Stating the Obvious

Taking advantage of a lull in the Napo General Secretary election, I've just noticed another of those really irritating briefing papers from the cottage industry spawned by the privatisation of public services. 

I might be a tad grumpy admittedly, but written by a young enthusiastic analyst, it just states the bleedin obvious that's come about due to privatisations and cutbacks in said public services. As far as I recall, in the wake of 'Care in the Community', the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester said years ago that he 'didn't employ coppers any more, just social workers'.  

Busy Bobbies?

How non-crime demand is impacting on the police

What's the fuss?

"Not the kind of shift we were expecting: 3 hospital guards, safeguarding an elderly lady, safeguarding a vulnerable child, a high risk missing 12 year old." The words of a nurse? Social worker? In fact a tweet from a Devon and Cornwall police officer just a few weeks ago, illustrating the sheer breadth of calls on police time. 'Non-crime’ demand is in the spotlight as many ask whether the police is the right service to be dealing with some of these issues.

Police and Crime Commissioners stress the impact the change is having on their ability to plan and deliver what the public need and expect. However, despite the concern of policing leaders, there is not yet a coherent picture about how much time and resource ‘non-crime’ demand is taking up, which have allowed some questionable myths to emerge about how the police spend their time. Clearly it's not enough to just count calls to the police - a domestic abuse case will take infinitely more resource than a vehicle offence. So what is the best way to do it? Crest has been testing the narrative that policing is increasingly the victim of 'mission creep’ - picking up demand as a 24/7 public service of last resort. What we have found is something more complex.

Why is it so hard?

The task of understanding police crime and non-crime demand is challenging for three reasons:

1. understanding demand means quantifying police activity. The evolving brief of police activity and the insufficient quality of police data make this difficult;

2. understanding police demand means taking into account hidden, or latent demand, which is, by definition, difficult to measure;

3. police demand means different things to different people depending on their perception of the mission of the police.

What is non-crime demand?

Our first task was to define what non-crime police demand actually was. Real life is complicated and the line between 'crime' and ‘non-crime’ demand is inevitably blurred. Nonetheless, working with police teams and policy specialists, we developed a list of the most common social issues triggering urgent police response, which did not necessarily relate to a specific crime. Issues included: mental health, alcohol abuse, drug addiction, homelessness and a large proportion of anti-social behaviour. Below we will look at some of them in detail.

Mental health related demand

Having been perceived as the 'cinderella service' for many decades, mental health is now recognised as an issue of national importance. An estimated 1 in 4 people experience mental health problems each year in the United Kingdom, so it is unsurprising that the police deal with people experiencing mental health crises in the most extreme situations. Furthermore, the Royal College of Psychiatrists have reported that as many as 9 out of 10 prisoners report some kind of mental health problem, which implies that those entering the criminal justice system (CJS) also disproportionately experience mental health issues.

Measuring mental health related demand is challenging. Police officers regularly report that they are dealing with individuals going through a mental health crisis instead of mental health professionals. Yet, there is currently no nationally consistent data on mental health related incidents the police have responded to.

Data does show that the total number of detentions under the Mental Health Act (1983) in England increased by 30 per cent between 2011/12 and 2015/16. Demand is going up as the number of self harm and attempted suicides have been increasing. We also know that the clinical provision for treating mental health crises has decreased, both in hospital and in the community. Adding grist to the mill, many also say that it can be simpler to access emergency treatment for mental health via the police. Crest's research has found some evidence to support this. When the police are called by the public in the event of mental health crises and attend, they act as a conduit for vulnerable people to then have access to treatment and care. Police respond to emergencies when other services do not. All of which has serious consequences: for the public who may need support from mental health professionals and do not get it; and for the police, who experience a drain on their resources that are already under significant pressure.

Missing children

Consistently emotive, the issue of missing children (many of whom are looked after by local authorities) is increasingly making the headlines, thanks to the growing interest in the phenomenon of 'county lines'. Our research shows that the majority of this type of demand is driven by children who go missing regularly, for example up to twice a week every week. It appears that demand on the police has increased significantly since 2016, when a new policy was introduced highlighting that every missing child should be considered at risk of harm.

The guidance issued to police officers states that although responsibility is ultimately shared, the police are entitled to expect parents and carers, including staff acting in a parenting role in care homes, to accept normal parenting responsibilities and undertake reasonable actions to try and establish the whereabouts of the individual.

In the case of local authorities with parental responsibility over looked after children, evidence from police officers suggests that care homes often call 999 when the child is late, even if their whereabouts are known and it is suspected the child is not at reasonable risk of harm. Moreover, our data suggests a small number of 'repeat cases' drive a large volume of total demand. Often, the police are called in to deal with the symptom of a missing child. Meanwhile, no one is addressing the cause of repeated behaviour.

When resources are stretched on all sides, there is a strong argument for police resources to be focused on cases where children are at serious risk. Crest's research reveals that police forces are regularly called upon to pick up children who are hanging out with friends a few streets away. For looked after children, care homes report lack of (legally regulated) authority or lack of staff in order to carry out basic local searches themselves.

In the case of those who go missing regularly, there may be a strong case for police intervention, particularly when a pattern emerges in which it is suspected that children are coming into contact with peers or adults who groom them, either to be part of a ‘gang’, or as prey to child sexual exploitation. However, the sheer volume of demand facing the police means this kind of analysis may be under-explored, leaving children vulnerable.

Redirecting demand?

It is a hard fact - police pick up emergency demand where others do not or cannot. Whilst the police will always need to respond to situations where mental health, addictions and other social issues are playing a part, Crest's work with police forces shows they are also picking up crisis demand where other, more appropriate, public services are not able to respond.

Here lies the crux of the debate: are the police doing what we, as a society, need and want it to do? If we decide that the police should be the emergency service of last resort, then the workforce and systems will have to adapt. If we think there is a better way to respond to (for example) mental health crises and missing looked after children, then all of the public services need to pull together in the same direction.

Crest’s research into non-crime demand and its impact on the police will be published in the coming weeks. With resources across the public sector, including the police, still under serious pressure, prioritisation and collaboration will be key to ensuring resources reach those at greatest risk of harm. To find our more about our research in this area visit the project page or get in touch.

--oo00oo--

About Crest

We are a team of policy, communications and brand specialists who care about building safer communities. We work with organisations across multiple sectors – helping them think, speak and act more clearly to improve criminal justice and policing. Unafraid to challenge, we take time to understand your needs and offer the right blend of support for you to navigate change and drive success.

Why are we different?

Because we know criminal justice and policing inside out, we provide bespoke advice tailored to your needs, rather than generic solutions. Our range of skills, perspectives and networks also means we are able to offer a unique blend of insight, analysis, communications and brand expertise. And with a team based across the UK, we are able to work alongside you in your communities.

About Harvey Redgrave, Managing Director

One of the UK’s leading experts on crime and justice policy, Harvey brings a wealth of experience from a decade spent working in government, academia and parliament. Prior to joining Crest, Harvey spent four years advising on home affairs policy for the Labour Party and was a deputy director at the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, where he led several major strategic reviews on behalf of a series of UK prime ministers affecting policy reform.

With overall responsibility for the performance of the business, Harvey also oversees Crest’s work on strategy and insight. With experience managing large teams, Harvey also works with government and law enforcement organisations to build strategic capability. Harvey is dedicated to putting effective policy into practice for a safer society.

Key achievements

Designed and delivered justice devolution strategies for six police and crime commissioners and co-authored the Police and Crime Plan for Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London

Commissioned by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change to lead TBI’s policy work on home affairs and immigration

Led major strategic reviews for the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit leading to changes in policy and practice, including troubled families (2011), police reform (2010, 2009), organised crime (2009), youth offending (2008) and mental health (2008)

Completed research on international organised crime as a Fulbright Scholar for Harvard University.

General Secretary Election 15

Hi Jim,

I thought a contribution for the weekend would be an opportunity to move the debate on a little. There seems a lot of apathy, disillusionment and waning enthusiasm both for the fights ahead, the current election and the Union itself. I do sympathise with your readers’ views but if I’m honest this is exactly why I wanted to stand for the role of Napo GS, I know given the opportunity that I can reinvigorate the membership, I did this with the POA and I’m confident that I can do this again with Napo whilst recognising things will be vastly different.

I know that I would only be the post holder of the role if successful and that the members always come above the personalities in terms of what the union’s direction should be. I have seen and met many people in senior roles within unions that start to believe they are more important than the union or its members after a period of time, then as time passes and when the end comes near they become desperate and frantic to hold onto power stooping to any level in which to retain their role twisted and bitter at the thought of losing a comfortable salary and accustomed life style. This is certainly the reason in my opinion why the POA attempted to place a ban on me re-standing for elected posts for 9 years following last year’s election and for which I successfully challenged. Ultimately I know this was mainly down to my popularity with members, their knowledge that I would try to give it my all in pursuit of their issues and this became a threat to their own positions should I have decided to stand against them.

I am not looking at this role as a lifeline for my finances; in fact I have been offered two jobs that have paid more in the last year and thanks to the 30% increase in overtime rates which were negotiated on my watch with me leading for the POA. Many of my colleagues are earning in excess of the salary that I would start on simply sitting with Prisoners at hospital a couple of times a week; this is not me belittling some of the concerns around pay just a simple fact. Similarly I am also not seeing this role as a forever job, 5 – 10 years is sufficient time for any leader to try and make things happen and if you haven’t seen any success in that time then something is obviously wrong, eventually you run out of ambition, ideas and usefulness. There is a shelf life of any trade union representative and you need to recognise that yourself without trying to grip onto power offering much of the same, sadly many fail to see this.

I’m not trying to deliberately attack anyone with my views in this post but if I’m honest…what is left for Napo? Falling membership, deteriorating conditions both financially and in working conditions for most members, and no light at the end of the tunnel. Whoever leads Napo forward needs to do so with a clear sense of unity, communication, transparency, they must be honest about the issues faced and be prepared to face each adversity head on with vigour and enthusiasm. Spouting rhetoric which is not followed up by actions will not achieve anything but further apathy and disappointment. I believe Napo must act, and act soon or it really will be the final curtain call in a couple more years. I personally don’t want to see this happen, a Union with a proud history, a history that dates back over 100 years will be easy pickings for a larger union looking to increase their own membership, but then where will be the individual voice for probation staff, for court staff for the probation board in Northern Ireland?

One thing I know for certain is that I will not be everyone’s cup of tea, I will challenge the age old perceptions on how business for the union should be done, I will come into conflict with opposing views and I will be dogged and determined in ensuring that my views on strategy and taking the union forward will be heard and acted upon. If you want this for your Union then the choice is simple, if you want more of the same then also your choice is simple.

Many questions have been raised during this debate about what my views are on certain issues and what I will say is that everything will be up for review if you elect me. During my time as National Chair of the POA I not only acted on longstanding issues such as pay and pension by controlling the narrative of all stakeholders through media pressure earning the public support needed to pressurise politicians, I thought outside of the box threatening to take control of all Prisons to ensure staff safety and I was fully prepared to put my neck on the line by coming out of the shadows and not just hiding and running every time the temperature was turned up, this enabled me and my team to achieve positive negotiated outcomes. But the job didn’t end there I also looked internally at the union itself, I made necessary cuts to expenditure that did not affect members’ services, I stopped the employed staff having too much sway on NEC decisions, I told other executive members that if they did not have the stomach to see through the fight then they could go home and I would accept that as their own resignation, I created new routes to communication and I was not afraid to ensure that we spent money even if it was lost money in defending individual members and the collective in tribunals and legal settings, all of this I believe Napo members need to see also.

So you have your choice to make, I may well be too much for some of you and you may be absolutely terrified of me winning this election, but if you do select me then you will have someone who will not take that personally and seek to isolate you and your opinions, you will have someone who will debate you and respect your rights to have different views from myself and someone that I’m convinced you will learn to respect because I stand by my word and I also do so with principles and with the acknowledgement that the responsibility of continued failure will rest at my feet.

Kind regards

Mike Rolfe

General Secretary Election 14

As ballot papers are in the process of being prepared for posting out to Napo members nationwide, I thought it might be helpful to summarise what I understand the position to be so far:-

• This is a vital election and the very survival of Napo as an independent union is at stake 
• There are two candidates
• Many members feel the selection and election process is deeply flawed and favours the incumbent candidate
• London, by far the largest branch, decided not to nominate either candidate and were vociferous in criticising the process
• Branches were prevented from meeting the candidates as both had to be available 
• Despite the alternative candidate providing dates for possible branch meetings, none proved possible to arrange  
• In total 8 branches made no nomination
• 2 branches could not reach a decision to nominate  
• The NEC was closely divided in making a decision to nominate the incumbent candidate
• The incumbent candidate was nominated by 10 branches and the NEC
• The alternative candidate was nominated by 3 branches
• The incumbent candidate refuses to acknowledge this blog
• The alternative candidate has sought to engage fully both with the blog and directly with members 
• Only full members of Napo have a vote, ie not retired or Professional Associate members
• As the incumbent candidate has served a full contracted 5 year term there would be no financial cost to the union should they fail to win a further term

So, a noticeable deafening silence from large sections of the union; a significant lack of enthusiasm for the current General Secretary and a growing sense that it's time for change?   

General Secretary Election 13

Hi Jim,

I have found myself regularly checking in on the posts on the blog from the time I get out of the Prison and have access to the internet and there have been some interesting debates on the General Secretary election. I hope you will not have any issues with me using this forum to convey my message of thanks for the nominations that I received in order to officially be included onto the ballot paper for which members can cast their votes.

I find myself in what I would consider as an unusual position of having to use this forum to convey my gratitude as I have been informed from the start of the process that Napo election rules prevent me from accessing any member details or from using official Napo channels to promote any message to members. Similarly, as stated in a previous post, I am unable to attend any branch unless an ‘unofficial’ meeting is convened where both candidates are available to attend and at the expense of the branch. Obviously this applies to both candidates.

I was buoyed in learning today that three branches had nominated me, I have had contact from Napo HQ about attending branch meetings and had provided my availability but for reasons unknown to me no dates were able to be agreed, therefore achieving three nominations seems to me to be somewhat of a success given the circumstances. I also understand that it was close in several other branches and that some areas that made no nomination may well have supported my candidacy. 

Obviously it would have been nice to have also achieved the support of the NEC following the individual interviews and I congratulate Ian in achieving the NEC support although I understand that it was also quite a close call which again I was buoyed about having had no brief as to exactly what I was expected to present or what questions may come up when attending Napo HQ. I would therefore obviously expect that Ian would have a greater knowledge of the current issues facing members having been directly involved and in the position of GS for the last 5 years, however I want to be clear I am definitely not a defeatist and I believe that nominations alone will not necessarily reflect the desire for change amongst the wider membership that I have encountered and have been made aware of. So therefore I urge members to get involved and make sure that they use their vote in the direction that they believe will best take Napo forward, whether that be with continuity or to take a chance on change on something new with the belief that the public profile can be raised and that with renewed energy, passion and belief things can be changed for the better.

The ballot papers will now be issued with presumably the same election statement that I was required to send in before attending the first selection panel back in May. Whilst this reflects my views at the time of writing over a month ago I have read and learnt much both from this forum, from members and from reading more and more Napo publications that have obviously started to change and shape my view, but I would also welcome any branch or member to engage with me if you are interested in learning more about what I believe I can deliver in rebuilding trust, unity and success for Napo members. If you are a member (unfortunately I cannot check) then please feel free to use my contact details below and I will endeavour to respond to you as soon as I can.

Once again thank you to everyone who has offered support, encouragement and has been prepared to support my nomination throughout this process and I hope that come the 28th June I can reward your faith in me by bringing a renewed energy and ambitious programme to drive and deliver change.
Kind Regards

Mike Rolfe
micalmus@yahoo.com
Michael (Mike) Rolfe on Facebook

@micalmusrolfe on Twitter

General Secretary Election 12

BR 29/2018
YP/KW

6th June 2018

To: NEC
Branch Chairs & Secretaries
Family Court SEC
Ian Lawrence, GS Candidate
Michael Rolfe, GS Candidate
CC: Napo Officers
Napo Staff

Dear Colleague

Nominations for General Secretary 2018

As you may know, the NEC interviewed the two candidates for the General Secretary position (Ian Lawrence and Michael Rolfe), when they met yesterday at Napo HQ.

Following the interviews, the NEC selected Ian Lawrence as their nominated candidate for the General Secretary position. Attached to this circular for your information (on page 2) you will find a full list of branches together with their chosen nomination.

The members ballot is the next stage of the selection process. The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) are managing this ballot - the ballot forms and candidate election statements will be dispatched by ERS and should start arriving with members from Friday 7th June. The deadline for receipt of ballot papers is Noon on Thursday 28th June. The result of the ballot will then be announced on Friday 29th June.

Yours sincerely

CHRIS WINTERS & YVONNE PATTISON
National Co-Chairs

2018 General Secretary Election

Nominations Received from Branches, Section & NEC
Both candidates seeked nominations from all branches.

Branch/Section : Date received : Nominee : Reason for not nominating

National Executive Committee 05/06/18 Ian Lawrence

Cheshire & Greater Manchester 04/06/18 None Low response – could not reach decision

Cumbria & Lancashire 04/06/18 Ian Lawrence

Durham Tees Valley

East Anglia 04/06/18 Ian Lawrence

East Coast 04/06/18 Ian Lawrence

East Midlands 25/05/18 None Low turnout and equal votes

Essex

Family Court Section 29/05/18 Ian Lawrence

The Four Shires 30/05/18 Michael Rolfe

Hampshire & Isle of Wight 01/06/18 Ian Lawrence

Kent, Surrey and Sussex 18/05/18 Michael Rolfe

London

The Mercia 04/06/18 Ian Lawrence

Merseyside

Napo Cymru 31/05/18 Ian Lawrence

Northern Ireland

Northumbria

South Southwestern 30/05/18 Ian Lawrence

South Yorkshire

Staffordshire West Midlands

Thames Valley 30/05/18 Ian Lawrence

West Yorkshire 04/06/18 Michael Rolfe

Western 04/06/18 Ian Lawrence

TOTALS:
Ian Lawrence 10 Branches & NEC
Michael Rolfe 3 Branches
No nomination agreed 2 Branches
No nomination received 8 Branches

What About Probation?

I notice Rory Stewart has been speaking to Inside Time. It's a shame probation seems too difficult to talk about. 

Time to clean up

Minister for prisons Rory Stewart shares his thoughts and ideas with Inside Time readers

“What I’m trying to work out is what it is that makes one prison, for example Altcourse, work well, and another prison – not too far away – not work well,” says Prisons Minister Rory Stewart when we meet at MoJ headquarters to discuss his policies and vision for the prison system for which he now has responsibility. The Minister, formerly Minister for Africa, has perhaps one of the most colourful career paths of anyone who has ever held his current office, including a two year walking odyssey through rural districts of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Nepal, (a journey totalling around 6,000 miles which he began in 2000) – and a period of governance in Southern Iraq following the coalition invasion in 2003. In 2004 he was in command of his compound in Nasiriyah when it was besieged by Sadrist militia and was later awarded an OBE for his services. A best-selling author, his book about his time in Afghanistan, ‘The Places in Between’ was a New York Times best-seller described by the newspaper as a “flat-out masterpiece”. He is currently the MP for Penrith and the Border.

In the flesh he looks too young to have lived through such drama and adventure. “I’m ten years younger than my predecessor,” he says smiling. I guess it’s true what they say about getting older; policemen and government ministers all just look so young.

The first thing I want to say to him is ‘please try and sort out prison food’. While there are some establishments that provide sufficient nutrition in healthy portions, and understand the value of keeping incarcerated human beings well fed, there are many others that fail miserably in the servery department. I tell him about Lucy Vincent, a 20-something young woman who is campaigning through her website Food Behind Bars for the government to provide good nutritious meals for all prisoners, regardless of the institution. “Thank you,” he says, and notes down my comments.

” I don’t think there are any easy recipes for success. Its about relationships between prison officers and prisoners. “

Secondly, I remind him of what President of the PGA Andrea Albutt said about the outsourcing of prison maintenance contracts following the collapse of the construction company Carillion. She said the services should be handed back to the works departments so that the governor has instant control of where and what needs to be done. “But when it’s done properly there is no reason why outsourcing shouldn’t work well,” he says. “I agree with him, there were serious problems with that contract.” But I remember as a prisoner that working with a works officer was a way for prisoners to learn skills, or even utilise skills they had before coming to prison. “Sure, sure,” he says, “I’m very, very much in agreement with you there. I’m very keen to get many more prisoners employed. I was talking to a prisoner recently, a qualified electrician, and he’s very rare. He’s employed by the prison to use his skills. But so often, Governors are not taking advantage of the skills available in the prisoner population.” Would he like to see Governors actually taking advantage of the skills and abilities of prisoners in their charge? “Much more. Much more,” he says emphatically.

But traditionally, prisoners are not seen as assets. Does he want to change that? My view, from the 20 years I spent in various prisons from Cat A to Cat D is that prisons can be places where good things happen, not just places of shame and neglect. I believe a prison should be seen by society as a valuable community resource, as valuable as a hospital or a school. So why don’t we do that? I think that it’s because politicians and the media have famously used prisons and prisoners as whipping boys for the electorate. I well remember former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling announcing when he took on the role that prisons under his watch were, “no longer going to be Holiday Camps.” One of the most disingenuous utterances from someone in his position that I could remember.

“A prison is a very, very challenging environment,” he says. “You can see prisons going in three years from good prisons to bad prisons, then from bad prisons to good prisons. A lot of it seems to be about detailed leadership. I don’t think there are any easy recipes for success. It’s about relationships between prison officers and prisoners. It’s a lot about how the custody managers work, the way the POs work, the way that young prison officers engage with prisoners.”

Don’t prison officers deserve more respect from society for the work they do? Why shouldn’t officers have similar cultural and educational opportunities that many of our prisons offer prisoners? Are there any plans to enhance the work of prison officers? “Yes, I am interested in that,” he says, “but I’m also taken back a step. We have to make sure before we start talking about Art groups that prisoners are unlocked and able to get safely from their cells to that Art group. One of the things that frustrates me is that we talk about these wonderful things that might be on offer, but if the prison is filthy, violent, drug infested, out of control – you can’t get to any of those opportunities. Unless you get those basic things sorted – are the cells clean, are the yards clean, are people out of their cells enough – and getting them out of their cells enough also means do the prison officers feel safe? I think we need to get a much clearer set of basic uniform standards right the way across the estate.”

Is it about pride? Should we feel pride in our prisons? “Part of this is about who we are,” he says. “Do we feel proud of our prisons? Is this somewhere I’d be happy to be? You have to find a way of having a very difficult conversation with ourselves and with the public, about helping people understand what a prison is; that it’s doing a lot of different things – its punishing people, deterring people, its reforming people, educating people. And the really great prison officers manage to find a very practical way of doing these very different things.”

” We have very good evidence that we can reduce the reoffending rate dramatically if we can get people into skill building and education and into employment. “

I asked him if he was aware of the Unlocked Graduate programme, whereby students from universities enrol for a couple of years as prison officers as part of their social responsibility development – an idea championed by educationalist Dame Sally Coates. “Yes,” he says, “I think they’re terrific. I’m very much a fan.”

So how do we convince the public that prisons are places where we should expect good things to happen? “For me, I don’t think it’s about having one or two shiny ideas,” he says. “You’ve got to have a system that works across the board. One of the things I’m interested in is what can we do to get a bit of consistency – some sense that you can expect the same basic things whichever prison you are in…

What about the drug problem? Isn’t it time to face up to the fact that when a prisoner is found to have five kilos of ‘Spice’ in his cell or, as in HMP Hewell recently, a ‘brick of heroin’ – that this quantity of drugs has not been smuggled through the visits room? “By and large our prison officers are very professional and honest people, but there will of course, in any organisation, always be bad apples. And one of the things that I am very keen to do is to make sure that it is much more difficult for anybody – prisoner, family or prison officer, to bring illegal substances into prisons. One of the ways I plan to do that is by ramping up our gate security. Scanners, sniffer dogs and more routine searching of everyone who comes through the gate. I’ve spoken to the Prison Officers Association about that and they are quite comfortable with it. They also agree that they are not in the business of protecting people bringing in kilos of heroin.”

” One of the things I’m interested in is what can we do to get a bit of consistency, some sense that you can expect the same basic things whichever prison you are in. “

Stewart was speaking to me ahead of the announcement of the new education and employment strategy for prisoners. “One of the ways we think will be helpful is that we are going to radically improve the way we assess prisoners on arrival and make sure that they have, alongside their sentencing plan, a very clear education plan, for each individual, taking into account their educational needs, and planning out what they want to achieve during their time in prison. What can we do in relation to training to make it’s easer for you to become what it is you want to be when you leave prison. We will provide national standard examinations. We have very good evidence that we can reduce the reoffending rate dramatically if we can get people into skill building and education and into employment.”

The week before, he says he had a group of leading businessmen and CEOs around his table, including James Timpson. “They talked through what they need, what they are looking for and it was very interesting. Some of what they want is formal stuff, English language etc. but some of it was softer skills. Can you stand for eight hours behind a Timpson’s counter dealing with the public?”

‘Compared to wallowing in the mire of wasted time and chaos that defines much of our prison system’, I said – that sounds like absolute luxury.

Need for Supervision

Here's an article from the Guardian pointing out how important it is to be able to supervise people properly having been released from prison on licence. So it's clearly such a shame the government still refuses to acknowledge the ongoing probation omnishambles created so ably by Chris Grayling.   

Police facing surge in extremists released from jail, analysis finds

Police and security services face a surge in the number of convicted terrorists released from prison, Guardian analysis has shown, prompting warnings over the unique threats posed by extremists back on the streets. More than 40% of the sentences for terrorism offences handed down over a 10-year period will have been served by the end of the year, figures compiled by the Sentencing Council show.

More than 80 of the 193 terms issued for terrorism offences between 2007 and 2016 will run out by the end of this year. However, the number of individuals released could be much higher as prisoners are eligible for release halfway through their sentence. Among those eligible for parole in 2018 is the Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary, who was jailed in September 2016 for five and a half years after already spending five months on remand in custody.

The analysis comes as the home secretary is set to unveil the government’s updated counter-terrorism strategy, as officials warn Britain faces a severe threat from Islamist terrorism for at least another two years.

Sajid Javid will present the renewed Contest strategy on Monday with a speech in central London, a day after the first anniversary of the London Bridge terror attack, in which three men killed eight people and injured nearly 50 with a rental van and knives. The assailants were shot dead at the scene.

Richard Walton, who was head of Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism command for five years from 2011 to 2016, said convicted terrorists released back into the community were a “worrying risk pool” for police and MI5 and place a burden on the authorities.

He said: “Terrorist prisoners released on licence place a resource burden on both specialist counter-terrorism detectives and on mainstream policing. A risk-management process is used to monitor those released on licence and the monitoring of high-risk offenders is extremely resource intensive. In essence, however, former convicted terrorist offenders are a worrying risk pool for MI5 and counter-terrorist policing. Intelligence is often insufficient to gauge whether they have any intent to reoffend owing to their recent incarceration. Those intending to reoffend also often ‘lay low’ for a period as they know that there will be close attention on them after release.”

The Guardian analysed figures related to the number of offenders by median average sentence. The data excludes those offenders given life and indeterminate sentences. Of the 90 sentences handed down for the preparation of terrorist acts – effectively attack planning – in the decade to 2016, almost a third will have been spent by the end of this year. A further 23 will be spent in 2019.

All the terms given to people sentenced for funding terrorism, failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism, or found to be in possession of terrorist information, will be spent the end of 2018. There is a dedicated specialist prisons unit within the national counter-terrorist policing infrastructure, with dedicated specialist detectives working with the prisons and probation service.

Ian Lawrence, general secretary of Napo, the probation union, said the service is already stretched. “Our members are overworked and understaffed, resulting in enormous pressures on them to do an extremely challenging job,” he said. “We must properly resource our probation services and bring them back in public ownership if we are to ensure a high-quality service with public protection at its heart.”

A Home Office programme under the Prevent banner has also been developed for individuals who are already engaging in terrorism to disengage and reintegrate safely back into society. The desistance and disengagement programme focuses on those who have already engaged in terrorist-related activity. This can mean people in prison, or recently released from prison, for terrorist-related offences, as well as people who have returned from Syria or Iraq.

The Ministry of Justice previously said it judges about 700 prisoners to be a risk due to their extremist views. It is understood the 700 figure was an overall estimate of all inmates linked to any form of extremism, including Islamist or far-right ideologies. Other prisoners held for non-terrorism offences but deemed to be an extremism risk were also counted in the 700 figure.

Ian Acheson published a review in 2016 into Islamic extremism in prisons, which he found to be a growing problem. In the review, he said more terrorism offenders are being held outside the high-security jails and are proceeding through the offender management system towards release into the community. “Such prisoners extend the threat of radicalisation beyond those arrested for terrorist offences,” he said. “Other prisoners – both Muslim and non-Muslim – serving sentences for crimes unrelated to terrorism are nevertheless vulnerable to radicalisation by Islamist extremists.”

Khalid Masood, the Westminster attacker, is among the extremists believed to have been radicalised in prison. Masood, 52, drove a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, killing five of them. He then stormed the Palace of Westminster and stabbed a police officer to death. He was shot and died at the scene.

Rajan Basra, a research fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR), said: “One of the greatest dangers is of inmates leaving prison and re-engaging in extremism networks and plotting attacks. Their beliefs may have hardened, they can bear a grudge against the authorities, and they may have ‘networked’ with other inmates – whether extremist or ‘regular’ criminals. Their release could also energise extremist networks; prison is often a source of respect.”

Basra pointed to examples throughout Europe of former inmates actively plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks, such as Omar el-Hussein, who was behind fatal shootings in Copenhagen in Denmark, and the attacker of the Jewish museum in Brussels, Mehdi Nemmouche, who was radicalised in a French prison and fled to Syria upon his release.

“Another challenge is one of post-release arrangements,” Basra said. “Authorities often don’t have the resources to comprehensively monitor all Tact [terrorism act] inmates post-release, and probation officers often suspect that extremists simply lie low until their licence conditions expire.”

Security agencies and counter-terror policing have foiled 12 Islamist and four extreme rightwing plots since March last year. MI5 and police are running more than 500 live operations involving roughly 3,000 “subjects of interest” at any one time. In addition, there are in excess of 20,000 people who have previously been investigated and who could again pose a threat.

A counter-terrorism policing spokeswoman said: “UK police and intelligence community are working tirelessly and at pace to confront the terrorist threat and help keep the public safe. “This includes monitoring and assessing existing and emerging threats and risks, including the release of convicted terrorists, and putting in place actions to mitigate them through a range of operations and activities.”

General Secretary Election 11

Hi Jim,

My apologies to you and your readers for taking time to respond, unfortunately my mother has been unwell so I’ve been travelling between Kent and Hampshire a fair bit this week.

I’ve noted the questions that have been asked of me and I do not like dodging straight questions, in fact I believe straight questions always deserve a straight answer, however some of the deeper issues that I have been asked to respond to I believe would be better served if I am successfully elected and given access to historical information, Napo’s position on such issues via AGM motions and from speaking to a broad range of staff. Obviously I’ve not been in a position to access these three things routinely and I would very much like the opportunity, should I be successfully elected, to listen to members’ views on these issues and take a deeper look into what branches have raised on behalf of their members via AGM motions and start to take those motions forward with the various employers to try and achieve the desired outcomes.

One of the things that previously struck me as an issue from my trade union work is the lack of direct approach in trying to achieve motions that come from branches via their members, after all they are properly debated by conference, passed by those delegates that have attended and then seem to fritter away into the wilderness, ultimately the membership set the business of the union and it is the leadership’s job to try and make those things happen and if successful in this election I welcome those issues and debates setting the order of business.

There have been several highly critical posts about the current election process and the seemingly poor communication, whilst I cannot comment on what individual members have been told or have read I understand that the NEC are constricted in their approach due to the rules that have previously been set and in ensuring that they do not fall fail of employment law, Tulcra and other legislation that dictates the election process.

From my perspective it certainly feels a very restricted process. I have stood in quite a few different elections and it is usually down to the candidate to make contact with branches and members and to actively promote themselves to any potential voter. In this election however a very short timeframe has been set in which to gain any knowledge of candidates, following my application for the role I was then required to attend an interview with a panel to select candidates suitable for election in London, next in the process a limited 500 word election statement was sent to the branches and a request that branches nominate a candidate. Some branches requested the attendance of both candidates so that branch members could scrutinise and cross examine each candidate but this could only happen if the branch contacted Napo HQ to make the request, if the branch met the costs associated with each candidate’s attendance and moreover only if both candidates could attend would the meeting go ahead, from my view this has obviously placed many restrictions on me being able to meet potential voters, branches or else and offer my views opinions and get my message to potential voters. If successful in this election then this is something that I believe would need to be addressed for future elections to ensure that anyone standing as a candidate is able to actively run their own campaign and send out their own message to try and gain support.

It is clear to me that the key priorities for any General Secretary for the next 5 years will be to;

Ensure Napo is financially sustainable for the future.

Take on key issues for members such as pay, privatisation, excessive workloads and maintaining professionalisation of the employed roles that Napo represents.

Improve services to members and make obvious strides to support members concerns.

Restructure the union to ensure best value for money and that internal policies and rules are fair, transparent and tailored to Napo’s core values of equality.

Take a more robust approach to members concerns with the various (24) different employers that Napo has recognition with.

Over the next few weeks I will continue to communicate via this forum and I believe it will be worthwhile that I setup a social media page where potential voters can find out a bit more about me, my beliefs and my priorities if successful as your next General Secretary.

Kind regards

Mike Rolfe

MoJ On Notice 2

We all know so-called 'transparent' government is about denying, obfuscating, lying and ultimately burying bad news, but it looks as if the MoJ has been caught out. This from BuzzFeed News:- 

A Criminal Investigation Has Been Launched Into The Ministry Of Justice After A Buried Report Was Leaked To BuzzFeed News

A criminal investigation has been launched into the Ministry of Justice after a report leaked to BuzzFeed News suggested the department buried damning research into people defending themselves in court. The decision was taken by the Information Commissioner’s Office following formal complaints from BuzzFeed News and others that the government had concealed the existence of a 36-page internal report that contained explosive testimony from senior judges about the impact on the justice system of unrepresented people in crown court.

The research was commissioned by the government to review the impact of cuts to legal aid made in the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) and was based on in-depth interviews with 15 crown court judges and six prosecutors. The Information Commissioner compelled the MoJ to release a report following Freedom of Information requests from BuzzFeed News and others. Yet what was released by the MoJ was clearly marked “summary” and was just six pages long. The following week BuzzFeed News was leaked the full 36-page report - something the press office previously said did not exist.

Under the Freedom of Information Act it is a criminal offence to alter, block, destroy or conceal information whose release has been compelled by the ICO. The penalty is typically a fine, though in theory senior officials could face jail for contempt of court after failing to comply with an ICO decision notice. BuzzFeed News understands the criminal case was opened earlier this week and work began on it yesterday. A criminal investigating officer within the ICO will now gather evidence and is expected to interview staff at the MoJ next week. The ICO has been contacted for further comment.

The MoJ had initially turned down FOI requests for the report in spring 2017, insisting the politically embarrassing research needed to be kept under wraps because it related “to the formulation or development of government policy”. The six-page summary it eventually released to the Information Commissioner was dated August 2016 and "unpublished summary as of 27 April 2018". The 36 page report leaked to BuzzFeed News is dated February 2016 and includes damning quotes from crown court judges about the challenges created by people defending themselves without a lawyer.

Shadow justice minister, Richard Burgon, said: "These are very serious allegations against the Ministry of Justice. I will be raising this in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. "Regardless of the embarrassment it causes, the government should now publish the report in full and should stop trying to cover up the true scale of the damage that its cuts are causing to access to justice."

The MoJ repeatedly insisted that the six pages were the report in its entirety, despite it being labelled a summary and containing no direct testimony or data. An MoJ press officer said that any edits from the original draft were minor corrections to spelling or grammar.

Penelope Gibbs, director of the charity Transform Justice, was one of several parties to FOI the report. Her discovery that the internal research had been commissioned prompted a question in the House of Lords in March 2017, leading to FOI requests from BuzzFeed News and others. Gibbs said: "The behaviour of the Ministry of Justice makes a mockery of FOI. If I had not known they were doing research on unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court, this important report would have been kept completely secret. How can a department espouse the importance of open justice, without being open about the information they hold?"

The Conservative chair of the Justice Select Committee told BuzzFeed News earlier this week the situation was: “very concerning” and that it was “imperative that there’s maximum transparency on the way government decisions are taken”.

The MoJ has not yet given a comment on the opening of the investigation, but responding to an earlier story on the subject, a spokesperson said:

 “As we have repeatedly made clear, the 36-page version of the report was an early draft and clearly marked as such. Research reports must be of the highest standard and parts of earlier drafts were deemed by researchers to be of insufficient quality. Any request for an earlier draft would have been considered in the normal way.”

They added: “Last year we spent £1.6bn on legal aid, just over a fifth of the Ministry of Justice’s budget – and we are conducting an evidence-based review of the changes made under LASPO which will report back later this year.” The spokesperson also said: “Both the draft and final versions of the report note that legal aid for Crown Court cases did not change substantially under our legal aid reforms and the number of unrepresented defendants remained broadly stable.”

However, last year more than 6,000 people faced criminal charges without a lawyer or had unknown representation at their first hearing in crown court – 7% of all defendants. In 2013 this proportion was 5%. The research itself said: “the majority of interviewees believed that the numbers of unrepresented defendants had risen since legal aid changes, although the rise was seen as small.”

Though the cuts introduced by LASPO largely affected civil law, the research suggests one “significant change” to criminal legal aid appears to have prompted a rise in people defending themselves without a lawyer.

Since January 2014, defendants whose disposable annual income was £37,500 or more were not eligible for criminal legal aid. Before LASPO there was no upper income threshold in crown court cases and the research says the change created a “risk of an increase in unrepresented defendants in the crown court.”

MoJ Put On Notice

I was struck by how much of last night's Ch4 News was taken up by the disasters that have Chris Graylings fingerprints all over them - first the ongoing rail crisis and then HMI Chief Inspector Peter Clarke on the prison crisis. It was also noteworthy that Grayling has 'gone to ground' with all requests for interviews refused. Lets hope that when everything finally unravels at transport and heads have to roll, one will surely be his. 

Meanwhile, this from the Guardian on the mess he created in the prison system:-

Prisons inspector takes emergency action over HMP Exeter

The chief inspector of prisons has taken emergency action to improve conditions at an “unequivocally poor” jail with soaring levels of violence and self-harm. Peter Clarke has put the justice secretary, David Gauke, on notice that he must explain how conditions at HMP Exeter will be improved using an “urgent notification” protocol for only the second time since the power became available.

It also emerged that Bedford prison had been placed into special measures on Wednesday by the Prison Service meaning additional support would be brought in. An unannounced inspection at Exeter in May discovered high rates of self-harm and suicide, including six self-inflicted deaths, increasing numbers of assaults against prisoners and staff, and high levels of drug use. 

In his letter to the justice secretary, Clarke said: “During the inspection we saw many examples of a lack of care for vulnerable prisoners which, given the recent tragic events in the prison, were symptomatic of a lack of empathy and understanding of the factors that contribute to suicide and self-harm.” Clarke told Gauke the principal reasons for invoking the urgent notification mechanism were that safety in the prison had “significantly worsened in many respects” since the previous inspection in August 2016.

The urgent notification power came into force in November and has been used once previously for HMP Nottingham. Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults in Exeter had gone up by 107% since the last assessment, while attacks on staff had risen by 60%.

Clarke reported that there was a “strong smell” of drugs on some of the wings and he saw inmates who were “clearly under the influence” during the inspection. Many cells were in a poor state of repair, with broken windows, leaking lavatories and sinks, and poorly screened toilets. In one case a vulnerable prisoner assessed as being at a heightened risk of suicide was found in a “squalid” cell without bedding or glass in his window.

Clarke said: “The senior management team that is currently in place at HMP Exeter is largely the same as at the last inspection in 2016. “The failure to address the actual and perceived lack of safety, and the issues that contribute to both, is so serious that it has led me to have significant concerns about the treatment and conditions of prisoners at HMP Exeter and to the inevitable conclusion to invoke the UN (urgent notification) protocol.”

Under the urgent notification process, the chief inspector can inform the government of any urgent and severe prison problems found during an inspection. The justice secretary then has 28 days to publicly report on improvement measures adopted at the jail in question.

Deborah Coles, director of Inquest, a charity dealing with deaths in police and prison custody, said: “This cannot be blamed on staffing levels. That serious safety concerns are systematically ignored points to an institutional and shameful indifference to the well-being of prisoners. In any other setting this institution would be closed down.”

Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “Exeter prison is a grossly overcrowded prison where most prisoners are either not convicted at all or are serving short sentences.”

Bedford, a Category B prison that holds more than 500 male prisoners, was placed in special measures following a riot and “unprecedented levels of violence”, the Prisons Officers Association (POA) said.

Glyn Travis, POA spokesman, said: “Bedford is a low performing prison. There have been issues around the prison for about 15 months. High levels of violence, high levels of rioting and a member of staff was almost murdered.”

The prisons minister, Rory Stewart, said: 

“I am grateful to the chief inspector for identifying the urgent attention required at HMP Exeter – and I am determined that we act immediately. Staffing has increased at Exeter and we expect to see improvements as a result. We will provide all the additional support needed to improve safety and reduce self-harm and we are already conducting a rapid review of conditions to improve the standard of cells.”

Built in 1853, HMP Exeter is a category B facility for male inmates and has an operational capacity of 544. The unannounced inspection was undertaken between 14 May and 24 May.