Insulting Pay Offer

This from Napo yesterday:-

Probation Pay Offer for 2025-2026 finally received - Napo recommend rejection

Over a year has passed since the Probation trade unions submitted a joint pay claim for 2025-2026, and despite meetings with Government Ministers who failed to deliver on their promise to produce a pay offer by Christmas and after several subsequent complaints, pay negotiations between senior Probation management and the unions resumed last week after a totally inexcusable delay.

Following the conclusion of these, a formal pay offer was received which was immediately considered by your Probation Negotiating Committee (PNC). Napo is a member led union and the role of the PNC as a nationally elected body is to arrive at a recommendation based on the merits of the employers offer. Having done so, the PNC unanimously voted to advise our members to reject this pay offer.

Since then, preparations have been under way by all parties to prepare communications and it has been agreed that these would be issued today.

Employer's pay offer main points

The employer proposes:

• A 4% increase to all pay points and bands
• A 4% increase to the following allowances: London Weighting,Prison Supplement and Standby
• Removing the minimum pay point of Band A to maintain a 5% difference between the maximum point Band 6

The employer will be issuing the full offer - with details of changes to the monetary value of all pay points - to all staff via the HMPPS Intranet - this afternoon.

Some reasons why you are being asked to reject the offer

It’s an insult
Following a disrespectful delay of over a year since the union claim was submitted, a 4% rise after years of inferior pay rises for Probation staff is an insult. The offer fails to come anywhere near to our original claim of 12% and doesn’t reflect the fact that Government Ministers have praised the huge efforts of Probation Staff in terms of their efforts to deliver Government initiatives, for example on numerous schemes to relieve prison overcrowding, in the midst of an ongoing workload crisis. It’s time that our pay should reflect that fact, and that our pay award should match the words of praise from Ministers and HMPPS senior managers.

Inadequate funding and failure to recognise the rise in the cost of living suffered by our members
This pay offer represents what HMPPS tell us were the results of discussions between HMPPS and other parts of Government (the Treasury and Cabinet Office), including the submission of a business case by the former to increase the total amount it can spend on it's wage bill. It is clear that this has produced a completely unsatisfactory outcome, with a pay offer that falls below the recorded inflation figure for all but one month of 2025. If Napo members reject this pay offer resoundingly the onus will be on the Government to produce an improved pay offer as a matter of urgency.

Comparison
The offer does nothing to move us to a position where our salaries are more comparable to those paid to the other staff working within the criminal justice system (including the Prison Service), local government and the wider Civil Service.

Who makes the decisions?
It's clear that despite the commitment of senior management negotiators, we are not in the room with those who make the final decisions on your pay. Even more reason for the Probation Service to be removed from HMPPS and the restrictions of the Civil Service Pay Remit.

Where's the money going?
The Government can seemingly find money to fund new Prisons and spend huge amounts of money on Electronic Monitoring to private companies unfit for purpose Additionally, we know that there has been an underspend of £100 million by the Probation service in this financial year. Why have we not seen any of it?

Reward and Recognition Schemes
Money that should have been made available to all staff is still squirreled away in schemes that in our view are liable to be operated unfairly and without appropriate transparency.

Geographical Allowances and Market Forces Supplements
The employer has refused to offer any movement whatsoever on the above.

Minimum wage implications
Members at the lowest pay point of Band 2 will, on the first of April 2026 yet again see their salary fall below the minimum wage on April 1st because of the inadequate rise to their payband in this pay offer.

What happens next?
We are finalising arrangements to hold an indicative electronic ballot of all full members of Napo (Probation England and Wales) next week.

Full details of the timetable and how to have your say on the 2025-2026 pay offer will be issued in the next few days, with current plans to launch the ballot next Wednesday (4th of February) with this running until the last week of the month. It is probable that the other Probation unions will consult their respective members over the same period. You are not being asked to vote on industrial action and your decision to accept or reject the pay offer will be personal to yourself. If the offer is rejected, then Napo is mandated to organise a separate statutory postal ballot where you will be asked to agree to take action and action short of strike action.

It is vitally important that you ensure that you have registered your preferred e-mail address on the Napo database and checked that we have your correct home postal address. 

If you know of any colleagues who are not a member of a trade union but who are considering joining Napo, it’s important to stress that only members of a trade union will be able to vote in an indicative ballot. All Napo members should do whatever they can to recruit new members as our greatest strength remains in numbers - further information will follow on the 'cut off' date by which new members joining will be able to vote in the ballot on this pay offer after it launches.

Branch meetings
It will be at the discretion of Branches to invite non-union members who may wish to become members of Napo so that they qualify for a vote in the indicative ballot. Branches are asked to avoid holding meetings at the same time as the National meetings listed above.

Napo will be issuing more information imminently in advance of the indicative ballot where you will be asked to vote No to the 2025-2026 pay offer, and you are also urged to take the opportunity to join one of the members meetings to raise questions.

Napo HQ

--oo00oo--

2025/26 probation pay offer confirmed

“In announcing the 2025/26 pay offer, I firstly want to acknowledge the time it has taken and thank you for your patience and understanding. I am also acutely aware that this prolonged process happened during a time of significant change and increased pressures on you. Your unwavering commitment to delivering vital services, supporting people on probation, and keeping communities safe represents the very best of public service.

Through concerted efforts and constructive negotiations, we have secured a headline pay award of 4% for 2025/26. In practice, the increase will be far more for many colleagues, following the pay progression paid in June 2025.

This is one of the most generous offers made in public sector pay, which goes well beyond the government's own guidance on how much public sector pay can increase this year.

We now want to help you to work out precisely what this award means for you. Today we’ve outlined the headline numbers, but this is just the start of our engagement with you on the offer. Your input matters. Please don’t miss the chance to understand the offer to make the right decision for you.”

Following the announcement that pay negotiations with trade unions resumed last week, we can confirm the details of our pay offer for probation staff.

What is the offer

The 2025/26 pay offer for all probation staff includes:

• a headline uplift for all probation staff of 4%
• a 4% increase to all cash allowances including London weighting
• an average increase of 3.44% in pay progression paid in June last year to all eligible colleagues

With the 4% headline uplift and the increases to allowances plus pay progression, the total increase in the probation pay bill would be 6.3%, which is higher than many other public sector workforces. If agreed, the headline uplift will be backdated to April 2025 and you would then receive your uplifted and backdated pay as soon as possible, likely to be April 2026.

What does this mean for me

The 4% headline uplift will be in addition to progression payments made in June. Through progression, some colleagues have received increases of up to 4.8%, with an average increase across the 10 pay ranges of 3.44%.

This offer is among the biggest increases agreed across the public sector, including the Prison Service Pay Review body's recommendations for prison officers. It goes further than the Civil Service guidance that limits headline awards plus pay progression to 3.25%.

Taking into account pay progression paid in June 2025, and the additional headline uplift confirmed today, then the value of the increase to pay for probation as a whole is 6.3%.

You can find more detail on the impact of this offer on different grades in the pay tables below, including actual amounts and increased pay points. For example, a Band 4 probation officer now at pay point 2 of their pay grade would expect to receive an increase of £1,470 for their 2025/2026 pay award, in addition to any progression pay already received.

Weekly drop-in sessions will begin this Wednesday, 28 January, where you can hear more about this offer and ask questions (see below for sign up details).

--oo00oo--

Many will feel these responses from yesterday rather neatly sum things up:-

So after more than a year of deliberate delay, broken ministerial promises, and endless rhetoric about probation “doing the heavy lifting”, this is what lands: 4%. Not 12%. Not pay restoration. Not even inflation. Four per cent - after inflation has already eaten our wages, after workloads exploded, after risk escalated, after staff were told repeatedly that probation was critical to keeping prisons from collapse. NAPO’s unanimous rejection tells you everything you need to know. This isn’t a marginal disagreement. It’s a collective judgement that the offer is fundamentally unacceptable.

Let’s be clear about what this actually is:

• A real-terms pay cut, following years of inferior awards
• A confirmation that CBF was always intended to be rolled into and used to cap any future uplift
• A pay offer that fails to match inflation, let alone restore losses
• A settlement that leaves probation less competitive than prisons, local government and the wider Civil Service
• An insult to experienced staff who received no CBF progression and carried the service anyway
• And a political choice, not a financial necessity

The most damning line in the letter is this: “We are not in the room with those who make the final decisions.” Exactly. Probation staff are expected to absorb risk, violence, scrutiny and public blame while Treasury and Cabinet Office quietly decide we are not worth paying.

Meanwhile:

• £700m is found for tagging
• Billions are found for prisons
• Private contractors remain funded despite being unfit for purpose
• £100m sits underspent in probation
• And staff at the bottom of Band 2 will fall below minimum wage again

This isn’t incompetence. It’s contempt. The service is being hollowed out, automated, deskilled and run on goodwill — and when staff finally ask to be paid properly, they’re told this is the best that can be done. It isn’t. This offer doesn’t stabilise probation. It accelerates its collapse. And anyone surprised by the anger that follows hasn’t been listening for the past decade.

******

A year’s delay, broken promises, and endless praise for “exceptional effort” and the outcome is 4%. That isn’t recognition. It’s a pay cut dressed up as an offer. Money can be found for prisons, tagging and private contractors, but not for the staff holding the system together. Even now, some will drop below minimum wage next year. That tells you exactly where probation sits in the hierarchy. NAPO's unanimous rejection says this clearly: this isn’t bad luck or fiscal reality it’s a political choice. And it confirms what many already know: probation is expected to absorb risk, blame and damage on the cheap.

******
4% is disgusting. Why wait 12 months only to offer us the exact same amount as prison were offered almost immediately? It demonstrates quite clearly where they see us in terms of priorities and value. All the waffle about Probation doing the heavy lifting and the extra stuff they asked from us, then give us such an insulting offer.

******
Let’s be clear about where we actually are, because the anger is justified but the process still matters. No one is voting on strike yet. This ballot is about accepting or rejecting the offer. If members reject it, Napo is then legally required to run a separate statutory ballot on industrial action (including action short of strike). That’s not weakness or delay, that’s the law.

What does matter right now is unity. The employer will happily watch us turn on each other – POMs vs COMs, prison vs community – because division does their job for them. This offer didn’t land because of colleagues in other roles. It landed because probation, as a whole, has been deprioritised for 15 years.

If you want to express your opposition:

• Vote to reject.
• Engage with the union consultation.
• Challenge management narratives that call this a “good offer”.
• Stop donating goodwill.

Arguing sideways only weakens the one bit of leverage we still have: collective rejection.

*****
So when the system decides a role is important, money appears quickly and without drama. JAC chairs get a 30% uplift “to reflect the demands of the role”. Judges receive 7%, then 6%, then 7% again, explicitly to protect recruitment and quality. Treasury objections melt away when the work is seen as valuable and the risk of failure is politically uncomfortable.

Probation doesn’t get that treatment. After a year of delay, we’re offered 4% — below inflation — while being told it’s “good value” and should be welcomed. That isn’t economics. It’s hierarchy. Some roles are protected. Others are expected to absorb decline quietly.

And this is exactly why the blue-on-blue arguments are a distraction. POMs, COMs, VLOs didn’t design this system or set these pay priorities. The contempt runs upwards, not sideways. Division just makes it easier to keep doing this to us again next year.

The message is simple and consistent: probation work is praised rhetorically, but priced as expendable. Until that contradiction is confronted collectively, the pattern won’t change and the figures already tell us everything we need to know.

******

This is exactly the sleight of hand people are calling out. CBF progression was already costed, agreed and paid in June under the existing three-year deal. It was not new money, not a concession, and not part of this year’s negotiation. Folding it back in now to inflate the headline figure is double-counting.

The only new money on the table for 2025/26 is the 4% headline uplift. Everything else being cited – the “average 6.3%”, the “generosity”, the comparison with other sectors – relies on re-labelling progression that staff had already earned and already received.

That’s why the offer feels dishonest. If the deal were genuinely 6.3%, it would be paid as 6.3% to everyone. It isn’t. For anyone at the top of their band, or anyone who didn’t receive progression, this is a flat 4% after a year-long delay, backdated and paid a year late.

Calling this one of the “most generous offers in the public sector” doesn’t make it so. It’s an accounting exercise designed to mask a below-inflation rise by recycling money that was never in dispute. And staff are right to be angry about it.

*****
This isn’t spin, it’s gaslighting. The only new money in this deal is the 4% headline uplift. Everything else being claimed – the “average 3.44%”, the “total 6.3%”, the talk of generosity is money already agreed, already costed and already paid last June under a previous deal. Recycling that progression to inflate the headline is double-counting. If this were really a 6.3% pay rise, everyone would be getting 6.3%. They aren’t. For anyone at the top of their band, this is just 4% after a year-long delay, below inflation and paid late. Staff aren’t angry because they don’t understand the maths, they’re angry because they do.