on the whole criminal justice system. The evident failure of the prison system to rehabilitate offenders has been a national scandal for many years. We cannot address those issues without looking at it as a whole. There has not been a really fundamental review. Hopefully, the work that this Committee is doing around what we hope will become a formal inquiry will be very important in resetting an agenda for probation in the widest sense, taking into account the prison system as well. I have to defend the skill, expertise and commitment of staff who work for the probation service. It was not a failure before. Unfortunately, in many respects, it is a failure now.

Q188 Philip Davies: Stephen Ayre was a convicted murderer who was released from prison and, as a result of the shambles of the probation service, abducted and raped a 10-year-old boy in my constituency. Not much skill and expertise there, was there? That was long before transforming rehabilitation. There are endless such cases. Please don’t come here and give the impression that the probation service was absolutely brilliant, with all these experts, and all of a sudden it is a shambles. You are making a political point. It is not really backed up by the evidence, is it?

Ian Lawrence: Serious further offences have always occurred. They still do. It would be interesting to see an analysis comparing the horrendous types of crimes that you describe pre-TR and the similar sorts of things that are going on now. Then you could make a rational judgment about how good or bad we were. SFOs occur. Our issue around the current system is that many of the CRCs have been forced to put in place operational models that could make the incidents that you described even more frequent. That ought to be a cause of concern for all of you. One thing that the probation service review ought to do is call in those operational models, because that is an area where we can have input. It is not about a campaign of hatred against the CRCs; it is about making things work. That is what we would like you to help us to do.

Chair: Thank you very much.

Q189 Jo Stevens: We have heard from you this morning about the review that is going on and the fact that there are no interim findings yet. Last week, we heard from MTCnovo and Interserve about the fact that they had not been able to shed as many jobs as they had hoped, although we have seen a decline of between 20% and 40% in the CRCs. How concerned are you that, if the situation continues and we do not see the conclusion of the review, more jobs will be shed from CRCs during that period?

Ian Lawrence: Massively concerned. We had big issues with the number—the quantum figure—of staff cuts that were made by the CRC owners. In some cases, it was up to 40%. We have issues around the way that was discussed—or not discussed—with the unions, and the way in which some people were given voluntary redundancy payments, but some were not. There is a whole panoply of issues.

Let us look forward a little. We want to engage with the CRC owners, but as I said earlier and say again—no apologies—let us have some honesty about where they are and where we are coming from. You cannot keep reducing staff at the level it has been carried out, and with the intentions I have heard of, and have a service that is fit for purpose. You will have plenty more issues like the ones Mr Davies raised. Already people are seriously stretched. That is why funding must be uppermost in the Government’s considerations, to stop the rot. We are in trouble.

Ben Priestley: We are already dealing with companies that are thinking about the second tranche of redundancies, voluntary exits and so on. I expect that an element of that is sabre rattling in advance of the commercial negotiations that they are going to have with the Government; but, as Ian said, when our members in the CRCs are telling us that workloads are currently unsustainable, we are extremely concerned by the idea that further staff can be shed. In the recent survey that we did, 41% of our members in community rehabilitation companies said that their workload was never manageable at any point during the working week; so, there has to be real concern if more staff leave.

It is not just the staff who have left; it is the fact that a lot of the admin and clerical functions were centralised by many of those companies in remote hubs in different parts of the country. That has caused administrative delays and frustrations to staff, who then have to take on responsibility themselves for carrying out some of those administrative functions. It is an added burden to someone who is trying to do his or her work as a practitioner—as a probation service officer or a probation officer—to have to do the admin work as well.

The MOJ knew that those models were in place. It signed them off. That is what we are always told. The companies say, “This is the model that we told the Government we were going to do. They were absolutely fine with it, so you have to live with it.” It is a problem.

Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your evidence, your time and the offer to provide further information. It is much appreciated.

Morale in the CRCs

On top of everything else, it's difficult to imagine what it must feel like not to get paid on time, but this is the nightmare currently being suffered by colleagues working for the London CRC. I gather feelings ran so high yesterday that there was widespread talk of a mass walk-out and certainly there was much anger expressed on Facebook:-

"No pay for me either. They work us like dogs each month meeting this target and that target and don't even have the decency to pay us. Shameful disgusting."

"I can't even tell you how angry I am. Every month this year I have been fighting with payroll. If not for me, for my staff."

"Oh shit, I went out and did weekly shop and bought xxxxxx today...... that means I'm overdrawn. I'm sending the overdraft fee to CRC. No way I'm paying when it wasn't my fault."

--oo00oo--

TO ALL LONDON CRC MEMBERS

Napo has been notified by MTC Novo that wage payments have been delayed. We understand they are still seeking to identify the source of the problem and get this addressed and have undertaken to notify staff later today with an update.

Napo has formally responded to MTC Novo via Amanda Jackson. Our response has asked MTC to afford reassurance to staff as soon as possible that full support will be given to anyone who suffers any detriment as a consequence of the late payment, such as meeting any additional bank charges.

Napo’s experience from supporting members in similar situations elsewhere has been that banks and building societies are much more understanding if organisations fail to pay staff than may have historically been the case. We would also expect the situation to be resolved reasonably quickly.

Once the payments have been made we will of course be seeking a full explanation from MTC Novo and reassurance that this is not going to be repeated.

We hope this offers reassurance. Look out for further Napo updates.

Yours sincerely,

Dean Rogers
Assistant General Secretary, Napo

--oo00oo--

From: Xxxxx, Xxxxx On Behalf Of Swidenbank, Helga
Sent: 31 March 2017 14:24
Subject: March payroll - important update
Importance: High

Dear colleagues 

March 2017 Payroll 

It came to my attention early this morning that London CRC staff did not receive salary payments today as anticipated. Due to a technical error, the timing of London CRC’s March salary payments are now one working day late; that is Monday 3 April 2017. 

I am very aware of the strain this places on individuals and your personal finances. My priority has been to minimise this and to ensure that your salaries land into your accounts today. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, it is now clear will not be able to achieve that outcome. 

To this end, I have had an assurance from MTCnovo that any direct debit charges or such like will be reimbursed. Further information about how to do this will be provided to you on Monday. 

We recognise that some colleagues may need emergency loans to bridge financial commitments, therefore, we are providing a facility to allow for this. If you would like to use this facility, please contact the HR helpdesk on 01XXX XXXXXX before 4.30 pm today. They are standing by to help and offer advice. If you call the HR helpdesk after this time, you will be given an alternative number to call until 8pm today. 

Please accept my sincere apologies for any inconvenience or anxiety this may have caused you or your families.

--oo00oo--

David Raho writing on Facebook:-

Thank you Xxxxxx there were a lot of Napo people working together today to advise members, negotiate a support, and to explain to employers difficulties that have been caused and impress upon them the urgency of sorting matters out as expeditiously as possible. I understand that the problem is being addressed and every effort is being made by the employers to ensure that pay will only be one working day late.

Obviously this situation was unanticipated and National Napo responded swiftly when contacted escalating matters appropriately as did members of the branch executive who sprang into action doing their bit. Both myself and Dean Rogers are on annual leave (I'm in Scotland) however the matter received our full attention as an urgent priority and everything else was put to one side no matter what else we were doing or had planned.

In situations like this I am very glad that I am in a union and I have such reliable union colleagues to call upon who I know will step in and support their colleagues (whether members or not) but of course members will get ongoing assistance and support whereas non member colleagues cannot expect union assistance.

There are actually lots of things that might go wrong that usually happen fairly reliably such as payment. As union representatives we work with employers to try to head them off before they become a bigger problem.

--oo00oo--

What about other CRCs?

Apologies, but I need to comment on Rob Allen's piece yesterday and I want him to provide evidence to support the 'ray of light' coming from DTV CRC, particularly the high level of staff morale. 

He shouldn't believe the myth peddled by senior management to NOMs and our board of directors, that the operational model was developed by staff. I took part in a workstream and although some of the suggestions and solutions were carried forward, this was mainly a patronising exercise for the benefit of the NOMS commissioning team. 

The Trust introduced community hubs in 2011, our clients reported there when they were deemed ready to do so. Due to a refusal to recruit and an agenda to undermine staff, the hubs were virtually run by volunteers with a checklist and did not deliver the one-stop service which was planned. As a result of TR, the CRC withdrew from all of the offices almost immediately and all of our clients report to hubs, whatever the need or risk. They are based in churches and community centres, some are OK, but the fundamental basis of rehabilitation assisted by the one to one relationship that is supported in desistence theory, is not possible. Conversations are restricted, when you are sat a couple of feet away from another client. 

The HMIP report last August indicated serious concerns about the effectiveness of the model and the lack of supervision of staff due to the reduction in line managers, only four for the whole area. Morale was thought to be high, but staff were briefed well and only a small number were spoken to. We are managed by self-serving directors and staff stay at home and work on their laptops, teams are fragmented and line managers are struggling to cope. Fear has been engendered by the underhand way managers who care about staff and the service we deliver are being gradually picked off. 

Worryingly, factual evidence from the NPS court team reports embarrassing moments in court when they have to try and explain to magistrates why there is no record of attendance for months and they cannot get hold of the OMs. Why is this not being picked up by managers, staff are clearly struggling or perhaps have given up.

We have a 'fun committee' and you can measure exactly how high staff morale is when you consider that an event organised for the summer was abandoned due to lack of interest. A recent event was threatened by cancellation until it was opened up to partners. Very few staff apart from those under pressure, actually attended. How do you justify an expensive event with wine on the table, where did the money come from, when we are allegedly 'cash-strapped'?

Our plight is no worse than other areas, what we do has changed beyond recognition, our service has been destroyed, staff try their best to deliver effective interventions in difficult circumstances, those who still care, support each other. Tell me Rob Allen, where your evidence comes from? You have clearly believed the hype our highly paid directors are pushing to anyone who will listen, perhaps to save their own necks.

******
Dear Working Links,

Please may we cordially request that you get your shit together! You have got rid of 40% of staff and even more have left since, of their own accord with no pay out because of shambolic mis-management. If you can't keep young, fairly newly qualified PO's, then something is going badly wrong! You appear to be cutting staffing to the bone by playing a game of 'let's see how much they can tolerate of our crap before they quit'. Soon it will be like the prisons, with only the offenders left in charge. 

You have moved us all from office to office and now continue to move to wherever you can get as cheap a rent as possible, frequently in places that are not fit for purpose and that exclude staff who have or may develop mobility issues..we are walking out into dark alleyways in dangerous areas because there is no longer allocated parking. IT is crap and can't even do the basics. One office in SW has no working computers or phones and staff need to find another broom cupboard to work from in a hurry. Offenders don't know who is supervising them because staff keep leaving or going off sick. 

JW Director has the cheek to reprimand us for going to the press and says there is a perfectly good system in place for reporting concerns! Bollocks...that is a blatant lie. Staff only do this when they have no where else to turn. The system is groaning and creaking at the seams as we struggle to cope. We get no encouragement or thanks for the work we do, no acknowledgement that we are trying our best in the most challenging situation our profession has ever faced. 

Offenders are dying in prison and dying in the community because services are overstretched. We have become the dumping ground for the poor wretches that Society doesn't want..Victorian language for Victorian times. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find the last flea infested pit to house someone in because housing is in crisis. Most of our cases have significant mental health problems and complex issues such as being survivors of abuse. We are in way above our heads now and need support from our managers and someone to steer the ship, yet there is no one to be seen, just the spectre of Working Links with their carrot and stick approach..or maybe just the stick as I can't think what the carrot is!

Please get your shit together Working Links and save yourselves a massive fine!

Yours Truly

'Your People' LOL