Words or Action?

Looking back, it all seems to have started on Yorkshire Day August 1st when we learned of the 'bread and circuses' planned for 'Probation Day'. Quite rightly this cynical bit of management distraction attracted much scorn and opprobrium from within the ranks and of course we now know it was all part of preparing the ground for the 'insulting' pay offer that finally surfaced. Forget all that bollocks about dressing up in purple and baking fucking cakes, ex prison governor Amy Rees has been very quick to assert her true colours with some threats:-

“If this pay offer is rejected at ballot, we will revert to implementing a single year pay deal in line with the civil service pay remittance guidance for the 22/23 year”. … “we are confident that we have secured a good and fair pay offer for probation service staff”.

The tepid trade union response of 'neutrality' as the ballot opens must be music in the ears of HMPPS and MoJ and appears to have caused much anger amongst staff, well if responses on this blog are anything to go by. And that's an interesting point because I can't help but notice there's only been a muted discussion over on the 'secret' Facebook group. Why is this? Is it because the demographics are different, or is it fear of the MoJ thought police who undoubtedly monitor the site? Anonymity on here is an advantage, but are the demands for industrial action just so much venting of hot air and unlikely to be carried through? 

As we all know, the track record is not good and union membership has been in steady decline and now fragmented across several unions other than Napo. There's often been criticism of Napo leadership on here, but as is often also said, a union is its members and can only reflect their wishes. Having said that, I think many members might expect rather more from their weekly briefing than routine exhortations and the offer of branch 'goodies'. What, no General Secretary's update or Chair's response to imminent probation demise? Recent days have seen stirring stuff from the Probation Institute, Russell Webster and even HMI Probation all in shock and horror of the prison takeover with 'One HMPPS'. 

There's always that worrying feeling of 'going through the motions' with Napo. Yes they issued a statement but it was weeks ago. Surely a campaign is needed for goodness sake because the threat to probation as a distinct identity has never been greater. Now is the time to pile on the pressure with barristers showing the way and now even HMCTS legal advisers. This from the Law Gazette:-  

Magistrates' court staff to strike for nine days this month          

Magistrates’ court staff will begin nine days of strike action later this month over the rollout of HM Courts & Tribunals Service’s Common Platform, which trade union officials say is ‘fundamentally flawed’.

Legal advisers and court associates ‘voted overwhelmingly’ in favour of industrial action, the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union announced last month, with 93% of those voting supporting a full strike – though only 61% of the 180 balloted members cast a vote.

The Common Platform – which has managed more than 158,000 criminal cases and is now live in 143 courts, with further rollouts planned up until February – has cost £236m as at the end of March 2021 and HMCTS says it is ‘key to modernising the court system’.

But the platform has been beset by problems since its launch in September 2020 and, according to the PCS, has sent work-related stress and anxiety levels among its members in HMCTS ‘through the roof’.

The union is demanding that no new cases are inputted onto the Common Platform, that HMCTS undertakes a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for the system and assurances that there will be no further job losses arising from the system.

PCS said this month’s strike action is in response to HMCTS having behaved ‘disgracefully’ by failing to approach the union to offer a meeting, ‘continuing to gaslight members’ over the ‘success’ of the rollout of the Common Platform and threatening to refuse to pay members if they did not use the platform.

HMCTS maintains that it has engaged extensively with the union and is committed to continuing discussions over the Common Platform.

The union has now served notice on HMCTS that legal advisers and court associates will strike from 10-18 September. It has also announced that a second group of its members working for HMCTS will be balloted from next week following the decision to ‘continue the national roll-out of the Common Platform after months of inaction by HMCTS to resolve the serious and fundamental concerns raised by PCS’.

A HMCTS spokesperson said: ‘We have been working with staff and unions on the rollout of Common Platform since September 2020 and it has already dealt with over 158,000 criminal cases. The Common Platform is key to modernising the court system, making it more efficient and fit for purpose.’

--oo00oo--

I'll round this off with what Russell Webster published the other day:-

The End of Probation?

Will the merger of the prison and probation services lead to the loss of probation identity?

A new leadership model

The MoJ has recently announced what it describes as ” a new leadership model” for HMPPS. Two new Director General (DG) posts will be created; DG Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and a DG Operations. The two new DG posts will replace the existing DG Prisons and DG Probation, Wales and Youth posts. This is described as being the first step on “our journey to becoming One HMPPS”. The one HMPPS model is promoted as having three main advantages which:

1. Allows for a “whole sentence” approach to the way we deliver our services, ensuring offender management services are better joined up across the whole of the offender journey; 

2. Empowers decision making at a regional level, enabling our leaders to ensure that the services they offer are tailored to the needs of and improve outcomes for users of our services; and 

3. Supports the sharing of resources, knowledge, information and skills through a new organisational structure that enables better outcomes and provides value for money.

 Probation concerns

Many probation folk have complained about being part of NOMS and HMPPS, feeling that they are the Cinderella part of the organisation with the greater size of and public interest in prisons meaning that probation concerns are always seen as a lower priority. Both the Probation Institute and the National Association of Probation Officers have issued strong statements protesting about the merger.

Both organisations question both the principle of the merger and its timing. In terms of timing, they argue that Probation has undergone too much turbulence over recent years with the decision to split and semi-privatise the service under Transforming Rehabilitation doing much damage to morale and causing many experienced probation officers to leave the service. The reunification of the service is still only 14 months old and very much a work in progress. The probation inspectorate is yet to find a delivery unit providing a good service. The HMPPS merger is seen as yet another poorly thought out and rushed initiative which will have long-standing (and possibly irreversible) impact on the probation service.

In terms of more fundamental opposition to the merger, both organisations point out the very different working cultures, vocational paths and values of the prison and probation service.

Some of the points made include:

• Probation is a profession with a long-standing requirement for probation officers to be educated to Higher Education Level 6 while there is no equivalent professional qualification for prison officers.
• Different cultures with the probation service more focused on desistance with the prison service more concerned with a safe prison environment.
• Different leadership styles with the prison service operating in more of a command and control structure while the probation approach champions practitioner autonomy and individual professional judgment.

Fundamental to the concerns of both organisations is the discomfort that many probation people feel in being part of the civil service under the reunified arrangements. The Probation Institute spells out its concerns:

In our view the Civil Service is a wholly inappropriate location for the Probation Service. Indicators of this inappropriateness include:

• Ministerial control taking precedence over professional advice (recent decisions concerning recommendations in Parole Reports)

• Severe constraints on Probation Practitioners from sharing professional concerns in public arena, including publishing

• Lack of external scrutiny (only the MOJ funded HMIPP Inspectorates currently scrutinise the work of the Probation Service.

Prison and probation services have been trying to implement a “whole sentence” approach for many years with little success despite the obvious benefits of improved “continuity of care” on prison release. I can understand the MoJ’s thinking (although not its rationale) that this would be easier to deliver within an integrated service.

Personally, my main concern is that a merger will destroy the last vestiges of probation being a local service, trying to meet the needs of both local communities and people on probation. The current regional structure is, to me, lacking in any meaning – the probation regions do not marry up with any other relevant public services (police, local authorities etc.) with the exception of the London, Greater Manchester & Wales areas.

One of the original driving forces behind the failed Transforming Rehabilitation experiment was to get probation officers out from in front of their computer screens so they could spend more time with people on supervision. The combination of COVID and the move to a central civil service structure, compounded by persistent under-staffing has resulted in a service which spends a disproportionate amount of its time writing assessments and risk management plans rather than helping people turn round their lives.

There are many dedicated and committed probation staff but neither the current working environment nor the planned merger seem likely to enable them to convert this positive attitude into constructive practice.

Russell Webster