Grayling Update

Following on from my recent piece on Chris Grayling, I notice he got a mention in the Daily Telegraph last week concerning MP's expenses. It won't come as any surprise that they are now claiming more than before the scandal broke a couple of years ago. If nothing else, our elected representatives have proved to be remarkably canny at getting to grips with the supposedly more rigorous system introduced following exposure of their widespread fiddling.

The piece in the Telegraph focused on how 155 MP's put family members on the payroll at our expense, including Chris Grayling who in the last tax year was employing his wife to the tune of £35,000 per annum. Although within the rules as presently in force because all attempts at trying to stop this dubious practice have failed, many would nevertheless feel it amply demonstrates bare face cheek by a senior Minister of the Crown.

But it seems Chris Grayling has a track record regarding bare face cheek and I'm grateful to a regular reader for pointing me in the direction of a story I missed from May 2010, again in the Daily Telegraph. It would seem that many of our politicians back then were so intent on us not discovering the full details of their expenses they they got into the habit of ensuring their wikipedia entries were doctored regularly:- 
   

When the extent of MPs' spending on parliamentary allowances was finally exposed in the Telegraph's Expenses Files investigation, a year ago this weekend, the details aroused public anger and caused embarrassment at Westminster.

Yet now politicians have been accused of attempting a further "cover-up" by trying to delete references to their expenses from Wikipedia, the user-edited online encyclopedia.

An investigation has uncovered at least 10 cases in which MPs' biographical pages on Wikipedia were altered to remove information about their expenses which had been added by members of the public after it was revealed by the Telegraph.

MPs whose entries were "cleansed" include Chris Grayling, the senior Conservative who is set to become Home Secretary if his party forms the next government.

An analysis of the website's records reveals that in each case, the change was made by someone working either within the parliamentary estate, or in a party office, or by a user who appeared to have links to one of the MPs involved.

The records do not show whether the changes were made by the MPs themselves, their staff, or others.

In some cases the ploy worked and the current version of the online biography makes no mention of expenses. In other cases, the details were reinstated and the people who tried to delete them were reprimanded by the website's managers.

Last night, critics claimed that the underhand tactic showed that some politicians "still haven't accepted the principle that the public have a right to know all of this information".

Wikipedia's own rules of conduct discourage editing by individuals with a "conflict of interest" - which would include the MPs themselves, their staff and family members.

In June and July 2009, Mr Grayling's entry on the website was changed five times by a user with a parliamentary Internet Protocol (IP) address.

An assertion that he used taxpayers' money to renovate a flat in London despite owning three properties within the M25 and living less than 25 miles from Parliament was deleted from the website, even though it had been supported by references to Telegraph news reports.

After the deletion was detected, a Wikipedia administrator sent a warning to the IP address about the removal of the material. Eventually the information was allowed to remain on the page.  

Probation in Crisis!

It's becoming ever more clear that thanks to the unremitting efforts of ministers Chris Grayling and Jeremy Wright in driving forward the Transforming Rehabilitation omnishambles, normal probation services are breaking down. They have done such a brilliant job in their aim of destroying a well-performing public service that staff are hemorrhaging at an alarming rate, putting intolerable strain on those remaining.

In order to try and 'keep the show on the road' Trusts are having to resort to ever more extreme and innovative measures such as giving caseloads to unqualified and untrained admin staff, getting PO's to undertake OASys assessments without going to the bother of interviewing clients and considering the award of emergency 'retention' payments for key staff.

Thanks to the ongoing TR onslaught by arrogant Chris Grayling and the stupidity of Jeremy Wright who keeps talking about the new NPS being staffed by 'experts', morale is at absolutely rock bottom. Many colleagues have reached the point where they cannot even wait to hear of the redundancy payment proposals and are 'jumping ship' now. The internal intranet EPIC is already carrying advertisements for key roles with CRC's, offices are being measured up by property agents DTZ and yet the MoJ/NOMS people still blithely think that it can be 'situation normal'. 

It's vitally important that the public understand what's going on here and that it's all going pear-shaped. Sickness levels are rising and senior management are too concerned with their own future to be spending time looking after the well-being of staff. Thanks to probation tweeter and blogger Poofficer, we know what the strength of feeling is on the shop floor, and I hope they don't mind me quoting from a recent post:-

"My Chief appears to champion everything else but Probation.  She is silent when it comes to Probation"

"My SPO has given us a list of questions we are NOT allowed to ask the chief when they come to visit the office. I feel like we have been gagged."

"Staff are leaving and are not being replaced.  Workloads are increasing and those left are struggling to cope.  One PO in my office has been issued with capability procedures as she can't keep up.  Our workloads have doubled!"

"We have SPO's in my office who spend all day devising new rotas, I am tied to a rota!  They have increased my caseload, practically chained me to my desk and still continue to tell me I need to be creative in my supervision sessions with offenders..... I tell them I don't have time and they tell me I need to make time! how do you make time?"

"I work in admin and we have lost a lot of staff already.  My workload has increased and I find myself making mistakes as I have to rush most things.  This upsets me as I used to pride myself on doing a good job.  I have children so I cant stay late in the evening to get things done.  I have told my boss who appears to be understanding but she just told me to try my best"

"Everybody needs to remember that this is not Probation's fault.  It is ideology driven policy by an out of touch Government.  It is easy to point the finger at CEO's and other managers but I haven't met a CEO yet who supports these changes.  You also need to remember that they are civil servants and can only say so much" 

"I manage PPO's in my office and I'm concerned whats going to happen to those.  Are a company who only get paid by results going to want to take on the most prolific offenders?  Also some are high risk of harm so will the PPO's be split? This is very dangerous in my opinion."

"Did you know the link between the chair of the Probation Association (who appear to be silent) and the privatisation of the Probation Service?  Serbet Cox is the Chair of the Durham Tees Valley Trust AND the Probation Association.  I would like to think this isn't a conspiracy, but who knows? click for link  link two"

"You know something is fundamentally wrong with our 'leadership' when you rely on updates about your future from twitter and Jim's blog!"

"Some days Im working 12 hours to keep up as lots have left in my office.  I have no energy to do anything else when I get home.  I used to love doing this job, now I hate coming to work.  Its not the work that I hate, but the politics"

"Probation Managers are in the same position, if not worse, than Offender Managers.  I think sometimes people forget this"

"I hate all of this and I hate the fact that decisions about not just my employment, but also the safety of the community and the rehabilitation of offenders is put in the hands of a man I wouldn't let look after my dog!"

"Transforming Rehabilitation may not be a bad thing.  Probation is full of bureaucracy and the focus has shifted from the work we do with offenders to completing unnecessary paperwork.  Hopefully the focus will now shift back to the work we do with offenders given the driving force will be to stop them offending.  Don't get me wrong, It does come with its downfalls but Probation only have themselves to blame.  For years it has been like a secret organisation and nobody has any clue what we do, we have rolled over to Government and NOMS requests and have lost our backbone"

"Offenders and communities are going to suffer.  It is like what they are doing with titan prisons.  Localism is going to be lost and we will have no community links.  Rural and smaller offices will close and offenders be made to ravel for hours to attend for Probation."

HMI's - A Word in your Ear

We've been moaning for weeks that the media never mentions probation, but yesterday we were all over TV, radio, press and the internet. Sadly not about privatisation, despite Ian Lawrence valiantly trying to steer John Humphrys on the BBC Today programme around to the topic, but a negative report by Liz Calderbank and Nick Hardwick, respective HMI's for Probation and Prisons. 

Now if I were cynical I'd say the timing was suspect to say the least, providing as it does lots of negative publicity about the emotive topic of 'lifers' being released either on a temporary basis (ROTL) or Parole Licence, but with inadequate risk assessments having been carried out. 

This is a big topic, but I want to try and keep it simple. First a bit of history.

1) Lifers used to be a relatively small part of the total prison population, but Tony Blair's government ensured that the number rocketed by introducing the dreaded IPP sentence. The Indeterminate Public Protection sentence is very similar to a Life Sentence, but usually with a much shorter tariff, ie the minimum period that must be served for punishment purposes and before the parole process can start.

2) Lifers used to be treated 'specially' - prison Governors chaired sentence planning meetings and typically home probation officers were 'paired' and kept their lifers for many years, even if moving office or role.

3) Any application for release would involve a visit and report by the so-called 'Independent' - a member of the Parole Board, but not part of the decision-making panel.

4) Resources were always available to ensure that each lifer was visited in prison at least once a year, no matter how far-flung the prison was.

5) Every prison had sufficient seconded Probation Officers to enable every lifer to be seen and assessed in prison, and hence by a suitably-qualified person

6) OASys had not been invented and assessments were written as real documents that could be read and understood. 

Nowadays some prison officers are designated 'offender supervisers', they complete OASys assessments and chair sentence planning meetings. There's no money for probation officers to visit regularly and you are expected to interview by video link. OASys is so crap, naturally ways are found to avoid the bloody thing at all cost. 'Ownership' of the OASys changes regularly between prison and community and when extra text is added by other authors the result is akin to a dogs breakfast. This report is a complete indictment of the uselessness of OASys, and yet both authors, the MoJ, Noms, PA, PCA et al all pretend it's a vital and useful offender assessment tool. No it isn't!    

If it wasn't so serious it would be quite funny how much space is taken up in the report discussing OASys and how there is confusion as to who's job it is to fill it in, how poorly it's filled in, whether it's filled in and how often it's filled in. I want to let both HMI's into a secret about OASys that might just help them understand why there's a problem OASys is a complete and utter pile of shite and whoever was responsible for commissioning it and designing it should be compelled to complete one every day until they beg for mercy!

One of the most startling findings from this inspection concerned arrangements for the completion of OASys assessments on individual prisoners while in custody. We were surprised to find that so many different models had evolved and that staff had varying degrees of understanding about what was required, of whom, and when. Phase III of the offender management model, launched in January 2008, sought to clarify arrangements for the offender management of indeterminate sentence prisoners. Under this phase of the offender management model, the community based offender manager was clearly at the heart of the assessment, sentence planning, supervision and release arrangements for those given an IPP sentence. For life sentence prisoners, by contrast, the model dictated that prison service designated staff, known as offender supervisors, would complete prison based offender management tasks, with probation staff providing the community element, including supervision post-release. This distinction between the arrangements for managing life sentence prisoners and IPP prisoners seemed illogical to us and may have contributed to the confusion we found.

Yes remember that? 'Seamless end-to-end offender management'? The same daft people who dreamt up OASys felt that the home probation officer was the ideal person to be in charge of the prisoner's progression through their sentence and chair sentence planning meetings. Oh, and preferably chair it by video link. It was a totally fanciful idea and hence has been ignored by both prison and probation. The same people are of course the architects currently trying to make the Transforming Rehabilitation omnishambles work. 

Without hesitation I can categorically say that I have never come across anything invented by man that wastes more time, for absolutely no purpose. Believe me, filling in a complete OASys induces an irresistible desire to beat ones head upon the desk, cry uncontrollably and either reach for valium or huge quantities of alcohol. Will someone, somewhere please rid us of this nightmare and let us get on with the bloody job?!

Now at this point no doubt some people will be thinking it can't be that bad, and to them I'd say this. No contractor thinking of getting involved in the Transforming Rehabilitation omnishambes will have anything to do with it - they've got a business to run and it will be lean and mean with no room for timewasting useless stuff like OASys. No one ever reads a complete OASys from beginning to end, unless they are an HMI or investigating officer on an SFO enquiry. Not even the Parole Board feel its any use. When I was at an Oral Hearing recently, the Chair pushed the file to one side and simply said 'now, what do you really think?'     

Risk assessment is not a science, but a skill that can be honed by well-trained and experienced staff. It can never guarantee 100% accuracy because a lot of our clients are accomplished liars and manipulators well-versed in the art of obstruction or obfuscation. We try to do our best and are successful in the vast majority of cases, but SFO's will occur. Lets not blame the PO, but the perpetrator instead and recognise that good assessments require adequate resources.               

Who Is Chris Grayling?

You can tell it's the party political season because suddenly all hyper-ambitious politicians find lots of reasons to grab the media limelight. So it is that Chris Grayling seems to be relentlessly popping up saying all sorts of attention-grabbing crap in order no doubt to warm up his groupies in readiness for the Conservative Party conference in a few weeks time.

Here he is in the Daily Mail last week talking about his campaign to 'stop activists playing legal games' or Judicial Review as we know it:-

Charities and ‘professional’ campaign groups will no longer be allowed to use the courts to delay major house-building projects or government cuts to benefits, under plans unveiled today. Justice Secretary Chris Grayling wants to stop activists mounting ‘spurious legal challenges’ he says serve only to generate ‘media coverage for their cause’.

They will be banned from bringing judicial reviews – in which a court rules on whether the government is acting lawfully – which can delay developments and policies by years.

I think it's clear what the government's direction of travel is when you take into account the lobbying bill that's currently working its way through Parliament. Increasingly, in a political landscape where there's not a great deal of difference between all three main political party's, campaign groups are often setting the agenda and being very successful at challenging government policy. Naturally the government doesn't like it, hence the unabashed attacks on democratic and legal processes. 

Clearly political ambition comes before common sense for Chris Grayling because he goes on in the article to have a pop at charities, the very groups who he hopes will come to the rescue over the Transforming Rehabilitation omnishambles, having already thoroughly pissed off G4S and Serco. He can't resist another pop at lawyers either:-

The professional campaigners of Britain are growing in number, taking over charities, dominating BBC programmes and swarming around Westminster.

There is a steady flow of people taking up such jobs from the world of politics – former advisers and politicians joining the ranks of these serial campaigners.

In the charity sector, a whole range of former advisers from the last Government can be found in senior roles. The traffic also goes in the opposite direction, with campaigners lining up to try to become Labour MPs.

While charities inundate Westminster with campaign material, they also target the legal system as a way of trying to get their policies accepted. One essential part of the campaigner’s armoury is the judicial review, through which it is possible for them to challenge decisions of government and public bodies in the courts. As a result, they hire teams of lawyers who have turned such legal challenges into a lucrative industry.

This has really got Sir Stephen Bubb fulminating on his blog and clearly he can't stand the guy!

I suppose we should have known what was likely because the Tories have a track record of bringing in outsiders as attack dogs when they want particularly difficult jobs doing. It was Dr Beeching for slashing the rail network, Ian Mcgreggor for smashing the coal industry, Tom Winsor to take on the police and now Chris Grayling to deal with the lawyers. 

Of course the lawyers in particular despise Grayling because he's the first ever Lord Chancellor not to be a lawyer. They don't tend to mince their words, just look what they think of him here:- 

We knew that Grayling was not a lawyer. Famously the first Lord Chancellor not to be a lawyer since the 17th century. His appointment has been described by Sir Stephen Sedley in these terms

"The decision in 2012 to put a political enforcer, Chris Grayling, in charge of the legal system carried a calculated message: the rule of law was from now on, like everything else, going to be negotiable."

While the assault on legal aid has had clear political motivations lurking under the banal justifications of ‘no money, dear boy’, lip service was always paid to the principle of rule of law and access to justice – the practice being another matter entirely.

But Grayling has taken off the fig-leaf. This is now expressly about limiting, or avoiding challenges to state power. 

As I read Grayling’s poisonous words, drafted by some ambitious, unctuous, amoral SPAD perhaps but approved by him, and his triumphant assertion that Judicial Review must not be allowed to interfere with Government policy, which is, but of course, ‘for the good of the country’, I hear the distant pitter patter of jackboots and the opening solo of ‘Tomorrow Belongs To Me’.

Blimey, that's strong stuff from our Learned colleagues! 

As reported recently in the Guardian, here is Grayling again, this time talking to Bench Chairs about streamlining yet further processes in the lower courts and getting Magistrates to sit on their own in front of a pile of paperwork and a computer. That should prove very popular, especially for no pay or expenses:-  

Speaking to the National Bench Chairmen's Forum, Grayling will say: "It's utterly absurd that three magistrates should spend their time rubber-stamping foregone conclusions in simple road traffic cases. Cases where the defendant doesn't contest the matter and doesn't even bother to turn up. One magistrate could deal with this much more efficiently on the papers, in an office.

"That's why we're going to legislate to remove those cases from traditional courtrooms, so that magistrates can focus their time in court on the more serious and contested cases which best use their skills."

On sentencing, Grayling expresses surprise at current practices. "It's also astonishing that something like 40% of defendants convicted in the magistrates courts and then committed to the crown court for custodial sentences receive no more than six months' imprisonment. These are cases which magistrates could and should have sentenced.

"I want to work with magistrates to find out why these cases are being escalated, and how we can address that," he will say.

He goes on to have a pop at the police and the use of out of court disposals:- 

Grayling will call for improved technology in courts and an end to "systems that won't talk to each other". He will express reservations about the rising use of out-of-court disposals by the police for crimes that are dealt with by means of a caution.

"We cannot have the situation where our high streets become fair game for groups of young people who can put a bit of money aside on the assumption that they'll get a penalty notice, and go on to commit all sorts of antisocial behaviour regardless of the consequences," Grayling will tell magistrates.

"I'm clear that repeat offenders, blighting our communities, need to be brought before the courts. But where the police have used an out-of-court disposal, there is a role for magistrates in scrutinising that."

So, if he's not a lawyer, what is he and who is he? Well here's a fascinating blog post on the OpenDemocracy website that attempts to answer this very point and remind us of his part in the MP's expenses scandal in case we've forgotten. Very useful to remember every time he appears on our tv sets looking smug:-

Chris Grayling was born into privilege, (he was smacked as a child and it did him no harm). Educated at the Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, he took History at Cambridge, then joined the BBC as a news trainee. He moved into management, ran TV production companies, then he jumped into another world.

He joined Burson-Marsteller, the world masters of reputation management, whose clients have included the Nigerian government during the Biafran war, the Argentinian junta after the disappearance of 35,000 civilians, the dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu and the Saudi Royal Family.

Nice guys.

Grayling spent a few years at Burson-Marsteller. (On his website it's not named, it's a "leading communications agency"). Then he parachuted into the safe Tory seat of Espom and Ewell. He rose fast through the Shadow Cabinet, developing a property portfolio with help from his Parliamentary expenses.

The Daily Telegraph revealed in 2009 that Grayling had claimed thousands of pounds to renovate a flat in central London – bought with a mortgage funded at taxpayers’ expense, even though his constituency home is less than 17 miles from the House of Commons.

The Telegraph reported:

"Within weeks of first being elected in 2001, he bought a flat . . .  for £127,000. In 2002, he set up an unusual arrangement with the Parliamentary Fees Office, claiming £625 a month for mortgages on two separate properties, both the main home and the new flat in Pimlico. This is usually against the rules, but Mr Grayling negotiated an agreement because he was unable to obtain a 100% mortgage on the London flat . . .Over the summer of 2005, Mr Grayling undertook a complete refurbishment of the flat. Shortly after the general election in May, Mr Grayling claimed £4,250 for redecorating and £1,561 for a new bathroom."

Not only that, but:

"The next month, he claimed £1,341 for new kitchen units and in July, he claimed a further £1,527 for plumbing and £1,950 for work that included rewiring the flat throughout. . .

During the 2005-06 financial year, Mr Grayling claimed close to the maximum allowance for MPs.

However, in the following financial year he continued to submit receipts for the work that had been carried out the previous year.

This effectively allowed him to spread the costs over two years – whereas he would have been unable to claim all the costs in the 2005-06 financial year. For example, in June 2006, Mr Grayling submitted an invoice for £3,534. . . A handwritten note on the invoice informed the fees office to 'Please note this has only just been issued, date notwithstanding.'"

And there was more:

"In July 2006, Mr Grayling submitted a claim for £2,250. The invoice from the decorator was dated July 2006, and referred to 'remedial and refurbishment works July 2005'.

On the claim form, Mr Grayling stated: 'Decorator has been very ill & didn’t invoice me until now.'

If the various late receipts had been submitted in the 2005-06 financial year, they would have exceeded Mr Grayling’s second home allowance for the 12-month period by over £4,700. However, they were still paid by the Fees Office."  

No Deal!

Contrary to what many of us believed to be the case, it would appear that there is no deal in prospect on implementing the Transforming Rehabilitation omnishambles. Napo's General Secretary Ian Lawrence was speaking recently at the TUC Congress in Bournemouth and this statement emerged via Pat Waterman, Chair of Greater London Branch:-

"Today, at the TUC Congress in Bournemouth, Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence told delegates that 'negotiations with the Ministry of Justice are in disarray' and that 'industrial action was a racing certainty'. 

Napo is keen to emphasise that it has done everything humanly possible to emphasise to the Ministry of Justice the implications of the risk their ill thought through plans pose to the public and has also put these concerns firmly and directly to both the Secretary for Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister only to be met with stock answers based on misleading information about reoffending. 

The probation service is high performing and meets all its targets unlike parts of the Criminal Justice System that have already been outsourced such as tagging, prisons, prisoner escort, and Courts interpreting services. 

Industrial action is always taken very reluctantly as a last resort by Napo, however, what is at stake at this time is the very existence of a comprehensive integrated and effective award winning public service that currently has a highly skilled work force that always places public protection integrity, and high standards before and above profit and commercial considerations." 

Pat Waterman, Chair of Napo Greater London Branch, at the TUC Congress Bournemouth September 2013

Now this is very interesting because of course seemingly there will be no deal to discuss and possibly agree at the next NEC meeting on 17th September, just two days before the MoJ intends firing the gun and formally advertising the probation contracts via the appropriate European Journals. If I've understood things correctly (but who does?) this then triggers a formal four week consultation period between each Probation Trust as employers, and their respective staff. 

But what will they actually be consulting on, given the stalling of negotiations? I suppose it will be what the MoJ feel like imposing. Rather worryingly, according to twitter conversations, at least one Trust, Merseyside, is telling its staff that they will be informed by the end of this month if they are destined for the NPS or a CRC. Now presumably this assertion is being made as a presumption of a deal having been agreed and ratified before the end of the month? It's just another example of how crazy the timetable is for this omnishambles.

In trying to get my head around what the hell is going on, I found the following communication sent last week between a branch chair and their members useful, and as a contribution towards the discussion and debate, I hope they will not mind me publishing it here, but anonymised:-

I have just returned from yesterdays NEC forum on the transfer arrangements for the National Probation Service and the Community Rehabilitation Company. You will have already seen the documents sent out last week and I have received comments from many of you which I was able to share with the NAPO top table yesterday. At this point in time there is still no clear proposal on the method of transfer on the table.  We are still expecting  appendix B before Thursday's Branch meeting in xxxxxxx. Not having this appendix means we could not discuss the issues or agree the proposals so it is still not clear as to whether the leadership want to support the offer.  This is also true of appendix C which concerns itself with the future of our pensions. Following Thursdays Branch meeting I will sending out a list of workplace meetings where, if these documents are produced they can be fully discussed before the NEC on the 17th September where NAPO will call a vote to either accept these proposals or reject them . WE NEED YOUR INVOLVEMENT..!!  What is clear to me and others in the branch that with the AGM so close, the NEC is too small and would not represent the fullest of consultations.

Members have been asking me how I see things in the brave new world. Well, following detailed conversations with colleagues across the country and experienced Trade Union lawyers my best guess is this… 

Between now and March there will be frantic work by MOJ and NOMs, supported by Trust management in some cases, to ensure staff are transferred to the new structure without too much resistance. Lambs and slaughterhouses comes to mind!!  MOJ and NOMs will offer a number of sweeteners to staff to make you believe all is well and they have your best interest at heart. From April we will all be in our destined location within Graylings mad world awaiting the sell off which will begin in October. JUST OVER A YEAR AWAY..!! At that point some of us will be anxiously waiting to see who our next employer will be. Throughout this time our friends at the MOJ and NOMs will continue to assure us they know what they are doing and only want see services run as normal...

Anytime after October 2014 we could see the transfer of many CRC's into private hands and there are good indications of the consequences of that. From 2015 30% reductions will mean many of you will go.. well 30% of you..!! There will be increased workloads.. No one from MOJ/NOMs has yet described how they envisage the additional 50,000 offenders on licence are going to be worked yet..!! There will obviously be less staff on poorer terms and conditions working in who knows what office. The estates is something else taxing the minds of MOJ..!!   As for the grades of staff I personally think the PO grade will be gone from the CRC within 5 years, half way through the contract and that's being conservative. The companies that will hold the contracts will be ensuring they squeeze every last bit of profit from the CRC and that will mean more work, more target driving processes, less staff and poorer pay.. Simple..!! At that point even the Mutual lifeboat will begin to leak.. There are previous examples that many mutuals will only last a few years and those who have colluded with the big boys will find themselves bought out with large senior management payouts for those who have placed themselves at the helm of the raft. I see no comfort or security in the hands of mutuals and for those who wish to pursue this option.. OFF YOU GO and don't feather your nest on tax payers time.!!  Many of you will have read our letter to the board chair asking how the time of a public paid staff can be deployed in this way to support privatisation?  When we get that reply we will circulate it. 

As for colleagues in NPS.. well I can see nothing good there.. high work loads, high pressure of working with dangerous offenders, relentless PSR's, crippling bureaucracy to name just a few issues already highlighted by information I am receiving.

Sorry members if I come across as being negative.. I have read and talked as much as I can on the future and these are my honest conclusions about how the national picture will develop.. and it's no good thinking that we will be ok in the xxxxxxxx with the nice people from xxxxxxxxxx as the demise of the current national probation service will impact on the collective terms and conditions for all, including those in Mutuals or joint ventures. 

The fight is not over…!! Your Union officials will continue to fight to derail these plans and change the future. We will put every last ounce of energy in fighting for our service. BUT we must have all members with us. Please attend the meetings and ensure you continue to press your MP's for support and continue to press us for new ways to campaign. 

On the subject of those contract variations that the MoJ are imposing on each Trust, clearly people have been engaging with Trust Chairs and here is one slightly irritable and curt response. It's a shame they didn't see fit to communicate their smug assumption a bit earlier:-

There have been a number of questions and comments on the Talking Wall about changes to Probation Trust contracts with the Ministry of Justice.

It is accurate that all Trusts have contracts with the Ministry of Justice for the delivery of services. This is the contract through which we receive a majority of our funding. The current contract may be terminated by 12 months notice.

All Trusts have been given notice within the last couple of weeks that new contract termination provisions will be implemented during September which will permit the Ministry of Justice to terminate contracts in time for the proposed transfer to the newly created National Probation Service and local Community Rehabilitation Companies on 1 April 2014.

Probation Trusts have not been asked to accept the new termination provisions – we expect the Ministry of Justice will implement the changes using the mandatory variation provisions already in the contract.

This development comes as no surprise to xxxxxxxxxx Probation which had anticipated that the current contract would be brought to an end in line with Transforming Rehabilitation timescales.

And finally I'm grateful to regular contributor Andrew for highlighting the following advice from Napo Greater London Branch concerning the increasing difficulty of keeping the show on the road when your political masters are doing their very best to destroy a fine public service:-

Let's acknowledge that we are all working under a very high level of stress and anxiety and do what we can to deal with it.

At the risk of being repetitive I would advise you all to work only your contracted hours and do only what you can within that time. As a rule of thumb if you are doing 5 hours a week in excess of your contracted hours and struggling to take TOIL then there is a problem. See your manager and discuss.

If for example when the computer crashes, and you lose the report you've spent all day writing, fill in an A&I form, send it to your manager and for goodness sake don't stay in the office until all hours rewriting it. If you do stay late remember the sensible thing to do is to make an arrangement to take time off.

If you have to cover for an absent colleague discuss the situation with your manager and don't try to do the work of two people.

WMT in the red? Don't just grit your teeth and put up with it. Discuss it with your manager.

Remember that not only does your employer have a legal responsibility to ensure their working practices are not detrimental to your health and well being but you also have a legal responsibility to look after yourself at work.

Overworking can have a serious impact on your health, your ability to work at your best, and affects all those who know you.

Information is Power

Isn't it strange how several people can have the very same idea at the same time? On Sunday I was pondering what the hell to write next on this blog and one idea was '10 Ways to Save Probation'. But I got sidetracked, and didn't write it, but I notice at least two other people did. Tweeter POofficer posted this 'How to Save Probation' on their blog and Rob Allen posted this 'Are we too late to save Probation?' on their blog.

It's completely obvious to me that an absolutely key element of any plan to try and save probation has to be the gleaning and sharing of information. If it were not for another blogger, Joe Kuipers, we would be almost completely in the dark at the present time in terms of information regarding this whole omnishambles. 

For what ever reason, Napo has proved to be incapable or unwilling to collect and disseminate information on a regular basis, even though this is an essential part of fighting any campaign, and the advent of instant publishing has revolutionised the ability to do this speedily and cheaply. The vacuum has to be filled, hence my efforts here and those of others taking full advantage of 'new media'. 

If a campaign is to have any chance of success, we must all share what information we have, and especially what's going on in each Trust. So, my contribution to 'ways to save probation' is please tell us what's going on where you are!  

Incompetent MoJ

Just when I thought I was beginning to get a grip on this whole sorry saga, it turns out that the Ministry of Justice and Noms HQ are even more incompetent than I imagined. For the last couple of weeks and since Joe Kuipers, Chair of Avon and Somerset PT told us, we've all been labouring under the misapprehension that individual Trust Boards had some discretion in relation to the contract variations being imposed by HQ in London. 

It's not his fault that the MoJ/Noms implementation team can't even get right the documentation sent to each Trust regarding the contract variations they want each to sign up to. They can't employ any lawyers down there in London because they neglected to make it clear that the Ministry was invoking its powers to make the contract variations mandatory:- 

"Interestingly it has emerged that the variations we are about the discuss are 'mandatory'. This means that the Authority (NOMS) is using a power within the contract to force Trusts to comply with the variations. As I have indicated previously, many are no more than updating the contract, but others have more material consequences. The contract sets out that where the Authority uses its power to make a variation mandatory it will make this clear that the variation is mandatory in the title of the variation. The mandatory nature of the variations was not clear when they were received by the Trust, and the relevant notification is now 'on its way'. This has only emerged following our questioning. The Trust Board can appeal to the Authority. My understanding is that most trusts have already signed the variations - whether they have discussed them I do not know.

That said, the more important variation is the one still expected in final form, the one detailing the termination of the contract, and this will not have been signed by Trusts as yet. It is important that readers of this blog understand this distinction between the variations; those referred to above and the expected one dealing with the termination of the contract. More on this in due course."

It seems we do indeed live in a form of totalitarian state and confirms to me the absurdity of having the charade of so-called independent Trust Boards acting under the terms of 'contracts' with the MoJ, when in reality the terms can clearly be unilaterally altered at any time. I think if I was an outfit considering making a bid for probation work when it's advertised on September 19th, I'd be very wary indeed of the sneaky small print. Joe says it's possible to appeal, and you know something, I hope one or two Trusts do, just to emphasise what an epic omnishambles this is turning out to be.

Talking of bidders getting jittery, Joe's latest blog post picks up on recent twitter conversations concerning the small print likely to be part of contracts between CRC's and the MoJ covering the all-important issue of money. As outlined on the very helpful Clinks TR website, it seems potential bidders don't like the sound of possible penalties being imposed if they don't meet targets or astonishingly, if a client's risk level rises necessitating a transfer to NPS:-  

"Payment mechanism

Providers’ level of payment will be dependent on the reduction in reoffending which they achieve. Contracts will combine both ‘fee for service’ elements and ‘payment by results’ (PbR) elements. To receive the full success payment, providers will need to achieve both an agreed reduction both in the number of offenders who go on to commit further offences and a reduction in the number of further offences committed by the cohort for which they are responsible. 

MoJ/NOMS will also impose financial penalties if certain targets are not met or if an offender’s risk level escalates to the point that they require a transfer back to the public sector Probation Service. "

Sounds like a real recipe for disaster then with a financial incentive to keep the case and hope for the best. Should make for some interesting Serious Further Offence enquiries.

According to Joe's very informative blog post, it seems that last weeks teleconference with Trust Board Chairs was mostly concerning the four week 'consultation' that will be triggered by the official contract advertisements being published on September 19th:-

"There was a telephone conference between NOMS / MoJ and Trust CEOs and Board Chairs on Thursday 5 September, notified the day before. This was primarily to advise CEOs and Chairs that important 'draft' ('restricted') information would come to us on Monday 9 September addressing crucial HR issues in advance of a four week consultation period between each Trust (as the employer) and its staff commencing on 19 September. It is proposed that staff will be transferred to either the new NPS or CRCs by way of a staff transfer scheme called COSOP (Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector). It is the finer details around this transfer that unions, employers and NOMS / MoJ are negotiating. At the time of writing agreement had not been reached. On Friday afternoon we were advised by the PA that pending the next negotiating meeting on Tuesday 10 September the information referred to in the teleconference would not be made available until after that meeting. All pretty well joined up then?"

Helpfully the post goes on to outline some fascinating questions that require urgent answers:-

• whilst staff terms and conditions were proposed to be protected on transfer to the NPS and CRCs from April 2014, would those protections continue once the CRC was 'transferred' to new owners after the competitive process (this transfer is expected to take place in October 2014)? Would the new owners be bound by the protections offered to staff at the first transfer?
• whilst it appears that NOMS / MoJ intend there to be no compulsory redundancies, other than voluntary departures at the point of first transfer in April 2014, will the new owners of the CRCs be bound by the same expectation once the CRCs are transferred to them? Can the new owners of the CRCs institute a programme of redundancies?
• will there be any roles or functions for Trust Boards after April 2014, such as addressing residual employment / employer matters (such as appeals, etc) or any Trust winding up functions?
• once CRCs are created as being NOMS owned from April 2014 until they are transferred to new owners later in 2014, who (i.e. which people) will be the employers of the staff? The CRC will be the employer, but which people will deal with employment matters (such as appeals, complaints, etc)? What sort of governance arrangement will be in place to undertake some of the current Trust Board roles for the CRCs in this interim period before new owners put in place their own arrangements? 

As ever in this evolving epic omnishambles, the posts by Joe Kuipers shine out out as beacons of erudition and light amidst a mostly dark and hostile landscape. I would urge people to read what he has to say in full.  

Omnishambles Update 19

Judging by comments to this blog and tweets I've seen, quite a few people have been making contact with Trust Chairs as a result of the revelations concerning contract variations demanded by the MoJ. Readers will recall that this issue only saw the light of day due to one Trust breaking ranks and their Chair Joe Kuipers of Avon and Somerset taking the novel and unique decision to keep people as informed as possible during this whole charade called Transforming Rehabilitation.

Joe has consistently posted as much information as he has felt able to impart, I guess to the great annoyance of both the remaining 34 Trust members of the Probation Association and the Ministry of Justice in London. Who knows in this surreal developing omnishambles that we all find ourselves thrust into by a barely-competent Minister of Justice, the real reason for that teleconference of Trust Chairs the other day might be because Chris Grayling is seriously rattled and ordered that the Riot Act be read.

It's fascinating to ponder on what the atmosphere down at MoJ/Noms HQ might be like right now because civil servants will be only too well aware of the recent findings by the House of Commons Public Administration Committee as reported here:- 

The MPs found a "blame culture" had developed in Whitehall over recent years, with ministers and civil servants unwilling to take responsibility for failures, such as the West Coast Mainline franchise debacle or in defence procurement and immigration.

"Failing organisations demonstrate common characteristics, such as a lack of openness and trust, which are very evident in some departments and agencies."

It added: "We remain unconvinced that the government has developed the analysis, policies and leadership to address these problems. We have found that both ministers and senior civil servants are still somewhat in denial about their respective accountabilities.

"There is a failure to learn from mistakes and instead a tendency to look for individuals to blame."

They will also have heard Iain Duncan Smith blaming his civil servants in the Commons this week for his travails at the DWP in implementing Universal Credit and wasting £34 million. It must all bode exceptionally well for a harmonious working relationship at MoJ/Noms HQ as a bad workman always has a temptation to blame his tools!

Anyway, since that hastily-arranged teleconference, according to comments left on this blog we learn that:- 

"The board of Gloucestershire trust apparently have told noms they will accept the proposed deadline."

"West Yorks PT released a response to questions about the contract termination question. It stated categorically that there is no choice in the matter and trusts have been TOLD the contract termination clause will be added."

Now as I commented in response:-

I'm no lawyer, but as far as I know variations of a contract can only be made by mutual consent, they cannot be imposed. We do not yet live in a totalitarian state and each Board cannot be ordered to do anything. 

Saying you have no choice and there being no choice are two entirely different matters. I think the Trust would do well to take legal advice.

I think it's worth reminding ourselves what Joe Kuipers feels are relevant points for each Trust Board to consider before agreeing to anything that the MoJ might be requesting, or ordering:-

• Will the Board have a formal minuted Board meeting to consider the contract variations?
• Will this meeting be an open or closed session?
• Will the CEO (a Board member) and the Board Chair (or other Board members) sign a declaration that their considerations are unfettered by any potential conflicts of interest (that, for example, the CEO has an interest in applying for posts in either the NPS or CRC or a Board Chair aspires to become part of a future governance structure)?
• Will the Board have specialist contract legal advice available to assist the discussions?
• Will the Board have specialist HR advice available to understand if any of the contract variations have implications for the Board as the employer?

Meanwhile the government's plans to try and sweeten the TR pill by encouraging the formation of cuddly-sounding 'mutuals' appears to have suffered a few setbacks with Derbyshire deciding not to proceed and Mitie pulling out of plans in Leicestershire. Do people have further information about what is happening in their area?  

It now transpires that the negotiations between the unions, including Napo, and MoJ have stalled. Apparently the essential and promised appendices B and C giving final details of staff transfer arrangements and pensions have not been forthcoming from the MoJ, and therefore it now seems most unlikely that the Napo NEC scheduled for 17th September will be able to consider the matter. I wonder if they will be ready for the Llandudno AGM in October? Every bit of delay in this whole charade makes it much more difficult for the MoJ to keep to the TR timetable. 

Finally, all Napo members recently received the following e-mail which sadly many might feel merely serves to confirm the difficulty Napo faces as being both a trade Union and Professional Association:- 

To all members of Napo
 
It is expected that, on the 19th September Secretary of State Chis Grayling is set to formally advertise the Probation Service for sale in the Official European Union Journal. To highlight our disgust and opposition to this outrageous selling off of the Probation Service,  Napo, in conjunction with Unison and GMB will be holding localised lunchtime protests either outside Probation offices or within town centres.
 
This is not Industrial action, and members must note that they will have to use their own time. We will send out further details of the day of protest next week along with suggestions of how this might be organised and materials that can be used.
 
Ian Lawrence
General Secretary

Omnishambles Update 18

I wonder what it must be like to work down at MoJ/Noms HQ at the moment? Not knowing from one week to the next what's happening and trying to make sense of the Minister's latest barmy ideas when you know they won't work. One week HMP Dorchester is scheduled to be part of a grand plan for 50 resettlement prisons. The next week it's closing. One week, there is no alternative but to impose legal aid Price Competitive Tendering. The next there's a u-turn. One week the split between the CRC's and NPS is 70/30. The next it's 50/50.

We know they're working really hard down there at HQ because Probation Trust chairs were told this during a hastily-arranged teleconference yesterday. Joe Kuipers, Chair of Avon and Somerset Probation Trust, revealed the gist of the conference call in several tweets and the message is firmly that 'TR will happen!' 

Such a statement has the ring of Chris Grayling about it when he's angry and at his most defensive. When it all goes pear-shaped, as it most surely will, his humiliation will be that much more complete. I think the alarmingly-frank admission from officials that 'many questions remain'  should send a shiver down those at HM Treasury and the No10 Policy Implementation Unit and set alarm bells ringing. 

Of course the Trust Boards still have a key role to play in the whole omnishambles saga as each has to decide whether to accept the contract changes being imposed by the MoJ, and we will be watching and holding each to account as they consider the matter. How fortunate we are that one Trust Board broke ranks from the Probation Association over TR and are prepared to continue ploughing an independent furrow. 

Apparently mention was made of the union negotiations at the teleconference, but its passage towards acceptance looks to be even more bumpy with at least one Napo branch losing patience and beginning the process to try and ensure that matters are deferred until the AGM at Llandudno in October. I understand that certain key documents are still not available, despite the NEC decision date being barely 10 days away. 

Despite the 'upbeat' nature of the spin coming out of MoJ/Noms HQ, word is that there are unmistakable signs of interest waning amongst potential bidders for the work, and especially 'primes'. People are getting jittery as it becomes ever more clear that the MoJ don't really know how it's all going to work, a situation completely mirroring that found by the recent National Audit Office report into the Universal Benefit project. Can a government really afford to have so much going wrong at this point in the electoral cycle? A beleaguered Prime Minister will be considering a reshuffle of his cabinet soon and it will be very interesting to see how this pans out.

Staff continue to jump ship in considerable numbers and I've recently been in offices where those remaining are rattling around amidst a sea of empty workstations. Workloads are becoming so critical that I hear questionable practices are being adopted in certain Trusts, such as the so-called 'cold OASys'. It would seem that staff are being directed to complete OASys assessments based solely on other colleagues FDR paperwork, but with clients unseen by the assessor. I know OASys is basically crap, but this practice strikes me as both completely unprofessional and useless.