Omnishambles Update 9

Another day, another report saying that outsourcing is going wrong and that civil servants are simply not up to the task of writing the contracts. This time it's the independent think tank the Institute for Government as reported here in the Guardian:-  

The government has been told to pull back its large-scale programme to outsource public services, including probation services, because it does not have the skills or information to prevent it being overcharged by big private companies.

A damning report into the government's privatisation programme by the influential, independent thinktank the Institute for Government has called for an urgent review of the programme and said many of the "markets" being created for public services are reducing competition and choice, rather than enhancing them.

The thinktank has highlighted a wide range of problems with the government's programme of privatising public services, including:

• Big suppliers may be "carving up" public services in specific geographic areas and preventing smaller firms from getting business, because the government doesn't have enough information about who is providing different services in particular areas

• Whitehall doesn't have the skills to design and manage complex contracts

• The pace of outsourcing means civil servants are being stretched to the limit and mistakes are being made on drawing up contracts that are resulting in poor services and value for money

• A lack of expertise in running complex outsourcing has resulted in an inability to negotiate the best deals with suppliers

• Too many services are focusing on people who are easy to serve, while those with more complex needs are being "parked"

The thinktank says the government must slow down its plans to expand markets in public services and says it should conduct an "urgent, cross-government review to ensure public services are truly competitive – and not dominated by a few providers". It has also contacted the Office of Fair Trading about greater scrutiny of major outsourcing contracts at an early stage.

With impeccable timing in the wake of Chris Grayling's announcement last week concerning G4S and Serco, the report notes that there is no real alternative contractor able to deliver electronic tagging. This piece in the Independent neatly sums up the position:- 

The report comes just days after the Government placed all the contracts held by two of the UK’s largest outsourcing firms, G4S and Serco, under review, after an audit showed they had charged for tagging criminals who were either dead, in prison, or never tagged in the first place. The two firms are the major private players in both the privatisation of the criminal justice system and the Work Programme. Experts say it is difficult to see how any further large-scale outsourcing of police, probation or prison projects can succeed without their involvement.

The IfG warned there were significant concerns over their dominance in the market. “A number of large providers now deliver a wide range of services, commissioned by separate government departments in particular areas of the country,” the report warns. “This allows these providers to undercut competitors making them attractive to commissioners.”

As the article makes clear, there are particular problems in relation to privatising the probation service and the report is forthright in it's recommendations:-

The Ministry of Justice has announced plans to open up 70 per cent of the probation service to outside providers. But the IfG warns that re-offending outcomes – by which providers will be paid – are very difficult to measure and in most circumstances cannot be controlled by one provider alone.

Some senior officials told the IfG that they feared private companies would be less well placed to integrate with other services (like mental health agencies and the police).

Recommendation: The MoJ should not outsource probation contracts all at once – but roll them out and assess each one over time. The department should also demand high levels of transparency and publish data not just on their key performance indicators (including reoffending rates) but also on the contracts they have let to specialist providers of services like drug treatment or mentoring support.

All this comes on top of the revelations by a whistleblowing former employee of G4S, Nigel Mills as reported in the Daily Mail last week. According to the article, the whole scandal blew up basically because of a complaint by this chap who brought it upon himself to highlight what we all know to be the case, namely that much of the equipment is crap and often doesn't work properly. It would appear that the MoJ were the only people seemingly oblivious to some very inconvenient truths as detailed by Mr Mills:-

"The state of the company's equipment makes it impossible to monitor a tagged person's movement properly. Equipment failures allow tagged offenders to escape the authorities unnoticed - but also incorrectly identify when breaches have taken place. Innocent ex-prisoners have been returned to jail for breaches of their curfew that did not take place. Employees used computer shortcuts to avoid calling offenders who had apparently breached curfews. Multiple requests were made for tagging orders for a single criminal which could cost taxpayers millions."   

On Monday the Justice Affairs Select Committee published a report on women offenders post Corson Report and the Chairman Sir Alan Beith didn't mince his words regarding the MoJ's proposals for probation and how they will affect women:- 

"The Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation reforms have clearly been designed with male offenders in mind. This is unfortunately symptomatic of an approach within the Ministry of Justice and National Offender Management Service that tends to deal with women offenders as an afterthought."

It should be noted that when plans were announced recently for the re-rolling of 70 prisons as 'resettlement prisons', conspicuously it did not include any female establishments. 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation Liz Calderbank has just published her last annual report 
before stepping down as HMI and has concerns:-

"The changes rely for their funding on the economies to be introduced by contracting out a large proportion of the work currently undertaken by Probation Trusts and are going to be implemented in a very short time, allowing little opportunity for the development of a shared working culture. Both the scale and the pace of the change is considerable and we are concerned, as an inspectorate, that it is taken forward and implemented without any drop in the quality of work already achieved."

Finally, I see that Sue Hall, Chair of the Probation Chief's Association, was speaking recently at a Howard League event and according to twitter accounts, was quite forthright in what she had to say about the impending omnishambles:-

"Community sentences made big improvement in reducing crime, so it's wrong to abolish probation" 

"Massive reorganisation will be a bureaucratic nightmare and cost millions"

"Decision to dismantle probation based on ideology not evidence" 

Could she now please get invited onto Channel 4 news and tell Jon Snow all this?

PS The PCA have issued a press release 'drawing attention' to the IfG report. Come on now, we can do a bit better than that, can't we?!

Some Observations 16

Well it's been quite a few days of frenetic activity here in the searing heat at Blog HQ and ever since Chris Grayling unexpectedly decided to give the 'Save Probation' campaign  a super-charged boost last Thursday. I say unexpected because I'm sure it wasn't his intention, and he really ought to take a leaf out of our book when we tell clients to 'think before acting'. I've always felt that anyone could benefit from ETS courses.

But Chris Grayling wasn't the only one to lose his cool in the heat last week and as the nation experiences what is beginning to look suspiciously like summer. There was also Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of the ridiculous and expensive Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, getting very hot under the collar trying to tell us that increasing MP's salaries would be a 'good deal for taxpayers'. 

Clearly not a politician and completely out of touch with the realities of life in austerity Britain, he got quite angry when he was repeatedly disabused of the notion that paying MP's more money would be felt to be a popular move by anyone. For me the final straw was hearing that part of his justification included the removal of free evening meals at the Palace of Westminster. You mean having heavily-subsidised restaurants is not enough, the cheeky beggars don't even pay?!  

Of course we had to endure the final insult of hearing a lot of smug-looking MP's magnanimously saying they wouldn't take the increase, whilst supremely confident in the knowledge it will almost certainly be paid automatically after the next General Election. Their sticky little fingers nowhere near the decision since the expenses scandal, but still a case of the Establishment looking after itself of course. Nice one Sir Ian! 

With all the excitement caused by Chris Grayling's own goal last week, many Napo members are wondering when the union is going to start seriously putting the boot in? In reality they are still in the process of recovering from turmoil at the top, but Ian Lawrence is now firmly ensconced as General Secretary and I hear that a replacement media voice for Harry Fletcher takes up post on 5th August.

Unlike Harry, Tania Bassett is a seasoned probation officer of over 11 years and has considerable union experience having been Chair of the West Mercia branch of Napo. Many will feel that her arrival on the scene is not a moment too soon. Here she is featured talking about the pensions action in 2011. Meanwhile, nominations are due to close later today in respect of elections for National Chair.

For all sorts of unfortunate reasons, the previous splitting of the post has been an unmitigated disaster at a time when clarity of message and leadership was vital, but hopefully the situation will be rectified very soon. It will be noted that the court case involving one of the previous co-chairs has recently been resolved.        

I know it's old news now, but ever since the story first broke I've been meaning to pass comment on the now infamous Charles Saatchi restaurant assault story involving his wife Nigella Lawson. There are two points that really stood out right from the beginning, firstly that Domestic Violence is prevalent in all sectors of society and secondly that Lord Saatchi came out with virtually all the classic responses that are very familiar to probation officers everywhere.

You know the sort of thing, it was a playful tiff; I just held her to get her attention; I've never done this before; I abhor violence; I've been on the receiving end; I only accepted a police caution to stop further comment etc etc. It's all very recognisable stuff and much to Lord Saatchi's clear displeasure, Nigella's continuing silence on the matter says it all really. In this case the 'playful tiff' looks like ending in an extremely fast mutual divorce settlement.    

That's all for today I think, but I'd like to say a big thank you to all the readers who are regularly pushing this blog over 1,000 hits a day and who are increasingly writing to me with information and general snippets both to help feed this monster and to assist the campaign to save our profession and public service. Keep it up guys! 

Things are Turning Toxic

You sort of know things are going pear-shaped when you start seeing influential people like Dame DeAnne Julius, a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Affairs Committee, rushing to the aid of outsourcing. As quoted in this Public Service website, she remains confident that a little difficulty over G4S and Serco shouldn't put anyone off the idea as:- 

"the private sector could in many cases run services more efficiently and more effectively than the public sector.

"Using a specialist provider whose reputation and share price are on the line, commissioned and monitored by an in-house procurement team, results in higher reliability, better quality and cost savings – it is better than doing it yourself," she said in an article for the Financial Times newspaper.

"It's a hat-trick too good for the public sector to pass up, especially when money is tight."

Julius said it would be wrong to "condemn" the outsourcing industry, over the latest overcharging accusations, especially before investigations had concluded.

But as the BBC's Business Editor Robert Peston discovered, potential bidders for government contracts like probation are now seriously rattled by what's happening:-  

The boss of another outsourcing company - not Serco or G4S - told me the incident was tainting the sector. This chief executive told me: "My shareholders are telling me not to touch UK government contracts with a barge pole, if I can possibly help it, that I should look for any business rather than UK government business".

Interestingly, he'd been to interview the Chairman of G4S, John Connolly, and he didn't mince his words in adding fuel to the spat with Chris Grayling by in effect saying the Minister had been a little economical with the truth:-

"Mr Connolly did not give a view on why Mr Grayling had not made clear that it was G4S which had opted to call in the SFO."

It's clear that G4S mean business seeing as they've instructed Linklaters, a very expensive firm of lawyers not particularly known for pussy-footing about.  I think it's possible that the Ministry of Justice and HM Government generally might be about to be reminded as to the importance of contracts and sticking to them. 

Meanwhile, as this piece in the Observer makes clear, in this brinkmanship initiated by Grayling, it will almost certainly end in tears, causing someone some serious damage as well as unsettling the whole outsourcing sector:-

Unlike its rival Serco, which faces similar allegations, G4S has refused to submit to an independent probe of its tagging work – Grayling's preferred option. That has raised the stakes, locking Grayling and Ashley Almanza, the new G4S boss, into a game of brinkmanship. All of a sudden, it is hard to see how they can both escape unscathed, and the affair now looks like it could easily be the undoing of one of them.

Meanwhile, parts of Almanza's counterclaim have been emerging. The G4S boss blames the court and prison services for failing to formally end curfew notices to which the billing process was linked.

Whether such an argument has legal merit or not, it is surely devastatingly toxic for G4S's reputation. Was it really prepared to keep taking millions from the taxpayer for offenders whose need for monitoring it knew to be non-existent? Or was there negligence at play? Neither sit well.

There will be some who cheer Grayling for airing suggestions of impropriety at G4S so publicly in the Commons, and hitting the recalcitrant firm where it hurts – in the share price. But on careful reading, his message was a little confusing. As G4S was quick to point out, despite his forthrightness the justice secretary did state at one stage: "I have no information to confirm that dishonesty did take place."

It all looked so different back in October last year when this article in the Independent quoted Harry Fletcher, then Assistant General Secretary of Napo:-

Large companies such as G4S and Serco will win the lion's share of contracts to run probation services, unions forecast last night after David Cameron announced a drive to slash levels of reoffending by hardened criminals.

The National Association of Probation Officers (Napo) predicted that most probation services that are outsourced would go to large companies rather than charities or voluntary groups.

Bidders are likely to include such firms as G4S, Serco and Sodexo, which run England's 14 private prisons. Downing Street yesterday insisted the scheme would be designed in such a way as to enable charities to partake.

But Harry Fletcher, the Napo assistant secretary, said: "It's a certainty that large security companies will win virtually all the contracts. It is they who can afford to subsidise bids under a payment-by-results system.

"Charities that can't afford to bid will go out of business and standards will fall."

I wonder how many bidders of any size there are left in the dutch auction for probation work and that are still interested in getting stuck in to this omnishambles, especially now that it's all turning toxic? 

Selective Evidence

Professor Paul Senior has on several recent occasions drawn attention to the governments' tendency to prefer policy-based evidence rather than the more usual and sensible evidence-based policy approach when determining action and legislation.

On Friday, in a somewhat surprising policy u-turn in relation to the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes, the government suddenly appeared keen to espouse the need for evidence before proceeding with change. I guess cynics would point to the policy change only coming about because of the lobbying power of the tobacco industry, the likelihood of the change having electoral consequences in relation to UKIP and the arrival of David Cameron's new policy adviser. 

Cynics would say that the governments' sudden conversion to the idea that evidence should influence policy is not likely to hold water in other areas, like privatising the probation service by means of the as-yet untested Payment by Results method. And they are absolutely right.

Regular readers will recall that there are two pilot PbR schemes running at HMP Peterborough and HMP Doncaster, but despite full evaluation of their effectiveness being some years off, the government has never-the-less decided to roll out the method nationally. 

Some weeks ago the MoJ published some interim statistics that Chris Grayling trumpeted as 'promising' but others said were disappointing and inconclusive. Yet others, including Jon Harvey, felt there were serious problems with the figures and as a result he submitted an FoI request with 21 rather pointed questions. Well, he's had a response and only two questions were refused answers. 

As before, I will be honest in saying that I don't fully understand the ins-and-outs of statistical analysis, but others will and we must look to such experts for informed comment. However, I agree with Jon that the key and extremely illuminating answer appears to be that given to question 19:-

You say 'these interim figures show a fall in the frequency of re-conviction events at Peterborough' which is a drop from 41.6% to 39.2%. at what threshold of probability is this statistically significant?

The answer is as follows:-

We have not carried out statistical significance tests on the interim figures because, when it comes to the final results, neither pilot will be assessed on the basis of whether they have achieved a statistically significant change."

As Jon Harvey says, 'is that a solid basis for the distribution of taxpayers' money?' I'd go further and say is it any basis on which to take risks and destroy a well-performing public service like probation? Lets hope HM Treasury and No10 are taking a keen interest in this unfolding omnishambles.        

G4S Turns on Grayling

It looks like G4S, now under new management since the departure of CEO Nick Buckles, is in no mood to be pushed around by a mere Minister of the Crown. It would seem that Chris Grayling has seriously misjudged the relationship between government and contractor in the brave new Tory world where public services have been privatised. 

Having been thoroughly humiliated during the Olympic security fiasco last year, and with further contracts in the offing, Grayling thought G4S would have no stomach for a fight and would simply roll over like Serco and have it's tummy tickled. 

No such luck as G4S is defiantly saying that they stuck to the letter of the tagging contract and it was HM Courts Service and HM Prison Service that screwed up in not providing accurate and timely information - and who runs these two organisations? Why Chris Grayling and the Ministry of Justice of course. 

G4S has effectively called Grayling's bluff and said see you in court! Interestingly, according to this article in the Guardian, the Serious Fraud Office has not as yet accepted the invitation to investigate the company, and may in fact decline the suggestion. If this proves to be correct and the SFO feels there is insufficient evidence to get involved, Mr Grayling may find himself up the proverbial creek and without the means to paddle.

He may also find to his cost just how few friends he has made in his department. Not having people watching your back can be a very unwise, uncomfortable and unpleasant place to be, and I think there will be plenty of civil servants who will relish the prospect of failing to adequately assist in preventing his fall from grace.  

It just keeps getting worse for the guy because G4S are also refusing to withdraw quietly from the bidding process for the new tagging contracts and according to this Mirror article, are likely to win the contract for lie detectors to be used in helping probation officers monitor sex offenders. I'm not sure he has any legal power to prevent them from bidding, and if they don't win, he'd better make sure it was all fair and square! (whisper it ever so quietly, West Coast Mainline...) 

I suspect that by nature Mr Grayling is a bully and normally used to getting his own way. However, what we are witnessing is a very neat lesson in just how little authority a minister has over commercial organisations that run services on behalf of HM Government. As much as it's humiliating for him, it's very nicely questioning the case for privatising more public services, a fundamental pillar of conservative policy of course.   

He failed to fully appreciate that because of the sheer global size of G4S, they don't have a great deal to lose, seeing as only between 8% and 10% of their business is with the UK government, unlike Serco's 45%. The harsh reality is that the government needs G4S rather more than they need the government.  

In this new privatised world that the Tories feel is so much more efficient, Grayling has simply failed to notice that power has shifted inexorably towards these huge and utterly unaccountable security behemoths. The Minister is left angry and impotent and having to argue the toss, expensively through the courts probably, as lawyers pore over all that not-too-cleverly drafted MoJ small print.

So, where does this all leave the programme for privatising the Probation Service? Why, as we know, according to the Minister, everything is proceeding nicely according to plan...... 

Leaked Memo : Exclusive

The following memo from the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice to the Minister has come into my possession and I thought it I would share it with readers:-

Minister,

You asked me to brief you on progress with the Transforming Rehabilitation Implementation Programme prior to the Summer Recess and your impending sojourn abroad. 

I'm happy to report that basically things are proceeding well and as you instructed, they were not to be stalled by the recent House of Lords amendment to the draft Bill.

As you are aware, there are one or two problems still to be ironed out, particularly in relation to the previously identified commissioning 'capacity deficit' within the department. However, I'm pleased to tell you that the Cabinet Office have sportingly agreed to the temporary secondment of some of their best people and I'm assured they will be able to sort things out in short order. Apparently they are extremely experienced, having worked previously on the West Coast Mainline contracts and the new NHS telephone call centre project.

In terms of possible interested bidders, it's a shame that G4S and Serco would seem to be out of the frame now, but your suggestion that a 'short, sharp shock' might help concentrate minds and ensure we get some keen bids is paying dividends already. My contracting people tell me that with the SFO referral now public knowledge, potential bidders are 'as keen as mustard' in wanting to delve into the really small print in the draft contracts.

The voluntary sector capacity building programme is nicely on target and over an extremely convivial dinner the other night, the Chief Executive of ACEVO assured me that there were 'loads' of his charity members more than ready to forget the 'unpleasantness' from the Work Programme and basically 'give it another go'. It would seem that what they don't know about dealing with offenders, they more than make up for with an enthusiastic approach to the challenge! 

There are mutterings however about the possible shortage of 'Old Lags'. The voluntary sector are particularly keen to respond positively to your encouraging words on the use of such volunteers, but it might be that we have to revisit the idea of an extension to the Early Release scheme for the over 50's in order to ensure there are enough to go round. I have a working party looking at the possible implications. 

I'm told things are progressing nicely on the IT front and all glitches on the nDelius national roll out have been fixed. I'm assured the user feedback is extremely positive, a situation similar to that with OASys R which is proving to be significantly better than the original version. It's true there are one or two issues with integrating all the IT systems, the migration of data, secure access for third parties, capacity, adaptive technology, user interfaces, etc etc, but I'm assured this is all perfectly normal for a government project of this complexity and the independent consultants say 'it can definitely be fixed'.    

I think we are winning the public relations battle, especially now that the gagging order on senior management has taken effect. One might be tempted to say there's hardly been a 'tweet' out of them and in any case they're currently focused on the recruitment process for senior positions at NPS and the NewCo's.

It's true to say that some information is leaking out, mostly it seems from ASPT, but we are doing our best to try and discourage this. As you are aware, one or two academics are still insisting that we 'come up with some evidence', but the long summer break is fast approaching and we confidently expect things to fall silent very soon.     

As you oft repeat, fortunately for us the public still have no real idea what probation is all about and therefore the BBC hardly gives the subject a mention at all. Napo doesn't seem to have got its act together yet and probation staff generally are reported to be 'largely apathetic and resigned to change'. 

Regarding the blog you mentioned, the Media Relations Team inform me that 'it appears to be written by a grumpy old fart who's lost the plot and hasn't got a clue about what he's writing about'. Apparently it has a very low profile and only gets about 1,000 hits a day. I'm assured it's nothing to worry about.

So, basically the programme is nicely on track and I can assure you that everything is in very capable hands. I sincerely hope this puts your mind at rest and that you can now enjoy a very well-earned holiday. 

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, 


PS I'm told that morale in the department 'has never been higher'.                  

A Capability Gap

Well it was left to poor old Francis Maude, Cabinet Office Minister, to face the flak on Channel 4 news last night in the absence of Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and the emerging electronic tagging scandal.

Inquisitor-in-chief Jon Snow managed to extract from Maude that there was a 'capability gap' within the portals of the Ministry of Justice and Snow certainly voiced the view of us all in probation that neither G4S or Serco should get any more contracts until both companies are shown to be squeaky clean. Maude ducked that question, obviously, but in reality both companies are now completely out of the running for any probation contracts. 

Grayling really lost his cool yesterday and somewhat reminiscent of a cornered animal, lashed out, reacting without a great deal of thought. It now looks as if every contract by these two companies, right across all areas of government, will be looked at in minute detail. This not only means share prices will be affected, it's going to make other privateers think twice about the reputational dangers of taking on government contracts that might turn toxic one day.     

Of course there are plenty of privateers in the wings, but these were the biggest and I think this whole sorry saga is going to rebound spectacularly by demonstrating that the MoJ is, to quote the nauseating former Home Secretary and current G4S director John Reid, "not fit for purpose". 

Apparently, such is the quantity of brown stuff that is contacting the fan down there at MoJ/Noms HQ, that staff were 'crying in the toilets'. As a bit more time has elapsed following Graylings astonishing Commons statement, it's emerged that the fault may indeed lie fairly and squarely with the incompetent MoJ itself. 

Thanks to helpful briefings by G4S spin doctors, a picture is emerging whereby it would appear that according to the contracts drawn up by the MoJ, it was their responsibility to notify the tagging contractor when tagging of an individual starts and when it ends. Now I'm no contract lawyer, but that seems reasonable to me. The trouble is it makes a naive assumption that there is a robust and reliable data exchange system in place that ensures that these two bits of straightforward information are communicated to the tagging companies in timely fashion.

Without wishing in any way to prejudge the conclusions of the enquiries just announced, I suspect that G4S and Serco said to themselves something along the lines of 'if the MoJ is too lax to tell us that X and Y are dead or have been returned to jail, we'll stick to the letter of the contract and just keep collecting the fee'. Surely in this instance it's up to the client to know who is being tagged, for how long and therefore how much to pay, rather than the contractor to 'bill' the client? Or is this too simple?

In essence, isn't this the essential difference between a company working to a contract and making money for shareholders, as opposed to a public service with a sound ethical base working for the public good? Doesn't this all very neatly demonstrate why privatising something like the probation service is a very bad idea indeed? 

I'm not entirely sure the companies 'over-charged'. I think they just took advantage of the MoJ's inability to keep to their side of the contract and decided not to help them out. It's a commercial arrangement, not a public service any more and the MoJ just isn't up to dealing with such slippery customers in the world of business. Isn't there a universal truth that says 'customer beware'?   

Now I stress I'm not a lawyer and I'm only guessing, but I think it's entirely within the realms of possibility that this whole sorry saga will end up reflecting rather more badly upon the hapless MoJ and Chris Grayling than it does on those nasty big private security behemoths.  

So, if I'm right, where does this leave the chances of the hapless MoJ making a decent fist of drawing up cast-iron contracts for privatising probation? Err, zilch I'd say.          

Grayling Turns on G4S

Just as it seemed not a lot was happening, it looks like Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has forfeited any chance of one day being invited on to the Board of G4S by referring them to the Serious Fraud Office over the electronic tagging contracts dating back possibly as far as 1999. 

Suspicions were raised several months ago that G4S and Serco had been 'overcharging' the MoJ in relation to tagging for some time and as a result a firm of accountants were asked to carry out a full audit and investigation. Apparently it was discovered that in some instances bills had been paid in relation to non-existent tags and for people that had died. 

It seems that most unwisely G4S have thoroughly incurred the wrath of Chris Grayling by refusing to accept a follow-up audit designed to identify wrong-doing, hence the SFO referral. It should be noted that if the SFO carry out their investigation at their usual snails pace, there's a good chance of hell freezing over before the results are known. 

Whilst Serco have rather more sensibly agreed to a new accountancy investigation, they have accepted that they are now unable to continue with their bidding for a new tagging contract. In addition, as they are apparently the most likely candidate to win the Yorkshire prisons contract, they have been told by the MoJ that the decision will now be delayed until the outcome of the new investigation is known. 

I don't know who handles PR for G4S, but Chris Grayling is reported to be so angry that he is insisting that all contracts the company has with the MoJ will now be investigated and he is determined that they will not be bidding for any further tagging business. I'd say that their chances of winning any probation contracts were approximating to zero as a result. In the case of Serco, well they can hardly be negotiating probation contracts with an on-going investigation into dodgy tagging business, can they?

Now, whilst this is a spectacular and unfortunately-timed fiasco for the government in terms of the probation privatisation plans, with both main contenders in trouble and a really tight timetable for success, it also neatly serves to highlight the utter incompetence of the MoJ in being able to successfully manage the commissioning of services. May we now expect a little more questioning from our probation leadership and a bit less forelock-tugging?  

Apparently, what made Chris Grayling really lose his cool, was when he discovered that MoJ officials had known for ages that there were 'issues' with the tagging contracts. I must say that the MoJ must be a very unhappy place to work at the present time, but you Mr Grayling are the prime author of your own misfortune. 

You have chosen not to heed the House of Lords amendment designed to put a brake on these crazy privatisation plans without a proper debate in both Houses of Parliament. You have ignored sage words of advice and counsel that there must be some evidence before deliberately breaking up a fine and highly-performing public service. In the end it will be you that carries the can for this continuing omnishambles, and trying to shift the blame will not wash. When firmly ensconced in a hole, it's customary to stop digging.

PS Napo members really should seriously consider a positive indicative vote for industrial action in order to help slow down and defeat this daft and dangerous plan. If you do nothing else, use your vote.              

A Geography Lesson

The Rehabilitation Revolution omnishambles has taken a new turn with the announcement by the Ministry of Justice of the 70 prisons that are to be re-branded as 'Resettlement Prisons'. The idea is that all short-term prisoners, that is those serving 12 months or less and that currently do not qualify for any help or support upon release, will serve all their time at one of the newly-designated establishments. 

This is so that they can be prepared for release by one of the new contractors currently considering whether to bid for the so-called through-the-gate services or not. It's intended that the new providers of resettlement support and supervision will establish contact during the sentence and famously according to Chris Grayling they will be met at the gate on the day of release by a 'reformed old lag' who will show them the error of their ways.

In theory it's a good idea, but those guys down there in London need to get out a bit more. I don't think geography is their strong point. For example, lets have a look at HMP North Sea Camp - bit of a clue in the name there, built as it is on land reclaimed from the North Sea by Borstal boys - in fact not that many years ago I well remember nearly getting stuck in a blizzard visiting the godforsaken place, out in the windswept wilds of Lincolnshire as it is.

Being miles from any significant habitation, how is this place 'near' to any ones resettlement location? Where will the volunteer mentors be recruited from; how will they get to the prison and back in a reasonable time frame and how is the cost to be covered in the pared-to-the-bone contract? How are families expected to visit regularly?

Or what about HMP Haverigg? Basically an old RAF base and again, pretty much no where near any where, but amidst some absolutely stunning Cumbria landscapes, a full hour from the nearest motorway:- 

How to get there:

• Bus: Take the number 15 bus from the Market Square which is 200 yards from Millom railway station.
• Train: The nearest railway station is Millom. A bus or taxi must be taken to complete the journey.
• Car: Haverigg is about one hour from junction 36 of the M6 motorway.

From the M6, Leave the M6 at junction 36, signposted Barrow and Kendal. Continue on the A590, taking the first slip road still following signs for Barrow for approximately 27 miles until the road runs adjacent to Morecambe Bay.

At the village of Greenodd, turn right on to the A590, signposted to Workington, Whitehaven etc. Stay on this road for 10 miles, going up over the fells and down by-passing Broughton in Furness. After Broughton in Furness (you will pass the High Cross Inn on your right), follow the A595 over Duddon Bridge and continue for 2.5 miles until Hallthwaites. (The prison is signposted from here.) Turn left, following the signs for Millom and Haverigg. Travel through Millom turning right at the BP garage and turn first left for Haverigg. Turn left at the end of the road and follow this road to Haverigg village. Turn right at the Harbour Hotel and turn left at the end of the main street.

One of the real joys of this job is getting out of the office, away from the computer and on the road at the crack of dawn in order to visit a far-flung outpost of the prison estate, nearly always located in some of the best scenery this nation possesses, and of course find time to eat and relax in one of the pubs handily pinpointed on the prison website (and no a video link is not the same and does not assist in establishing a constructive and therapeutic relationship). 

What I don't think they've fully appreciated down there at metropolitan MoJ HQ is that most prison building since the war has been dictated by cheap land already in government ownership and handily located miles away from troublesome middle class nimby's who even insist that the prison name bears no relation to where it's actually located, such is the stigma involved. 

Unlike the Victorian gaols, conveniently located in the centre of our major cities, for years the favoured locations for new prisons have been old RAF bases, isolated institutions, marshalling yards, failed industrial estates or reclaimed marshland. Almost without exception, they are not renowned for ease of access or closeness to habitation. For this idea to work, real resettlement prisons need to be in population centres, and of human scale, but that won't happen because the land is too expensive and the bigger the prison, the cheaper it is to run.

Take a look at the new Titan prison just announced for Wrexham, North Wales for a staggering 2,000 prisoners. There may be economies of scale, but it will mean the catchment area will be vast and make maintaining family ties difficult and expensive. 

Talking of catchment areas, due to the pressure on the prison estate and exacerbated by recent closures, many prisoners already find themselves located miles away from home, especially in London and the South East, and the disruption caused by these plans will only make matters worse.    

Resettlement prisons? I don't think so and the Howard League isn't impressed either.    

Some Observations 15

I thought it was time to round up various bits and pieces before I forget, so in no particular order, lets start with Chris Grayling at the Justice Affairs Select Committee on the subject of Legal Aid. If he thought that spiking their guns by telling them in writing on Monday that he was caving in on client choice of solicitor would ensure an easy time, he was mistaken. He got a good going over and Sir Alan Beith remarked in true British understated style that 'eyebrows had been raised' - blimey! 

The committee didn't seem that impressed to hear that 'he didn't think it was a good idea all along' to remove client choice of solicitor or his supercilious remark that 'he'd read the consultation responses and changed his mind'. He got shafted by the legal Establishment, that's what happened. Actually on the subject of the consultation, the automated e-mails 'deleted unread' came up and his response was basically 'trust me, they didn't get deleted, but I don't feel inclined to prove it'. 

I'm not sure if people have noticed, but there have been developments in relation to Operation Fairbank and one Charles Napier was arrested last week. Most amazingly of all it seems that seven boxes of evidence have been retrieved by police from a warehouse. The Elm Guest House scandal has the potential to make the expenses scandal and phone-hacking scandals look like side shows. The whole political landscape could be thrown into turmoil very shortly guys and that would seriously affect the government's agenda.....

At long last, some Napo members will be relieved to hear their new General Secretary state:- 

This cynical rush to get TR implemented without proper public and Parliamentary scrutiny is why Napo and Unison have now launched indicative ballots to test our members resolve to take Industrial Action so that we can develop the next stages of the campaign.

Now seeing as industrial action is a key risk factor identified in the leaked government risk register and we are talking about the very existence of the Probation Service, I really do think it behoves members to send a clear positive message to government through this indicative ballot. We all know that probation officers and indeed most probation staff have an historical aversion to industrial action, but look guys, don't we all owe it to our forebears, our clients and history to put aside qualms, past bitterness and even disillusionment and just bloody well vote?!

I haven't heard much reference to this article in the Guardian recently on the likely introduction of compulsory lie-detector tests for certain types of sex offender and following recent trials. 

The power to introduce compulsory lie detector tests was put on the statute book six years ago in the Offender Management Act 2007. On Tuesday MPs will debate secondary legislation in the form of a statutory instrument to come into force from 6 January 2014. The House of Lords will be asked to approve it later this month.

The justice minister Jeremy Wright said: "Introducing lie detector tests, alongside the sex offenders register and close monitoring in the community, will give us one of the toughest approaches in the world to managing this group.

"We recently announced the creation of a National Probation Service tasked with protecting the public from the most high-risk offenders. They will be able to call on this technology to help stop sex offenders from reoffending and leaving more innocent victims in their wake."

Am I the only one who feels very uneasy about this and especially probation staff being actively involved in administering such dodgy technology?

Finally, with all this depressing stuff around, there's still time to catch Peter Jones, one of the stars of Dragons Den, on i-player interviewing John Timpson and his son James who run Timpson the national shoe repair business. Timpson's positively recruit ex-offenders and routinely carry out interviews in prisons, saying that many make excellent employees and respond positively by being offered a 'break'. It's not a publicity stunt with son James explaining that it's often better to know the whole offending history from the outset and that 'crack dealers often make good cobblers' due to their entrepreneurial skills. 

I found the programme lifted my spirit because father John Timpson has a refreshingly different approach to management and employee relations. He positively encourages staff to exercise discretion, trusts them to get on with the job, gives them their birthday off and lets them use company holiday homes free-of-charge. Having fostered over 90 children during his lifetime, he comes over as a genuine guy who proves that you can care about staff, as well as make lots of money. Have a look on i-player and reflect on your own experiences of employers you've known over the years.