It's Friday and I'm conscious there's been an awful lot of text this week. I saw this. It's simply brilliant and worth sharing.
Friday, 4 August 2017
Thursday, 3 August 2017
Prison News 2
Here we have Rob Allen's take on the current situation:-
It’s less than 18 months since David Cameron cast prison reform as “a great progressive cause in British politics”. His vision was for “the leadership team of a prison to be highly-motivated, to be entrepreneurial and to be fired up about their work”. The President of the Prison Governors Association is certainly fired up alright but less with enthusiasm than exasperation. I can’t recall such a broadside being delivered by a public servant to her bosses - nor one that is so (almost) wholly justified - as that which was delivered by Andrea Albutt today.
Cameron’s hubristic vision of a modern, more effective, truly 21st century prison system looks as far away as ever. The levels of violence, drug-taking and self-harm which he thought should shame us all in February 2016 have continued to soar.
So what’s gone wrong? Three things. First was the failure - wilful or otherwise - to see the severity of the impact which budget reductions would make on the stability of prisons. There was never really a “Golden Years pre austerity” as Andrea Albutt has put it. But all too often, “too great a degree of tolerance of poor standards and of risk” as Robert Francis QC said of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust. Such a tolerance was one of the reasons why numerous warning signs did not alert the health system to developing problems in Mid Staffs. The same is true of many prisons which were never truly stable enough to withstand the level of cutbacks, particularly when Ken Clarke’s efforts to reduce the population were shelved.
Second the government applied a formula approach to reform which ignored some of the distinctive challenges of prisons. Cameron promised to "bring the academies model that has revolutionised our schools to the prisons system". It was a mistake. An approach is needed that recognises that individual prisons cannot float free in the same way as schools and their customers have no choice over which establishment they attend. Given the risk averseness of government, whatever ministers may say, innovation is always likely to be closely controlled from the centre. The so called empowerment agenda has, says Andrea Albutt, yet to gain any traction, with governors now accounting both to their headquarters and the Ministry- the result of a ‘perverse’ severance of policy from operations which has so far added cost but little benefit.
Third there has been an optimism bias about the reform agenda. I’m not sure whether Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is still in vogue, but it should have been obvious that without safety and security, loftier ambitions about rehabilitation have no chance of success, however flowery the rhetoric. Too many stakeholders have been taken for a ride. The National Audit Office for example, will presumably look back with some embarrassment on their 2013 assessment that "the strategy for the prison estate is the most coherent and comprehensive for many years, has quickly cut operating costs, and is a significant improvement in value for money on the approaches of the past". Their view that the Ministry of Justice make good use of forecasts of prisoner numbers and have good contingency plans is flatly contradicted by the PGA’s view that the recent rise in the population, unforeseen by the statisticians in MOJ, has left virtually no headroom in prison spaces.
So what to do? First to stabilise the population, create that headroom and make a dent on overcrowding, some kind of early release scheme should be introduced while longer term plans to reduce the population are put in place. There’s no shortage of ways of doing that -only a shortage of political courage to do so. The new Secretary of State for Justice needs to show that.
Second, some structural changes. Shifting responsibility for juveniles out of the MOJ and prisons into the education ministry; a Youth Justice Board for young adults, a new body to deliver alternative accommodation for elderly prisoners. Devolving financial responsibilities for prisons to local areas. They won’t produce quick fixes but could help take the pressure off an overburdened prison system in the medium to long term.
Finally, capable prison governors working in Whitehall should be returned to the front line and experienced staff who have left the service in the last five years lured back into it whatever it takes. Plans to recruit more and better qualified staff are promising but will take time the service has not got. Some of the capital resources intended to build new prisons should be converted to revenue to pay for staff .There is growing scepticism that the £1.3 billion secured from the Treasury for new prisons can be spent by 2020. Some of it should be used to repair the current arrangements rather than establishing new ones.
In less than three months, the largest annual gathering of international prison professionals takes place in London for a week of discussions about “Innovation in Rehabilitation: Building Better Futures”. Its focus is on improving outcomes for prisoners. But that won’t happen unless they are improved for prisons first.
Rob Allen
--oo00oo--
Meanwhile, the fallout from the Grenfell fire continues to have ramifications in a number of directions, such as here:-
Peter Clarke
--oo00oo--
Meanwhile, the fallout from the Grenfell fire continues to have ramifications in a number of directions, such as here:-
Peter Clarke
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
3rd August 2017.
Dear Peter,
No doubt you will have seen the media coverage on the serious issue of failing fire safety in prisons today? I write to ask if you will in future take with you during your inspection of prisons specialist Guest Inspectors from all disciplines for which the Inspectorate does not have in-house experts - and especially one from the Crown Properties Fire Inspection Group (CPFIG) to inform you about fire safety in the prison you are inspecting?
Currently you do not concern yourself with inspecting fire safety, and I fail to understand this irrational approach. But more seriously your current approach to prison inspections, and your failure to address fire safety, demonstrably results in reports that are completely misleading. Let me explain.
Your approach is irrational because you do not concern yourself with 'fire safety' on the basis that fire safety is the responsibility of a separate statutory regulator - CPFIG. Yet you always inspect and report on 'healthcare' during your inspections, despite the fact that healthcare is the responsibility of another separate statutory regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This approach doesn't make any sense.
You report on healthcare because you take along with you a Guest Inspector from the CQC; so why not take with you a Guest Inspector from CPFIG to report on fire safety? Both are critical issues of health and safety. More seriously, however, your current flawed approach to this results in reports that are misleading, and here is why.
Between 20th February and 3rd March 2017 you inspected HMP Coldingley where you concluded in terms of 'Safety' that: "Outcomes for prisoners were reasonably good against this healthy prison test." But that simply wasn't true.
Three weeks after your Inspection, on 29th and 30th March 2017, CPFIG inspected Coldingley and they found that in terms of fire safety the place was so dangerous they served the prison with a Statutory NonCompliance Notice, giving them 28 days to correct the fire safety defects or they would issue a Crown Enforcement Notice.
CPFIG Inspection found failings, among other things, that included:
- The procedure is not always followed for removing cigarette lighters and matches from prisoners in Segregation who appear to be at increased risk of self-harming through fire.
- Normal and/or emergency lighting doesn’t provide sufficient illumination to implement the Cell Fire Response plan including the removal of a prisoner from the cell.
- The measures to reduce the spread of fire and smoke were inadequate.
- There was insufficient evidence available to demonstrate the effectiveness of the smoke control arrangements for E wing after it was confirmed to have extraction only.
- The generic cell fire response plan was not suitable for the circumstances in which prisoners are not locked in their cells (night san).
- The training package delivered to staff does not provide sufficient practical instruction on the use of Inundation equipment.
- An insufficient number of prison staff members working in residential wings are in date with their training in RPE wearing.
- The number of trained prison response staff members available was not always sufficient to implement the cell fire response plan effectively.
- The fire safety measures were not always being tested and maintained in good condition and effective working order.
How on earth could you describe this less than a month earlier as a 'safe' prison? Had you taken with you a Guest Inspector from CPFIG during your inspection the fire safety failures identified less than a month after you left would have been identified sooner, removing the risk to life that your flawed approach allowed to continue unchecked - and which you signed off as 'safe'.
What we need is obvious: a joined up Prisons Inspectorate You are the Chief Inspector of Prisons, and 'Prisons' means what it says. Conducting an inspection of a 'Prison' is not like some a la carte menu, where you pick and choose what parts you want to inspect and those you choose to ignore - it is the 'prison' as a whole that should attract your full attention; as indeed it used to do.
Lord Ramsbotham, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons from 1995 to 2001, told me in a recent email communication that during his time as Chief Inspector: "We always took a Civil Engineer, who looked at Fire Safety, he once prevented HMP Canterbury from blowing up because he found that the boiler had been installed the wrong way round!"
I do not mean to be rude, but you will be the first to admit that you have little experience of prisons, and certainly no operational experience of managing one. After 34 years as a police officer, and just over a year into your current job, it’s hardly surprising.
Given that lack of operational prison experience it is vital that to discharge your obligations as Chief Inspector of Prisons properly you surround yourself with as many relevant experts as possible; and your lamentable failure to identify the serious fire safety defects at HMP Coldingley in March 2017 demonstrate beyond doubt that from this point on your inspection teams must include an expert on fire safety.
Grenfell changed everything, and that means it has to change things inside HM Prisons Inspectorate too. With 2,580 fires in prisons during 2016, almost 50 blazes a week, having missed the glaringly obvious fire defects at Coldingley in March this year and after Grenfell, I hope to find that I am knocking at an open door.
I look forward to your response.
Kind regards
Yours sincerely,
Mark Leech FRSA
Editor: The Prisons Handbook.
Napo At Work in the South West 9
Following on from yesterday's demands to bring Probation in Wales back into public control, here we have some recent email exchanges from another part of the Working Links empire that indicates all is not well. As always, thanks go to the Napo member and reader for keeping us informed:-
South South Western Branch
CRC Members - WORKLOAD INDICATOR 26/07/2017
Members,
By now you will have read the WL Justice News 24/07/2017 and mention of the Workload Indicator tool.
Please note that the statement within this newsletter "This has been approved by the Operations Board following a period for review by managers and Unions." is construed to be somewhat misleading. The facts are that at no time have NAPO Representatives had sight of their management resources allocator prior to its release . There has been no short sides dialogue or setting out of timings and nothing under the duty of care from health and safety or what should be organised under our terms in the WPEC agreements that WL have so far refused point blank to actually look at to honour.
Some reps from BGSW and Wales may have had some cursory conversations in this but the fact remains that DDC Napo SSW branch have previously reminded Mr Wiseman during the last ACAS meeting that we are three seperate organisations and three seperate Napo Branches. You have not elected Representatives from Wales and BGSW to act on your behalf and yet again this reference to Unions within the Justce News is distorted and UNISON do not represent us . So often we hear the coments from Managers that the Unions have been involved therby misrepresenting to encourage an assumption that the Unions have agreed. This is not neccessarily the fault of the Line Management as they are most likley passing on what they have been told, although we are aware that some do blatantly mislead and directly claim agreements knowing these are just not true.
The important thing to note is that you have elected local reps to deal with all matters relating to your terms. By deliberately failing to consult properly with your representatives from all three branches they bypass the agreed collective bargaining arrangements to consultation with your local Branch.
We are likely to see more propoganda and misleading material as such misleading statements are nothing new in the history of Justice News. Next time you do see or hear such statements ask which Branch it has been agreed with, who the reps were,what date was the official meeting where is a signed agreement and then check with myself or Dino and tell them your going to do that before any acceptance of the position they propose.
Given that DDC SSW branch have not been privy to this consultation nor has any information been passed to us for consideration we advise members not to recognise this porcess until consultation has included DDC Branch Reps.
Denice James
JNCC Rep
--oo00oo--
Dear Denice
I was very disappointed, not to say disturbed, to read the message which you sent out yesterday to your members which I have copied below for ease of reference:
For the avoidance of all doubt and in order to set the record straight, I attach, below, a copy of the e mail that was sent to yourself and all the official NAPO and Unison representatives across both BGSW and DDC by Elaine Berk on my behalf on 12 June, 2017, inviting comments in writing in relation to the Workload Indicator Tool and Guidance, copies of which were issued with that e mail.
You were, yourself, party to the early discussions re the development of a workload measurement tool and you will know very well from the discussions that we have had with the Unions over recent months that there has been an open invitation to the Unions across all 3 CRCs to participate in the working group developing the Workload Indicator.
To suggest, therefore, that the process to date has not included DDC Branch reps is not only disingenuous but it is simply not true.
The fact that neither you nor your colleagues chose to submit any comments in writing or otherwise during the consultation period does not negate the process of consultation and having followed that process we are now entirely within our rights to implement the Workload Indicator Tool as indeed we are now doing.
You also make reference to the WPEC Agreement, the contents of which have been thoroughly reviewed in the course of the development of the Workload Indicator Tool and incorporated as appropriate, as the e mail below confirms.
Regardless of whatever advice you may give your members, meanwhile, please be under no illusions that this can in any way prevent the legitimate use of the tool which is designed, when all is said and done, to assist managers and staff to ensure that no individual staff member is required to undertake more than a reasonable workload.
To summarise, therefore, the workload indicator tool has been the subject of a consultation process, whether or not you have chosen to participate in that process. This does not require Union agreement and managers will be applying the workload indicator tool with immediate effect, with or without the explicit consent of individual staff members but for the benefit of those individuals and to ensure an equitable and manageable distribution of the work within teams.
I am asking Elaine Berk to issue this e mail to all staff so that they can see for themselves exactly what the process has been and as I say, the tool will be implemented across all case management teams with immediate effect.
PS a separate version of the Workload Indicator is currently in development for staff in interventions and CP and this, too, will be subject to a similar consultation process prior to formal implementation.
Dear colleagues:
We are issuing this Workload Indicator and guidance to managers today. We have asked managers to test this with their teams and give feedback so that we can make adjustments or improvements if required. Your feedback will also be appreciated and should be submitted, in writing to myself by close of play on 28th June.
The tool is an indicator only and cannot be a perfect measure. However what it will do is highlight where workload appears to be excessive, ensure conversations with individuals begin and that steps are taken as appropriate to address excessive workload within the framework of the guidance.
If you need further explanation on how the points have been arrived at we can arrange this for you as we know the union rep was unable to attend all the meetings on the development of the tool.
We have looked at the Devon and Cornwall Probation Area WPEC agreement from 2006 which was based on the old NWMT, including measurements for current NPS activities that are no longer relevant. The work done to develop this new tool will match to the CRC tasks and give a useful indicator for staff and managers on workload. Nevertheless we appreciate the principles contained in the WPEC and aim to have covered these in the new guidance for managers.
Specifically regarding the 6 Criteria in section 3.1. we confirm the WLI and guidance includes that:
1. Managers accept responsibility to ensure staff do not carry excessive workloads and manage resources accordingly.
2. We have developed a new mechanism for monitoring the workload of staff.
3. We have guidance for managers on what they can do where an assessed workload exceeds an acceptable level
4. We have a mechanism where staff can approach managers should their workload become excessive.
5. We have not got a defined list of tasks that can be set aside if a workload is excessive but see 3 above which should address this.
6. Expects managers to ensure workload does not exceed acceptable levels where new tasks are assigned.
John Wiseman
Probation Director
South West Community Rehabilitation Companies (covering Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire(BGSW CRC) and Dorset, Devon and Cornwall (DDC CRC))
You were, yourself, party to the early discussions re the development of a workload measurement tool and you will know very well from the discussions that we have had with the Unions over recent months that there has been an open invitation to the Unions across all 3 CRCs to participate in the working group developing the Workload Indicator.
To suggest, therefore, that the process to date has not included DDC Branch reps is not only disingenuous but it is simply not true.
The fact that neither you nor your colleagues chose to submit any comments in writing or otherwise during the consultation period does not negate the process of consultation and having followed that process we are now entirely within our rights to implement the Workload Indicator Tool as indeed we are now doing.
You also make reference to the WPEC Agreement, the contents of which have been thoroughly reviewed in the course of the development of the Workload Indicator Tool and incorporated as appropriate, as the e mail below confirms.
Regardless of whatever advice you may give your members, meanwhile, please be under no illusions that this can in any way prevent the legitimate use of the tool which is designed, when all is said and done, to assist managers and staff to ensure that no individual staff member is required to undertake more than a reasonable workload.
To summarise, therefore, the workload indicator tool has been the subject of a consultation process, whether or not you have chosen to participate in that process. This does not require Union agreement and managers will be applying the workload indicator tool with immediate effect, with or without the explicit consent of individual staff members but for the benefit of those individuals and to ensure an equitable and manageable distribution of the work within teams.
I am asking Elaine Berk to issue this e mail to all staff so that they can see for themselves exactly what the process has been and as I say, the tool will be implemented across all case management teams with immediate effect.
PS a separate version of the Workload Indicator is currently in development for staff in interventions and CP and this, too, will be subject to a similar consultation process prior to formal implementation.
Dear colleagues:
We are issuing this Workload Indicator and guidance to managers today. We have asked managers to test this with their teams and give feedback so that we can make adjustments or improvements if required. Your feedback will also be appreciated and should be submitted, in writing to myself by close of play on 28th June.
The tool is an indicator only and cannot be a perfect measure. However what it will do is highlight where workload appears to be excessive, ensure conversations with individuals begin and that steps are taken as appropriate to address excessive workload within the framework of the guidance.
If you need further explanation on how the points have been arrived at we can arrange this for you as we know the union rep was unable to attend all the meetings on the development of the tool.
We have looked at the Devon and Cornwall Probation Area WPEC agreement from 2006 which was based on the old NWMT, including measurements for current NPS activities that are no longer relevant. The work done to develop this new tool will match to the CRC tasks and give a useful indicator for staff and managers on workload. Nevertheless we appreciate the principles contained in the WPEC and aim to have covered these in the new guidance for managers.
Specifically regarding the 6 Criteria in section 3.1. we confirm the WLI and guidance includes that:
1. Managers accept responsibility to ensure staff do not carry excessive workloads and manage resources accordingly.
2. We have developed a new mechanism for monitoring the workload of staff.
3. We have guidance for managers on what they can do where an assessed workload exceeds an acceptable level
4. We have a mechanism where staff can approach managers should their workload become excessive.
5. We have not got a defined list of tasks that can be set aside if a workload is excessive but see 3 above which should address this.
6. Expects managers to ensure workload does not exceed acceptable levels where new tasks are assigned.
John Wiseman
Probation Director
South West Community Rehabilitation Companies (covering Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire(BGSW CRC) and Dorset, Devon and Cornwall (DDC CRC))
--oo00oo--
South South Western Branch
BRANCH UPDATE 31 JULY 2017
Dear Members,
You may have seen Mr. Wiseman’s response to my previous Branch Message issued 26th July 2017. Despite his statements we remain in dispute and the matter of Workload Management is one of the many topics included. The Workload Indicator Tool is a workload resource allocation tool and NOT a workload weighting calculator for staff. Requests for shortsides discussion on such matters were originally ignored prior to the dispute and now in dispute it has not gone through the national dispute process. Let me assure you that myself and your Branch Chair Dino Peros would not agree any matter outside of that process. We are currently waiting for the date of the next meeting to be confirmed.
Members can draw their own conclusions but WPEC was raised as far back as February 2015 by us. We raised it formally in dispute at ACAS on November 22 2016 and this has become a dominant H&S issue raised again at the last dispute meeting at ACAS on 5 June 2017. This issue remains in dispute and there has been no real or genuine attempt to form working proposals.
To claim I am disingenuous is laughable yet then to state the meaning of the word illustrates a desperate and harsh stance.
I can confirm that I have received support for my comments from a UNISON colleague who reports a similar message will be issued to their members in DDC as there has been no agreement from them either on this issue.
John Wiseman states that he is disappointed and disturbed by my statement. Well the SSW Branch have been disturbed since the start of this whole process and the mention of potential redundancies. We were disturbed and disappointed when WL decided to ignore the EVR process and offered VS. They were well aware that so many staff were desperate to leave that they could let people go on the cheap. We continue to be disturbed and disappointed on an almost daily basis when listening to member’s reports of bullying from management, excessive workloads and inappropriately allocated cases.
Members we will continue to reject these failing policies and will keep you posted. This message has been sent openly to all members given John’s choice to do so.
If you have read this and not a member then come and join your local Branch. We are stronger together.
Denice James
JNCC / Staff Rep
--oo00oo--
On the subject of consultation generally, this looks interesting:-
UNISON in Court of Appeal victory over employers who fail to consult unions
South South Western Branch
BRANCH UPDATE 31 JULY 2017
Dear Members,
You may have seen Mr. Wiseman’s response to my previous Branch Message issued 26th July 2017. Despite his statements we remain in dispute and the matter of Workload Management is one of the many topics included. The Workload Indicator Tool is a workload resource allocation tool and NOT a workload weighting calculator for staff. Requests for shortsides discussion on such matters were originally ignored prior to the dispute and now in dispute it has not gone through the national dispute process. Let me assure you that myself and your Branch Chair Dino Peros would not agree any matter outside of that process. We are currently waiting for the date of the next meeting to be confirmed.
Members can draw their own conclusions but WPEC was raised as far back as February 2015 by us. We raised it formally in dispute at ACAS on November 22 2016 and this has become a dominant H&S issue raised again at the last dispute meeting at ACAS on 5 June 2017. This issue remains in dispute and there has been no real or genuine attempt to form working proposals.
To claim I am disingenuous is laughable yet then to state the meaning of the word illustrates a desperate and harsh stance.
I can confirm that I have received support for my comments from a UNISON colleague who reports a similar message will be issued to their members in DDC as there has been no agreement from them either on this issue.
John Wiseman states that he is disappointed and disturbed by my statement. Well the SSW Branch have been disturbed since the start of this whole process and the mention of potential redundancies. We were disturbed and disappointed when WL decided to ignore the EVR process and offered VS. They were well aware that so many staff were desperate to leave that they could let people go on the cheap. We continue to be disturbed and disappointed on an almost daily basis when listening to member’s reports of bullying from management, excessive workloads and inappropriately allocated cases.
Members we will continue to reject these failing policies and will keep you posted. This message has been sent openly to all members given John’s choice to do so.
If you have read this and not a member then come and join your local Branch. We are stronger together.
Denice James
JNCC / Staff Rep
--oo00oo--
On the subject of consultation generally, this looks interesting:-
UNISON in Court of Appeal victory over employers who fail to consult unions
UNISON has won a landmark court victory today (Friday) that makes it much harder for employers to ignore staff when making major changes in the workplace. The Court of Appeal ruling means that for the first time employers will be obliged to consult with unions around any workplace issues that affect their members.
Until now, unions only had the right to be consulted where the law required this, for example in TUPE regulations where employees transfer from one employer to another, and in redundancy cases. The ruling means employers will also have to involve unions in issues such as those around working hours and holiday pay. It will benefit thousands of employees whose rights at work are under threat and means that employers will face greater scrutiny over their treatment of staff, says UNISON.
The victory came about after the union took up a case involving parks police who were made redundant by the London Borough of Wandsworth. The Court of Appeal ruled that UNISON had the right to be consulted by Wandsworth over the job losses.
UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said:
“This is the second major legal victory in a week for working people. It means that employees in any workplace where there’s a union will now benefit from greater protection at work. The message to bosses is they will have to treat their staff more fairly over pay and working conditions. If they fail to consult unions then they will be acting unlawfully and could be taken to court.”
Wednesday, 2 August 2017
MoJ Under Siege
Well those MoJ spin doctors certainly had their work cut out today. Wall-to-wall negative coverage of a department fast becoming 'unfit for purpose' and still no minister in sight.
Following on from serious prison disturbances at HMP The Mount and HMP Erlestoke, the day started in earnest with news of the Prison Governors Association putting the boot in, as well as some assiduous behind-the-scenes work by Harry Fletcher, former Napo Assistant General Secretary, bearing some fruit and the media at last showing signs of joining some dots up about the link between SFOs and the TR omnishambles. This in the Guardian:-
Increase in serious crimes by offenders on probation, figures show
There has been an increase in serious crimes committed by offenders under supervision in the community since the controversial privatisation of the probation service, figures suggest. The number of offenders on probation charged with murder, manslaughter, rape and other serious violent or sexual crimes has risen by more than 25% since changes to the service in England and Wales.
Plaid Cymru, which obtained the figures, said the trend was “extremely worrying” and called for the government to renationalise the probation service. The party also found that offenders in many parts of England and Wales are reporting to the new private-sector community rehabilitation companies (CRC), which are responsible for supervising offenders judged to be of low or medium risk, via phone call rather than in person.
The government played down the figures, saying that since the reforms many more offenders are supervised in the community after leaving prison, which makes an accurate comparison of the before and after pictures impossible. It said reporting via phone was just one technique used by CRCs.
According to the figures, in 2012-13 – before privatisation – 409 serious further offence reviews were triggered. By 2016-17, the number of SFOs had increased to 517. The figures also show that between February 2015 and the end of 2016, 46 offenders were convicted of murder while subject to supervision by a CRC. This is likely to rise as a number of other cases are still going through the legal process.
Plaid Cymru’s justice spokesperson, the MP Liz Saville Roberts, said: “This is an extremely worrying rise in serious crime committed by people who are supposedly under supervision. These are offenders who, under the supervision of the probation service, committed murder, manslaughter, rape or another serious violent or sexual offence. That the number of instances of this kind has surged by 26% since the probation service was privatised is deeply worrying. The British government needs to admit it was wrong and commit to renationalising the probation service.”
The justice secretary, David Lidington, said last month that the privatised probation service had encountered “unforeseen challenges”.
Saville Roberts drew attention to leaked documents, first published by the Guardian in 2013, warning that there was a more than 80% risk that the proposals introduced by the then justice secretary, Chris Grayling, would lead to “an unacceptable drop in operational performance” triggering “delivery failures and reputational damage”.
She said: “It is astonishing that ministers are claiming the difficulties faced since privatisation were unforeseen when a leaked internal risk management document shows that they were warned.”
Harry Fletcher, a justice campaigner and former probation worker, said: “That the justice secretary claims that problems with the sell-off of the probation service were unforeseen is astonishing. The leaked risk assessment from 2013 was damning and warned about these problems but the British government ignored it.”
Under the changes to the service, the caseload was divided between the public sector National Probation Service – which took on higher-risk offenders – and 21 CRCs.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “In 2014, we reformed our approach to probation so that for the first time ever, all offenders given a custodial sentence receive probation support and supervision on release. It is therefore misleading to compare the number of Serious Further Offences prior to our reforms with subsequent figures, as the number of people on probation is now significantly higher than before. A thorough investigation is always carried out when someone commits a serious further offence to see whether anything could have been done differently.”
--oo00oo--
It should be noted that the best efforts by the MoJ spin doctors above have been thoroughly demolished here. Is it possible though that the senior staff are on holiday and the juniors are left running the show? "so that for the first time ever..." No doubt those with long memories will recall we used to be called 'The Probation and After Care Service' .This seen on Facebook:-
"Surely the MoJ spokesperson contribution in this article is incorrect? It was John Major's Conservative Gov't that brought in the 1991 CJAct which removed probation support for short-term prisoners. As the then Xxxxxx ACPO responsible for throughcare, I implemented Xxxxxxx service level agreement with Xxxxxxxx to ensure that training and process was in place in order that our short-term prisoners received a service."
I understand Ian Lawrence, Napo General Secretary, was interviewed on LBC, but if his performance was anything like that on the Victoria Derbyshire tv programme, it's to be hoped the union can find a more able spokesperson in the not-too-distant future. Tune in at 49.26 and make your own mind up.
--oo00oo--
We'll round things off with this comment piece, again from the Guardian:-
Why are prisoners rioting? Serial ministerial incompetence
We'll round things off with this comment piece, again from the Guardian:-
Why are prisoners rioting? Serial ministerial incompetence
Our justice system is collapsing because key issues were never addressed by Chris Grayling and Michael Gove when they had the chance
Today is the second day of rioting at the Mount prison, and “disturbances” across the prison system in England and Wales are becoming increasingly frequent. Levels of violence and self-harm in our prisons are the highest they’ve been in decades. The president of the Prison Governors Association, Andrea Albutt, was right to express “grave concerns” and call for a stronger government response.
The basic reasons for the riots, violence and self-harm in prison are not complicated. There are 25% fewer operational staff, and the staff there are aren’t sufficiently skilled or experienced. Staff are hampered by poorly designed buildings. The dilapidated HMP Wandsworth is a prime example of a historically fascinating and eerily beautiful architecture – a perfect panopticon – but moving prisoners around its narrow corridors and steep stairways safely is far from easy. Overcrowding is acute across the estate – and contributes to a claustrophobic atmosphere. There’s little time for so-called “constructive activity” and inmates are trapped in their cells for ever-longer periods as governors try to reduce the chances of violence, but inevitably increase inmates’ frustration in doing so. Less is being done to rehabilitate prisoners in prison – and their chances are further undermined by the declining performance of probation services that were hastily outsourced by Chris Grayling, when justice secretary, in 2015.
The underlying reason for these obvious problems is an astounding level of political negligence and arrogance. Our problems today have been long in the making and must be seen through the stories of our rapidly changing cast of justice secretaries. We’ve had five of them since 2010 and they boast an average tenure of less than 18 months – barely enough time to understand the job, let alone do anything.
In 2010, Ken Clarke made it clear he supported the government’s goal of controlling public spending but he did give serious thought as to how this could be achieved sensibly. He realised tough choices were needed to reduce prison numbers, and former prime minister David Cameron and then-chancellor George Osborne promised to back him. Only they changed their minds and fired him in 2011 after the right of the party applied pressure and Clarke left himself politically exposed through a painfully misjudged interview.
Since then, every justice minister has felt obliged to pretend they could square the circle of cutting the Ministry of Justice’s budget by 25% over five years, while dealing with the same volume of prisoners. It might just have been possible, with careful attention to retaining the best prison staff, detailed work to improve the day-to-day management practices in prison, and work to pull in charitable funding and other sources of support for rehabilitation work. But then came Grayling. Proud of his outsourcing of employment services (despite its mixed results), he decided probation would work better if the private sector did it. And he ensured that his department focused almost exclusively on this programme rather than the mounting problems in prisons.
Then came Michael Gove. He was oddly heralded as a reformer, after setting up six “reform prisons” and saying lovely things about rehabilitation and the judges. But he ducked the need for more funds, agreeing to a 2015 budget settlement that promised more savings even as violence against staff doubled and suicides reached record highs. He also distracted the entire system when it should have been focused on the basics of recovering order in prisons – and when he must have known full well that he would be out of the job soon. As soon as he declared himself pro-leave before the EU referendum, he was a goner, destined to be promoted by Boris Johnson in the case of a leave victory, or sacked by Cameron in the case of a remain win. The fact he somehow managed to get fired after his side won is an alarming feat.
In 2016, the government finally promised it would recruit more officers. This was an achievement by Liz Truss, who replaced Gove, but a modest one. She, however, got the boot not because she was failing to manage the practicalities of the job but – reading between the lines – because she kept making enemies.
Cue 2017 and the arrival of David Lidington. So far, he has been virtually invisible, which is perhaps a reason for today’s salvo from the Prison Governors Association.
Who allowed this systematic irresponsibility? Civil servants could no doubt have been more robust in their advice. But the truth is that Grayling and Gove at least did not broach any challenge. Any senior officials that they felt were obstructing their plans or raising awkward questions were edged out. It’s tough to push back when your job is at stake.
No doubt some governors and prison officers could have done more to raise problems and find solutions – but most of them had crises to manage.
The only conclusion I can really draw is that the blame lies with the politicians. They cut prison budgets without having a good understanding of the likely impact, then carried on cutting long after those consequences were clear. They focused on pet projects rather than getting the basics right.
They were supported in doing so from the very top. Cameron and Osborne made the call that people didn’t much care about the condition of our prisons, and if budgets were to be cut this was a place to cut particularly deeply. They ignored signs that the system was creaking, and forgot that changing your justice secretary every 18 months is a sure-fire way to create problems. Most important, they forgot that there is no better symbol that government is out of control than riots within the facilities they are meant to run.
Tom Gash is an honorary senior lecturer at UCL’s Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science
Today is the second day of rioting at the Mount prison, and “disturbances” across the prison system in England and Wales are becoming increasingly frequent. Levels of violence and self-harm in our prisons are the highest they’ve been in decades. The president of the Prison Governors Association, Andrea Albutt, was right to express “grave concerns” and call for a stronger government response.
The basic reasons for the riots, violence and self-harm in prison are not complicated. There are 25% fewer operational staff, and the staff there are aren’t sufficiently skilled or experienced. Staff are hampered by poorly designed buildings. The dilapidated HMP Wandsworth is a prime example of a historically fascinating and eerily beautiful architecture – a perfect panopticon – but moving prisoners around its narrow corridors and steep stairways safely is far from easy. Overcrowding is acute across the estate – and contributes to a claustrophobic atmosphere. There’s little time for so-called “constructive activity” and inmates are trapped in their cells for ever-longer periods as governors try to reduce the chances of violence, but inevitably increase inmates’ frustration in doing so. Less is being done to rehabilitate prisoners in prison – and their chances are further undermined by the declining performance of probation services that were hastily outsourced by Chris Grayling, when justice secretary, in 2015.
The underlying reason for these obvious problems is an astounding level of political negligence and arrogance. Our problems today have been long in the making and must be seen through the stories of our rapidly changing cast of justice secretaries. We’ve had five of them since 2010 and they boast an average tenure of less than 18 months – barely enough time to understand the job, let alone do anything.
In 2010, Ken Clarke made it clear he supported the government’s goal of controlling public spending but he did give serious thought as to how this could be achieved sensibly. He realised tough choices were needed to reduce prison numbers, and former prime minister David Cameron and then-chancellor George Osborne promised to back him. Only they changed their minds and fired him in 2011 after the right of the party applied pressure and Clarke left himself politically exposed through a painfully misjudged interview.
Since then, every justice minister has felt obliged to pretend they could square the circle of cutting the Ministry of Justice’s budget by 25% over five years, while dealing with the same volume of prisoners. It might just have been possible, with careful attention to retaining the best prison staff, detailed work to improve the day-to-day management practices in prison, and work to pull in charitable funding and other sources of support for rehabilitation work. But then came Grayling. Proud of his outsourcing of employment services (despite its mixed results), he decided probation would work better if the private sector did it. And he ensured that his department focused almost exclusively on this programme rather than the mounting problems in prisons.
Then came Michael Gove. He was oddly heralded as a reformer, after setting up six “reform prisons” and saying lovely things about rehabilitation and the judges. But he ducked the need for more funds, agreeing to a 2015 budget settlement that promised more savings even as violence against staff doubled and suicides reached record highs. He also distracted the entire system when it should have been focused on the basics of recovering order in prisons – and when he must have known full well that he would be out of the job soon. As soon as he declared himself pro-leave before the EU referendum, he was a goner, destined to be promoted by Boris Johnson in the case of a leave victory, or sacked by Cameron in the case of a remain win. The fact he somehow managed to get fired after his side won is an alarming feat.
In 2016, the government finally promised it would recruit more officers. This was an achievement by Liz Truss, who replaced Gove, but a modest one. She, however, got the boot not because she was failing to manage the practicalities of the job but – reading between the lines – because she kept making enemies.
Cue 2017 and the arrival of David Lidington. So far, he has been virtually invisible, which is perhaps a reason for today’s salvo from the Prison Governors Association.
Who allowed this systematic irresponsibility? Civil servants could no doubt have been more robust in their advice. But the truth is that Grayling and Gove at least did not broach any challenge. Any senior officials that they felt were obstructing their plans or raising awkward questions were edged out. It’s tough to push back when your job is at stake.
No doubt some governors and prison officers could have done more to raise problems and find solutions – but most of them had crises to manage.
The only conclusion I can really draw is that the blame lies with the politicians. They cut prison budgets without having a good understanding of the likely impact, then carried on cutting long after those consequences were clear. They focused on pet projects rather than getting the basics right.
They were supported in doing so from the very top. Cameron and Osborne made the call that people didn’t much care about the condition of our prisons, and if budgets were to be cut this was a place to cut particularly deeply. They ignored signs that the system was creaking, and forgot that changing your justice secretary every 18 months is a sure-fire way to create problems. Most important, they forgot that there is no better symbol that government is out of control than riots within the facilities they are meant to run.
Tom Gash is an honorary senior lecturer at UCL’s Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science
Governors Put Boot In
Dear Colleagues,
A Personal Message from the President
I thought it really important that I write to you about the current crisis in our prisons and acknowledge the unacceptable stress and anxiety you face on a daily basis. I want you to know that the PGA is constantly fighting your corner, escalating all issues up to and including the Secretary of State.
The recent increase in concerted indiscipline is of grave concern. The rise in our population, unforeseen by the statisticians in MOJ, has left us with virtually no headroom in prison spaces. This has coincided with summer peak leave period putting further strain on limited staffing resources. I know that governor grades are spending more and more time on landings bolstering numbers so some kind of regime can be delivered. The instability we are seeing is clearly linked to a poor regime. Further loss of accommodation, like those lost during the current, ongoing incidents at The Mount over the last couple of days, means drafts of prisoners are being moved across the country, compromising the Families Pathway and de-stabilising the receiving prisons as they try to maintain order amongst disaffected displaced men. This toxic mix does not have a quick fix and the future looks like more of the same.
REFORM is the answer to all our woes and wouldn't it be great if that was the case. Members are telling me that they have seen nothing tangible coming out of MOJ to ease the burden to date. The decision to separate policy from operations seems a perverse one and certainly not cost effective when we are given messages that budgets remain very stretched. MOJ Prison Reform Programme consists of a Chief Executive Officer, Justin Russell who has a team of around 20 Directors/Deputy Directors, supported by approximately 450 other grades of staff. As the policy leads are predominantly generalist civil servants from other government departments, it leaves a gaping hole in operational knowledge. How has this hole been filled? By taking operational experts (our grades) out of prisons and putting them into MOJ. At a time when SMT's in prisons need competence, resilience and stability to deal with the intolerable pressure they are under, we are finding that temporary promotion into SMT's could be as high as 30%. I put this whole argument to Richard Heaton, Permanent Secretary, last week. His response was less than satisfactory and the example he gave a poor one. He stated he made no apologies for having IT experts working on IT Reform! An example of the madness of the split is recruitment. MOJ deal with all recruitment, up until the point when new staff are booked onto POELT courses then it is passed over to HMPPS. Why? Governor development also sits in MOJ and is headed by people who have absolutely no concept of what being a Governor means and requires; it is so much more than general leadership.
The issue of Recruitment remains critical. In the year 16/17 there was a net increase of only 75 prison officers. This year it is ramping up, but with that comes further issues as members tell me that they have concerns about their new recruits. They say that the selection process is allowing many unsuitable people through, and the quality of training is poor. It has been said that large numbers of new recruits can actually add to the instability in prisons rather than improve it. I suppose it is understandable that when trying to increase numbers at speed, quality may be compromised. However, the attrition rate is high and increasing, so MOJ and HMPPS need to do something to stop this very expensive recruitment campaign turning into a complete damp squib. Recent media coverage of quarterly statistics show the highest violence ever, this along with concerted indiscipline in our prisons is not an advert to join or stay.
Empowerment has yet to gain any traction. The Deregulation Project stuttered and stumbled to a halt and failed totally to release Governors from the bureaucratic chains of 100's of PSI's. I understand that it is to be revitalised, so let's hope the review of IEP policy is not the speed of future deregulation. Members are informing us that rather than being enabled to work in an empowered way, they are seeing more assurance and monitoring as they now serve two machines. This is confusing and the rub between both partners is obvious when as a professional association we are required to deal with both. Who are the decision makers? This is probably one of the PGA's most asked questions and we still aren't clear!
We know many prisons are in crisis and I deliberately use that term, because it can't be dressed up in any other way. We have 40 prisons of concern, 10 of which are very concerning. Of the ones that don't fit this criteria, they are still a distance away from where we were in the Golden Years pre austerity. The PGA will continue to voice concern and ramp up pressure on MOJ Prison Reform Programme in particular to start delivering and reacting in a much more timely manner to the situation we are in. That said, I remain firmly of the belief that you cannot separate policy and delivery when dealing with such a complex environment as ours. I will lobby Ministers on this very topic in October when we meet with Sam Gyimah for the first time since the Election.
Whilst devastated at the complete decline of our Service, in a perverse way, these difficult times are often our finest hour as the total commitment of our members is so obvious when grappling with the day to day trials and tribulations of operational life. We will continue with pride to serve the membership as directed and deliver the very difficult messages you are unable to.
Andrea
MoJ Spin Doctors Caught Lying
BBC website today, 2nd August 2017:-
“In 2014, we reformed our approach to probation so that for the first time ever, all offenders given a custodial sentence receive probation support and supervision on release. It is therefore misleading to compare the number of Serious Further Offences prior to our reforms with subsequent figures, as the number of people on probation is now significantly higher than before.
Official Government website 'how it works sentencing and rehabilitation' today, 2nd August 2017:-
Pre 2014, this group were not supervised by the Probation Service. Post 2014, this group are 'not actively supervised by Probation'. Numerous HMI reports have confirmed that 'Through the Gate' or TTG is not working and the government website confirms what we've always known, namely, the promise to help the under 12 month custody group always was a lie and just 'smoke and mirrors'.
"Offenders sentenced to less than 12 months also serve the second half in the community but are not actively supervised by Probation."--oo00oo--
Pre 2014, this group were not supervised by the Probation Service. Post 2014, this group are 'not actively supervised by Probation'. Numerous HMI reports have confirmed that 'Through the Gate' or TTG is not working and the government website confirms what we've always known, namely, the promise to help the under 12 month custody group always was a lie and just 'smoke and mirrors'.
MoJ Screws Up Again
Regular readers will be very familiar with the contract drafting skills and business acumen of the MoJ. The poor physical condition of the prison estate is a regular feature of HMI reports and now we have an admission that the outsourcing of maintenance has gone horribly wrong, just as was predicted. This from the Times 31 July 2017:-
We got our figures wrong, admit prison bosses in £115m bungle
A bungled contract outsourcing prison maintenance will fail to make the promised £115 million savings as managers admit that they got their figures wrong.
Checks on fire equipment and CCTV as well as tests for legionella have not been carried out and broken showers have been left unrepaired for months. Watchdogs have complained for two years that the £500 million contracts to maintain jails in England and Wales were not working efficiently.
The Ministry of Justice has now said that it entered into five-year contracts with Carillion and Geo Amey without full knowledge of the costs. As a result the £115 million savings promised when the contracts were awarded in 2014 will not be met.
A statement in the annual report of the National Offender Management Service, which runs prisons and probation, said: “A contracting exercise exposed that historically the costs of maintenance and services were not clearly understood by the business and consequently planning assumptions have not held true. The contract is therefore underfunded and the declared efficiency savings reduced.”
It is the latest serious contract failure at the ministry following problems with a £3.7 billion semi-privatisation of the probation service and a £130 million tagging system for offenders which is five years behind schedule and has so far delivered no benefits.
Most of the complaints about the maintenance contracts have been about failings by Carillion which in the worst cases led to concerns about fire risks in prisons. An Independent Monitoring Board report on Pentonville prison in north London released on Friday revealed that enforcement notices were issued against the governor and Carillion after a fire in a cell where the detection system failed.
“Two prisoners went to hospital and four staff members were sick from smoke inhalation. The Crown Inspection Group said this could have been avoided if Carillion had properly maintained the equipment,” the report said.
Camilla Poulton, chairman of the monitoring board, said that “maintenance jobs both big and small have repeatedly failed to be completed in timely fashion owing to poor systems for logging and tracking jobs, and Carillion not having the right kind of contractors working on site.”
At Highpoint prison in Suffolk, an monitoring board report this month said there had been no improvement in Carillion’s performance and some statutory maintenance including “testing for legionella” and “checks on fire equipment and CCTV” were not done.
Carillion said: “Carillion has invested in additional resources and people to meet the demands of this contract. We have achieved increased levels of satisfaction which has been recognised both locally by individual prison management and in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prison reports.”
A prison service spokesman said: “Since these contracts were awarded, there have been a number of unforeseen operational changes which have directly impacted the maintenance of the estate. We are now in discussions with contractors.”
Analysis
Yet again the Ministry of Justice is in the spotlight for a contract that has not delivered (Richard Ford writes).
A £130 million scheme to develop tags to monitor criminals is running five years late, the partial privatisation of the probation service has run into trouble and many prisons are in a dire state, riddled with violence and drugs. Many of the problems have been festering since 2007, when the Department for Constitutional Affairs was given responsibility for the prison and probation services and renamed the Ministry of Justice. However, as one Whitehall observer commented: “The governors, prison officer and senior prison officials only unite in their opposition to ministers wanting to do something to the prison service.”
The speed with which outsourcing and partial privatisation was conducted was risky, and even more so when it involved a prison service that had limited capacity in contractual management and which has been more concerned with the worsening jails crisis.
--oo00oo--
Stop press
The Prison Governors Association have weighed-in on the growing prison crisis, as reported this morning by the BBC:-
Governors 'devastated' by 'complete decline of prison service'
But an MoJ spokesman said the Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) - which replaced the National Offender Management Service - would "help to create a distinct, professionalised frontline service". The spokesman added:
The bonus was "awarded" in the previous year when the chief inspector of prisons said many jails were "unacceptably violent and dangerous".
We got our figures wrong, admit prison bosses in £115m bungle
A bungled contract outsourcing prison maintenance will fail to make the promised £115 million savings as managers admit that they got their figures wrong.
Checks on fire equipment and CCTV as well as tests for legionella have not been carried out and broken showers have been left unrepaired for months. Watchdogs have complained for two years that the £500 million contracts to maintain jails in England and Wales were not working efficiently.
The Ministry of Justice has now said that it entered into five-year contracts with Carillion and Geo Amey without full knowledge of the costs. As a result the £115 million savings promised when the contracts were awarded in 2014 will not be met.
A statement in the annual report of the National Offender Management Service, which runs prisons and probation, said: “A contracting exercise exposed that historically the costs of maintenance and services were not clearly understood by the business and consequently planning assumptions have not held true. The contract is therefore underfunded and the declared efficiency savings reduced.”
It is the latest serious contract failure at the ministry following problems with a £3.7 billion semi-privatisation of the probation service and a £130 million tagging system for offenders which is five years behind schedule and has so far delivered no benefits.
Most of the complaints about the maintenance contracts have been about failings by Carillion which in the worst cases led to concerns about fire risks in prisons. An Independent Monitoring Board report on Pentonville prison in north London released on Friday revealed that enforcement notices were issued against the governor and Carillion after a fire in a cell where the detection system failed.
“Two prisoners went to hospital and four staff members were sick from smoke inhalation. The Crown Inspection Group said this could have been avoided if Carillion had properly maintained the equipment,” the report said.
Camilla Poulton, chairman of the monitoring board, said that “maintenance jobs both big and small have repeatedly failed to be completed in timely fashion owing to poor systems for logging and tracking jobs, and Carillion not having the right kind of contractors working on site.”
At Highpoint prison in Suffolk, an monitoring board report this month said there had been no improvement in Carillion’s performance and some statutory maintenance including “testing for legionella” and “checks on fire equipment and CCTV” were not done.
Carillion said: “Carillion has invested in additional resources and people to meet the demands of this contract. We have achieved increased levels of satisfaction which has been recognised both locally by individual prison management and in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prison reports.”
A prison service spokesman said: “Since these contracts were awarded, there have been a number of unforeseen operational changes which have directly impacted the maintenance of the estate. We are now in discussions with contractors.”
Analysis
Yet again the Ministry of Justice is in the spotlight for a contract that has not delivered (Richard Ford writes).
A £130 million scheme to develop tags to monitor criminals is running five years late, the partial privatisation of the probation service has run into trouble and many prisons are in a dire state, riddled with violence and drugs. Many of the problems have been festering since 2007, when the Department for Constitutional Affairs was given responsibility for the prison and probation services and renamed the Ministry of Justice. However, as one Whitehall observer commented: “The governors, prison officer and senior prison officials only unite in their opposition to ministers wanting to do something to the prison service.”
The speed with which outsourcing and partial privatisation was conducted was risky, and even more so when it involved a prison service that had limited capacity in contractual management and which has been more concerned with the worsening jails crisis.
--oo00oo--
Stop press
The Prison Governors Association have weighed-in on the growing prison crisis, as reported this morning by the BBC:-
Governors 'devastated' by 'complete decline of prison service'
The president of the Prison Governors Association has attacked the government's management of prisons in England and Wales. Andrea Albutt wrote an open letter after recent violence at prisons in Hertfordshire and Wiltshire. She said the unrest was causing "grave concern" - adding that governors faced "unacceptable stress and anxiety".
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said action had been taken to increase prison officer numbers. But Ms Albutt said her members had seen "nothing tangible" from the MoJ to ease population pressures in prison, and the burden on staff. She said recruitment remained in a "critical" condition, with a net increase of just 75 officers in the year 2016/17. Training was "poor" and "unsuitable people" were being selected, she added.
The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the Prison Governors Association had "traditionally been a voice of moderation". "The criticisms are unlikely to be brushed aside," he said. Data released last week from the MoJ showed a rise in violence in prisons, with 26,643 assaults in the year to March 2017 - 20% more than the previous year. Of these, a record 7,159 were attacks on staff - equivalent to 20 every day. Ms Albutt went on to describe the government's decision earlier this year, to separate operational control of the prison system from responsibility for policy, as "madness".
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said action had been taken to increase prison officer numbers. But Ms Albutt said her members had seen "nothing tangible" from the MoJ to ease population pressures in prison, and the burden on staff. She said recruitment remained in a "critical" condition, with a net increase of just 75 officers in the year 2016/17. Training was "poor" and "unsuitable people" were being selected, she added.
The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the Prison Governors Association had "traditionally been a voice of moderation". "The criticisms are unlikely to be brushed aside," he said. Data released last week from the MoJ showed a rise in violence in prisons, with 26,643 assaults in the year to March 2017 - 20% more than the previous year. Of these, a record 7,159 were attacks on staff - equivalent to 20 every day. Ms Albutt went on to describe the government's decision earlier this year, to separate operational control of the prison system from responsibility for policy, as "madness".
But an MoJ spokesman said the Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) - which replaced the National Offender Management Service - would "help to create a distinct, professionalised frontline service". The spokesman added:
"We know that our prisons have faced a number of long-standing challenges, which is why we have taken immediate action to boost prison officer numbers and have created Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service. We need to create calm and ordered environments to help ensure effective rehabilitation, and we continue to work closely with the unions and all staff to help achieve these vital reforms and make prisons places of safety and reform."In July, the union representing prison workers called for the resignation of prisons' boss Michael Spurr. The general secretary of the Prison Officers Association, Steve Gillan, said his members had "lost patience" and accused the management of HMPPS of trying to "paper over the cracks". This followed the revelation that Mr Spurr had received a bonus of up to £20,000 in 2016-17 on top of his annual salary of around £150,000.
The bonus was "awarded" in the previous year when the chief inspector of prisons said many jails were "unacceptably violent and dangerous".
Tuesday, 1 August 2017
Latest From Napo 157
Press Statement
1 August 2017 - Immediate Release
Probation Union anger over secret funding for privateers as Serious Offences rise
The leader of the largest trade union in the Probation service today questioned the rationale behind a £21 million government bail-out to private providers of probation across England and Wales. The decision was revealed in an answer to a Parliamentary question from Liz Saville Roberts MP. Details of the amounts so far given to 14 of the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCS) are shown below.*
Ian Lawrence, General Secretary of Napo said:
Napo, who represents front line practitioners, has been at the forefront of the campaign to expose the flaws that they claim have resulted in sub-standard delivery models, huge caseloads for staff and inadequate supervision which have also been featured in numerous reports from Her Majesty’s Inspector of Probation Dame Glenys Stacey.
Ian Lawrence added:
North Yorkshire, Humberside, Lincs Purple Futures (Interserve) £1,319,000
West Yorkshire Purple Futures (Interserve) £1,063,000
Cheshire & Greater Manchester Purple Futures (Interserve) £2,867,000
Merseyside Purple Futures (Interserve) £749,000
Hampshire Purple Futures (Interserve) £786,000
1 August 2017 - Immediate Release
Probation Union anger over secret funding for privateers as Serious Offences rise
The leader of the largest trade union in the Probation service today questioned the rationale behind a £21 million government bail-out to private providers of probation across England and Wales. The decision was revealed in an answer to a Parliamentary question from Liz Saville Roberts MP. Details of the amounts so far given to 14 of the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCS) are shown below.*
Ian Lawrence, General Secretary of Napo said:
“News of the government’s decision to throw a financial lifeboat to failing CRCs – with more expected to follow – will go down like a lead balloon with our members who have seen their pay decrease by 21% in real term value whilst they have been shoring up the chaos caused by this disastrous privatisation. We also understand that the second anticipated payment will be considerably higher than the first.”Information also obtained via a Parliamentary question indicates that despite the claims that the privatisation of probation services was said by Ministers to be no threat to public safety, the Ministry of Justice have this week revealed a 24.6% increase in further serious offences (SFO’s) across England and Wales.
Napo, who represents front line practitioners, has been at the forefront of the campaign to expose the flaws that they claim have resulted in sub-standard delivery models, huge caseloads for staff and inadequate supervision which have also been featured in numerous reports from Her Majesty’s Inspector of Probation Dame Glenys Stacey.
Ian Lawrence added:
“This news is bound to cause further interest to members of the Justice Select and Public Accounts Committees and we urge them to order in-depth enquiries into the whole Transforming Rehabilitation project. Napo stands ready to work with Ministers to help bring about improvements to the system but merely throwing more taxpayers money at the problems will not deal with the underlying causes.”*Funding increases for CRC providers
North Yorkshire, Humberside, Lincs Purple Futures (Interserve) £1,319,000
West Yorkshire Purple Futures (Interserve) £1,063,000
Cheshire & Greater Manchester Purple Futures (Interserve) £2,867,000
Merseyside Purple Futures (Interserve) £749,000
Hampshire Purple Futures (Interserve) £786,000
Purple Futures (Interserve)Total £6,784,000
Thames Valley MTC Novo £664,000
London MTC Novo £5,152,000
Thames Valley MTC Novo £664,000
London MTC Novo £5,152,000
MTC Novo Total £5,816,000
Wales (N. Wales, S. Wales, Gwent) Working Links £2,154,000
Gloucestershire, Avon, Somerset, Wilts Working Links £1,218,000
Dorset, Devon, Cornwall Working Links £867,000
Wales (N. Wales, S. Wales, Gwent) Working Links £2,154,000
Gloucestershire, Avon, Somerset, Wilts Working Links £1,218,000
Dorset, Devon, Cornwall Working Links £867,000
Working Links Total £4,239,000
Staffordshire & West Midlands Ingeus (Reducing Reoffending) £1,671,000
Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Notts Ingeus (Reducing Reoffending) £1,815,000
Ingeus Total £3,486,000
West Mercia & Warwickshire EOS Works £581,000
Durham & Cleveland ARCC £1,117,000
Staffordshire & West Midlands Ingeus (Reducing Reoffending) £1,671,000
Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Notts Ingeus (Reducing Reoffending) £1,815,000
Ingeus Total £3,486,000
West Mercia & Warwickshire EOS Works £581,000
Durham & Cleveland ARCC £1,117,000
Escape Opportunity
For one lucky person, here's the perfect way to escape the nightmare and omnishambles that is TR and head south, for a couple of years at least. Thanks to the reader for spotting the following advert in the Guardian. Don't all rush at once:-
ST HELENA GOVERNMENT
Probation Officer
2 Year FTC
Competitive package circa £46-51k pa, depending on qualifications and experience, includes salary, pension contribution, cost of living, relocation, rent and utilities (see Overseas Vacancy Information).
Could you help to develop systems for general offender management, including working with domestic abuse perpetrators and sex offenders?
A sub-tropical island of spectacular and beautiful landscapes in the South Atlantic with a warm and friendly population of 4,500, St Helena is a self-governing overseas territory of the UK, poised for future transformation with scheduled, commercial air access.
The St Helena Offender Management Service includes provision of MAPPA, Court cover, PSRs, Probation Orders, Community Service, Post-Release Licences, Risk Assessments, Sentence Planning and preventive work with partner agencies. You will be one of two UK trained Probation Officers with an Offender Manager DC and a Trainee DC. The team is managed by a DS and a senior Police DCI, supported by a range of local partnership agencies and individuals. You will need to train and develop staff in the Police Service and other partnership agencies to offer services comparable to the UK.
You will take the lead in delivering Offender Management and Probation Services to offenders primarily in the community on Probation Orders and Community Service Orders but will also work with those in custody and under MAPPA arrangements. In co-operation with other staff and agencies you will manage a caseload of offenders and your priority will be to identify domestic abuse perpetrators who pose the most risk to the community and working with offenders to address their behaviour through formal and informal interventions.
As you support the adult and children’s Safeguarding Boards in the delivery of key messages and education for those preventative initiatives identified, you will work with partner agencies to deliver interventions directed at Juveniles to prevent and reduce offending behaviour.
As fully qualified ARMS trained probation officer you will have recently managed offenders serving Custodial and Community Sentences. With specific experience of managing domestic abuse perpetrators and sex offenders and in delivering interventions to offenders in order to reduce risk and manage safe community integration, you will be familiar with MAPPA, MARAC and public protection arrangements and have a broad knowledge of the full range of probation interventions available. Able to train and mentor staff with specific experience in this area, you will work collaboratively and innovatively delivering proactive preventative work with a positive and flexible approach in this challenging environment, adapting current UK processes and creating new processes to fit St Helena’s needs
We offer an extensive benefits package with 30 days leave pa, fare paid travel, freight and storage allowances. An application form can be found at our website via the button below, where further information can also be found, or you may contact Kedell Worboys on 0203 818 7610. This is where applications must be sent and received by 31 August 2017. Interviews will be held in London.
ST HELENA GOVERNMENT
2 Year FTC
Competitive package circa £46-51k pa, depending on qualifications and experience, includes salary, pension contribution, cost of living, relocation, rent and utilities (see Overseas Vacancy Information).
Could you help to develop systems for general offender management, including working with domestic abuse perpetrators and sex offenders?
A sub-tropical island of spectacular and beautiful landscapes in the South Atlantic with a warm and friendly population of 4,500, St Helena is a self-governing overseas territory of the UK, poised for future transformation with scheduled, commercial air access.
The St Helena Offender Management Service includes provision of MAPPA, Court cover, PSRs, Probation Orders, Community Service, Post-Release Licences, Risk Assessments, Sentence Planning and preventive work with partner agencies. You will be one of two UK trained Probation Officers with an Offender Manager DC and a Trainee DC. The team is managed by a DS and a senior Police DCI, supported by a range of local partnership agencies and individuals. You will need to train and develop staff in the Police Service and other partnership agencies to offer services comparable to the UK.
You will take the lead in delivering Offender Management and Probation Services to offenders primarily in the community on Probation Orders and Community Service Orders but will also work with those in custody and under MAPPA arrangements. In co-operation with other staff and agencies you will manage a caseload of offenders and your priority will be to identify domestic abuse perpetrators who pose the most risk to the community and working with offenders to address their behaviour through formal and informal interventions.
As you support the adult and children’s Safeguarding Boards in the delivery of key messages and education for those preventative initiatives identified, you will work with partner agencies to deliver interventions directed at Juveniles to prevent and reduce offending behaviour.
As fully qualified ARMS trained probation officer you will have recently managed offenders serving Custodial and Community Sentences. With specific experience of managing domestic abuse perpetrators and sex offenders and in delivering interventions to offenders in order to reduce risk and manage safe community integration, you will be familiar with MAPPA, MARAC and public protection arrangements and have a broad knowledge of the full range of probation interventions available. Able to train and mentor staff with specific experience in this area, you will work collaboratively and innovatively delivering proactive preventative work with a positive and flexible approach in this challenging environment, adapting current UK processes and creating new processes to fit St Helena’s needs
We offer an extensive benefits package with 30 days leave pa, fare paid travel, freight and storage allowances. An application form can be found at our website via the button below, where further information can also be found, or you may contact Kedell Worboys on 0203 818 7610. This is where applications must be sent and received by 31 August 2017. Interviews will be held in London.
Bob Neill Gets Tough
Having seen the Justice Affairs Committee in action a few times, it rather reminds me of the following famous quote:-
We have urgent work to do on prisons, legal aid and probation
Everyone around Westminster pays lip service to the importance of select committees but getting them up and running after the general election has proved to be a rather leisurely process. While the chairs have now been elected, other members will not have been appointed by the parties until we return in September.
Given that we will only be here for two weeks before the party conference season kicks in, little serious work is likely to be achieved until the second week of October. Effectively, that means that over a third of the year will have gone by without government, or anyone else, being subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
Cynics might suggest that no government, whatever its political complexion, is going to rush to be scrutinised. I don’t suggest that is the motive here, but the delay is unsatisfactory, and it is therefore no surprise that support is growing for the timetable to be set in future by the house itself, rather than relying upon the priorities of the “usual channels”.
It’s also a shame because there is a lot of work to do. For the justice committee alone, I would flag up four key priorities:
First, prisons – undoubtedly the biggest issue on the new secretary of state’s desk, and one that consumes nearly half of the whole Ministry of Justice budget. This well documented crisis was reiterated again last week in a damning report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, signalling the need for an urgent change in approach from the top down. I have made no secret that I believe the National Offender Management Service lacks the managerial leadership to achieve the government’s vision, and given it has failed to arrest the declining situation across the prison estate, it’s difficult to justify the hefty bonus its chief executive received last week.
The omission of the prisons element of the previous Prisons and Courts Bill from the Queen’s Speech is admittedly a blow, but I am pleased that David Lidington has committed to continuing the prison reform agenda initiated by Michael Gove. Not all of this will require legislation, but it will need a clear political commitment from day one, especially to deliver the ambitious proposals set out in last year’s white paper, including the statutory statement that prisons must primarily be a place of rehabilitation.
That leads me on to probation & preventing reoffending. The system set up under the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme is evidently not functioning as intended, and a raft of issues need addressing, including the performance and financial viability of community rehabilitation companies and their interface with the National Probation Service.
Third, there are serious questions around access to justice. This is something the committee has raised concerns about in the past in terms of courts and tribunal fees, but we will also be looking to press the government on its promised post-legislative review of LAPSO (Legal Aid, Punishment and Sentencing of Offenders Act 2012). Although I understand the budget pressures at the time of its introduction, my personal view is that we have now removed more than the system can take and should rectify the anomalies as soon as possible (a glaring example being the lack of legal aid available for the parents of Charlie Gard, something no fair person could agree with).
There is also a need to look carefully at the human impacts of the government’s courts modernisation programme. There is a balance to be struck between achieving efficiencies and ensuring we have access to justice. I’m not convinced we’ve got that right if it means significantly longer and more expensive journeys, or anti-social court hours, for parties, witnesses and lawyers alike.
Finally, we must consider the legal implications of Brexit. Our legal system is respected around the world and the legal services sector contributes £25.7 billion to the UK economy. It’s another area where we need an early commitment to realistic and substantial transitional arrangements, listening to the concerns of the industry and addressing them as a matter of priority.
With the arithmetic of the Commons being what it is after the general election, select committees are in an enhanced position to do good and seriously influence government policy over the coming years. They must be allowed to get on with that important job.
Healey said that an attack from Howe was "like being savaged by a dead sheep".I notice Bob Neill, the newly reappointed chair, is not a happy bunny and used a piece in the Times last week to make his displeasure known. I thought his comment on probation was an absolute classic:-
"The system set up under the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme is evidently not functioning as intended, and a raft of issues need addressing.."It also comes to something when he doesn't seem to have noticed there's been some changes at the MoJ:-
"I have made no secret that I believe the National Offender Management Service lacks the managerial leadership to achieve the government’s vision.."Anyway, he's on the case and people had better watch out.
We have urgent work to do on prisons, legal aid and probation
Everyone around Westminster pays lip service to the importance of select committees but getting them up and running after the general election has proved to be a rather leisurely process. While the chairs have now been elected, other members will not have been appointed by the parties until we return in September.
Given that we will only be here for two weeks before the party conference season kicks in, little serious work is likely to be achieved until the second week of October. Effectively, that means that over a third of the year will have gone by without government, or anyone else, being subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
Cynics might suggest that no government, whatever its political complexion, is going to rush to be scrutinised. I don’t suggest that is the motive here, but the delay is unsatisfactory, and it is therefore no surprise that support is growing for the timetable to be set in future by the house itself, rather than relying upon the priorities of the “usual channels”.
It’s also a shame because there is a lot of work to do. For the justice committee alone, I would flag up four key priorities:
First, prisons – undoubtedly the biggest issue on the new secretary of state’s desk, and one that consumes nearly half of the whole Ministry of Justice budget. This well documented crisis was reiterated again last week in a damning report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, signalling the need for an urgent change in approach from the top down. I have made no secret that I believe the National Offender Management Service lacks the managerial leadership to achieve the government’s vision, and given it has failed to arrest the declining situation across the prison estate, it’s difficult to justify the hefty bonus its chief executive received last week.
The omission of the prisons element of the previous Prisons and Courts Bill from the Queen’s Speech is admittedly a blow, but I am pleased that David Lidington has committed to continuing the prison reform agenda initiated by Michael Gove. Not all of this will require legislation, but it will need a clear political commitment from day one, especially to deliver the ambitious proposals set out in last year’s white paper, including the statutory statement that prisons must primarily be a place of rehabilitation.
That leads me on to probation & preventing reoffending. The system set up under the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme is evidently not functioning as intended, and a raft of issues need addressing, including the performance and financial viability of community rehabilitation companies and their interface with the National Probation Service.
Third, there are serious questions around access to justice. This is something the committee has raised concerns about in the past in terms of courts and tribunal fees, but we will also be looking to press the government on its promised post-legislative review of LAPSO (Legal Aid, Punishment and Sentencing of Offenders Act 2012). Although I understand the budget pressures at the time of its introduction, my personal view is that we have now removed more than the system can take and should rectify the anomalies as soon as possible (a glaring example being the lack of legal aid available for the parents of Charlie Gard, something no fair person could agree with).
There is also a need to look carefully at the human impacts of the government’s courts modernisation programme. There is a balance to be struck between achieving efficiencies and ensuring we have access to justice. I’m not convinced we’ve got that right if it means significantly longer and more expensive journeys, or anti-social court hours, for parties, witnesses and lawyers alike.
Finally, we must consider the legal implications of Brexit. Our legal system is respected around the world and the legal services sector contributes £25.7 billion to the UK economy. It’s another area where we need an early commitment to realistic and substantial transitional arrangements, listening to the concerns of the industry and addressing them as a matter of priority.
With the arithmetic of the Commons being what it is after the general election, select committees are in an enhanced position to do good and seriously influence government policy over the coming years. They must be allowed to get on with that important job.
Bob Neill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)