Prison Is No Holiday Camp

Just in case anyone is in any doubt regarding the crisis we have in our prison system, some graphic evidence was provided yesterday by HM Chief Inspector Peter Clarke:-

Introduction

Some people may feel a sense of déjà vu or world-weariness when they hear repeated accounts of poor conditions in our prisons. Many reports from HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) have pointed out that, all too often, prisoners are held in conditions that fall short of what most members of the public would consider as reasonable or decent. I would urge readers not to assume this paper is simply another account of some dilapidated prisons, but to look at the details of what we describe, and then ask themselves whether it is acceptable for prisoners to be held in these conditions in the United Kingdom in 2017. 

It is, of course, right to point out that not every prison holds its prisoners in poor conditions. On the whole, high security prisons, women’s prisons and open prisons provide decent conditions and some good facilities. However, in many of the local prisons and training prisons, the picture is bleak. 

The details of what we have found are set out in this paper, but some of the headlines make for grim reading. Prisoners cannot benefit from education or training if they are confined in their cells for long periods, and they inevitably become frustrated, angry or turn to drugs to ease the tedium. We have found that in local prisons 31% of prisoners report being locked in their cells for at least 22 hours a day, rising to 37% at young adult prisons (holding prisoners aged 18–21). We found large numbers of prisoners at some jails who were locked up for more than 22 hours a day, or throughout the working day. 

The cells in which prisoners are confined for these excessive periods of time vary greatly in their condition, but poor conditions are exacerbated by overcrowding. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) themselves report that in 2016/17 nearly 21,000 prisoners out of some 85,000 in total were held, by their own definition, in overcrowded conditions. This proportion rises in local prisons to over 15,000 of the 31,800 held in such establishments – or 48%. 

Overcrowding often occurs when two or more prisoners are held in a cell designed to hold one. These often have an unscreened or inadequately screened lavatory, frequently without a lid, or sometimes with a makeshift lid made of cardboard, pillowcases or food trays. In these same cells, prisoners are frequently required to eat all their meals – in what are obviously insanitary, unhygienic and degrading conditions. The risks to health inherent in flushing open lavatories in confined spaces which have to serve as a bedroom and dining room (and sometimes as a kitchen) are described in this report and deserve close attention. The accounts from prisoners of what it feels like to eat and sleep in what is, in effect, a shared lavatory make for compelling reading. To compound all of this, our surveys suggest that in only around half of our prisons are prisoners able to get cleaning materials for their cells every week, and ventilation of too many cells is poor. 

In terms of personal hygiene, most prisoners say they are able to have a shower every day, but this falls to 51% in those prisons holding young adults. There is a mixed picture for other issues that have an impact of the everyday lives of prisoners, with about two-thirds of prisoners saying they can get clean sheets each week, and access to telephones is obviously dependent upon prisoners having enough time out of their cells to be able to queue and make a call. 

The concerns and recommendations set out in this paper need to be taken seriously. The aspirations of the prison reform programme will not be met if prisoners are confined in conditions that embitter and demoralise, leaving them unable to access rehabilitative activities and, all too often, turning to illicit drugs to break the boredom born of long periods locked in their cells.

Peter Clarke CVO OBE QPM 

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons August 2017

--oo00oo--

This is what the Guardian had to say:-

Prisons so degrading inmates driven to drugs, says chief inspector

Prisoners across England and Wales are being locked up for long periods in cells that are so insanitary, unhygienic and degrading that it is driving them to drugs, the chief inspector of prisons has said.

The warning from Peter Clarke, a former head of the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism command, comes as prison governors renew their call for a programme of executive release to ease the “full to bursting” situation in prisons across England and Wales.

Andrea Albutt, president of the Prison Governors Association, in her annual conference address on Tuesday will say that incidents of violence, suicide and self-harm are “the worst we have ever seen”.

“Currently our prisons are full to bursting. The government must be brave and reduce the prison population and don’t worry about votes. Don’t dabble, just do it because morally it is the right thing to do,” she will say.

“Twelve-month sentences don’t work and are pointless. This cohort must be dealt with in a different way in the community. Executive release is possible. We have prisoners on IPP [imprisonment for public protection] sentences years past their tariff but still in prison. We have old and infirm prisoners who are no longer a danger to society and we have far too many mentally ill people where prison is absolutely the worst place for them.”

Her call comes as the prison population stands at 85,375 – just 1,124 places below the official “usable operational capacity”. The PGA says there are 40 prisons “of concern”, 10 of which are “very concerning”, while the promise of 10,000 new prison places appears to be a distant dream.

The verdict of the chief inspector of prisons is contained in Life in Prison: Living Conditions, one of a series of “findings reports” which concludes that the situation in many local and training prisons is bleak while conditions in high-security, women’s and open jails are generally acceptable.

“All too often, prisoners are held in conditions that fall short of what most members of the public would consider as reasonable or decent,” said Clarke.

He reports that overcrowded cells, with two or more prisoners, often have an unscreened or inadequately screened lavatory, and ventilation is poor. The report quotes inmates on what it feels like to eat and sleep in what is, in effect, a shared lavatory. In local prisons 31% of prisoners are locked in their cells for at least 22 hours a day.

Clarke said: “The aspirations of the prison reform programme will not be met if prisoners are confined to conditions that embitter and demoralise, leaving them unable to access rehabilitative activities and, all too often, turning to illicit drugs to break the boredom born of long periods locked in their cells.”

The Ministry of Justice responded to the chief inspector’s report saying: “We are investing £1.3bn to modernise the prison estate, closing older prisons that are not fit for purpose and creating in their place high-quality, modern establishments.

“This will help deliver prisons that are more safe and secure, so our staff can work more closely with offenders to change their lives and turn their back on crime for good.”

PGA - 'Time To Release Some Prisoners'

There is definitely a head of steam building for some kind of executive release of prisoners in order to try and alleviate the current prison crisis and here we have the Prison Governors Association throwing their weight behind such a proposal. It's just such a shame that it's both politically impossible and practically too given the current crisis in the probation service. This from the Independent:-

Government urged to reduce prison population as conditions reach ‘worst ever seen’

Prisons in the UK are “full to busting” and the Government must “be brave” and reduce the number of people behind bars, the Prison Governors Association (PGA) is to warn in a scathing attack on the penal system. With violence, suicide and self-harm statistics in jails at “the worst we have ever seen”, Andrea Albutt, president of the association, will call on ministers not to “worry about votes” and cut the prison population.

Delivering a highly critical assessment to the PGA’s annual conference on Tuesday, Ms Albutt will say a safety and reform drive is “led and predominantly run by generalist civil servants with little or no understanding of the very complex nature of prisons and their inhabitants”. The unusual intervention from the PGA will lead to fresh scrutiny of the politically charged issue of the prison population, which penal reform campaigners have warned must be reduced in order to stabilise the estate.

It comes as the UK’s prison watchdog warned in an an alarming report that prisoners are living in insanitary, unhygienic and degrading conditions that threaten their health and can drive them to take drugs. The report, published today, reveals that 31 per cent of prisoners report being locked in their cells for at least 22 hours a day, with inmates often forced to eat their meals in shared cells next to unscreened or inadequately screened toilets.

Ministers have so far resisted calls for direct measures designed to bring about an immediate cut in the prison population, instead focusing on driving down reoffending rates and improving confidence in non-custodial punishments. The number of people in prison has almost doubled since the early 1990s and remained around the mid-80,000s mark in recent years. It currently stands at 85,375 – 1,124 below the “useable operational capacity”.

Ms Albutt will say: “Currently our prisons are full to bursting. The Government must be brave and reduce the prison population and don’t worry about votes. Don’t dabble, just do it – because morally it is the right thing to do.” Describing sentences of a year or less as “pointless”, she will say: “This cohort must be dealt with in a different way in the community. Executive release is possible. We have prisoners on IPP (imprisonment for public protection) sentences years past their tariff but still in prison.”

Jails are holding “old and infirm” inmates who are no longer a danger to society, as well as “far too many mentally ill people where prison is absolutely the worst place for them”, she will say. Ms Albutt will also express doubts over a government commitment to provide 10,000 new prison places by 2020, describing the target as a “distant dream”, and is expected to warn that staffing issues mean prisons are unable to deliver a rehabilitative regime.

The Government has launched a drive to add 2,500 new front-line officers and, although Ms Albutt will acknowledge that the picture is improving, she will also flag up the “attrition rate” in staffing levels. Highlighting the impact of psychoactive substances, she will say they “remain a constant threat to stability, reducing already depleted and sometimes critical staffing levels further as prisoners are taken to A&E suffering from the effects”.

Her critical words come as the new report from HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Peter Clarke reveals that just 51 per cent of prisoners aged between 18 and 21 are able to shower every day, and that inmates can only get cleaning materials on a weekly basis in only around half of jails. Mr Clarke warned that the “insanitary, unhygienic and degrading conditions” inmates are forced to endure can threaten their health and can drive them to take drugs.

“The aspirations of the prison reform programme will not be met if prisoners are confined in conditions that embitter and demoralise, leaving them unable to access rehabilitative activities and, all too often, turning to illicit drugs to break the boredom born of long periods locked in their cells,” he said.

In light of both the intervention from the PGA and the Inspectorate’s report, Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, told The Independent the Government must take “bold” action, urging that people were “dying” in jails and said reoffending rates were going up as a result of poor conditions.

“We entirely support the prison governors and other prison staff who are warning the Government that bold and courageous action must be taken,” she said. “Long-term plans to build more and more prisons are the wrong answer at the wrong time – it’s not a good use of public money. We cannot go on cramming more and more people into overcrowded jails without any thought for the consequences – and we cannot build our way out of this crisis.

“People are dying, staff are being assaulted and the public are suffering the consequences of this are more people reoffending after they are released from stinking prisons where drug and alcohol addictions are made worse by their terrible experiences in jail. This is a national emergency, and ministers need to get a grip. Bold action is needed to reduce the prison population and prevent more people being swept into deeper currents of crime, violence and despair.”

Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, meanwhile said: “This is the view from the sharp end, and it’s not a call for more prisons. There is an urgent job for the Government, and it’s to devise a plan to reduce the number of people in prison. That is the relief governors need and the way to a prison system that delivers what the public have a right to expect.”

Responding to the PGA comments, a Prison Service spokesperson said: “The Justice Secretary has been clear that our wide-ranging prison reforms will continue unabated and we will tackle the challenges facing the estate head on.

“We have already taken immediate action to stabilise prisons; including investing £1.3bn to modernise the estate and significantly increasing staff numbers by recruiting a net 2,500 extra prison officers. We are on track to meet this target by December 2018. In addition; we have empowered Governors so they have more freedom to innovate and make the best decisions for their prisons. By next year, every governor will be able to tailor education and training to the needs of their prisoners, providing offenders the right support and challenge to help turn their backs on crime.”

On the report about living conditions, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We are investing £1.3bn to modernise the prison estate, closing older prisons that are not fit for purpose and creating in their place high-quality, modern establishments. This will help deliver prisons that are more safe and secure, so our staff can work more closely with offenders to change their lives and turn their back on crime for good. Our work in this area is supported by a drive to recruit an extra 2,500 prison officers, who will boost the front line and help turn our prisons into places of reform.”

The Trouble With Sentencing

I notice that in his latest blog post Rob Allen, as a result of some tetchy twitter exchanges, has been discussing the vexed question of sentencing:-

A Matter of Judgement

Earlier this week, Labour peer Lord Adonis shifted his fire from university bosses to judges. Both are often considered (and consider themselves) to be world class; but Adonis tried to use the large increase in the prison population since the 1990’s to claim that the judiciary were far from that. In a series of provocative tweets, he accused them of sins of commission – pushing up the going rate for offences - and omission - failing to stand up to illiberal government criminal justice proposals and the punitive tabloids.

Various legal tweeters rushed to the judges’ defence pointing out that it was New Labour’s criminal justice legislation which had driven up prison numbers while judges simply and faithfully applied the law as they must. As often on twitter, an interesting debate quickly descended into ridicule and abuse, albeit modest by the standards that prevail. I even got caught up in it myself. Having suggested to Adonis that the Sentencing Council – whose president and chair are senior judges - could have done more to limit prison growth since 2010, I retweeted his take that the Council “has followed the Daily Mail out of fear”. I was told by an Oxford academic that my retweet was fostering misunderstanding and I had an obligation to make clear that Adonis’s juvenile view was manifestly wrong.

Adonis may have been unfair on the Council, although it is arguable that of the matters to which they must have regard when producing guidelines, more attention has been paid to the need to promote public confidence than to the costs and effectiveness of sentences. But leaving to one side Adonis's combative and somewhat disdainful approach, what of his wider point. How culpable have the judiciary been in the matter of the spiralling prison population in England and Wales?

Mike Hough and colleagues’ detailed study of the 71% rise in the adult prison population from 36,000 in 1991 to 62,000 in 2003 found that tougher sentencing - longer prison sentences for serious crimes and more short prison sentences instead of community penalties - came about through the interplay of an increasingly punitive climate of political and media debate about punishment; legislative changes and new guideline judgements; and sentencers’ perceptions of changes in patterns of offending. So everyone’s to blame.

The study found that statistics did not lend support to sentencers’ beliefs that offenders were becoming more persistent, and committing more serious crimes, although more research was needed about that. Sentencers told researchers that they could resist pressures to ‘get tough’ from the media and the public, but at the same time, “they feel they have a duty to ensure their sentencing decisions reflect and reinforce the norms of wider society.” It’s not clear where they learn about those norms but the study does not wholly vindicate the legal tweeters who held the judges wholly blameless for booming prison numbers.

Since 2003, it’s Adonis’s former colleagues in the Blair government who have a good deal to answer for. David Blunkett’s monstrous IPP sentence was used far more than anticipated and new minimum tariffs for murder cases have hauled up the going rate for less lethal crimes of violence. While no doubt it’s the legislature in the dock for these prison boosting measures, could – and should - judges have done more to mitigate their baleful impact through more creative interpretation of the statutory provisions? Discuss.

One lesson from all this is that Twitter is unlikely to be the best forum for resolving complex legal and constitutional problems. Another is that there’s something of a two nations divide between lawyers and the rest of us. Some in the legal profession, by no means all, seem disproportionately touchy about criticism from outsiders. Those congratulating each other that their tweets had successfully “schooled” Adonis on his apparently uninformed barbs about the judiciary will I hope be prepared to engage with the bigger questions he raises. A proper debate about the roles and responsibilities of the legislature and judges in sentencing policy is long overdue.

Rob Allen

--o00oo--

Seen on twitter:-

"Nothing world class about our judiciary, which jails more people for longer than any judges in Europe & wash their hands of prison crisis" Andrew Adonis

"Andrew Adonis was head of the Number 10 policy unit when the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced Imprisonment for Public Protection" A Barrister

Following on from this twitter spat, I found it rewarding to listen to Clive Anderson's most recent Radio 4 Unreliable Evidence programme on the very subject of sentencing. I also notice that Rob Allen has reminded us of his piece in the Guardian from 2009:-

When prison doesn't work

Judges are prone to complain about the volume of change imposed on them by government. But it is the lord chief justice himself who has issued a tough new guideline in R v Saw and others which, while purporting to clarify existing policy, in practice is likely to harden the approach courts take to sentencing people convicted of burglary and add significantly to our record prison population.

The new guideline treats burglary as a more serious type of offence by defining it as a crime against the person as well as against property. Its six paragraphs on aggravating features (compared to three on mitigation) stress that in evaluating the seriousness of individual cases, courts should attend much more than before to the impact of the crime on those living in the burgled house, whether intended or not. Courts should also give more weight to any criminal record on the part of the burglar than in other types of case. While non-custodial sentences remain possible for young first-time offenders and those looking to turn their back on crime such a chance should, so the appeal court says, rarely come more than once.

Of course, burglary is often serious and for those of us unfortunate enough to have been subject to break-ins, greater attention to the personal rather than economic value of any loss may seem overdue. But whether this should translate into more and longer prison sentences is another matter. This is particularly true in respect of many burglars – including two of the cases whose unsuccessful appeals against severe prison sentences form the basis of the guideline judgment – who are addicted to heroin. Reductions in further offending are more likely to result from encouraging courts and the probation service to identify why it is that desperate people offend to support an addiction and putting in place robust and effective measures to get them off drugs.

Other appeals dismissed by the court include cases of a foreign worker who was homeless and hungry; a young adult with well below average intelligence and a young man who had himself been so victimised that a psychiatrist concluded that he would have real difficulty coping with imprisonment. Such factors do not excuse criminal behaviour that in many cases caused real and lasting suffering and for which offenders need to be held seriously to account. They do suggest the need for much better ways than simply increasing terms of imprisonment to bring home to offenders the consequences of their actions – while providing the intensive rehabilitation programmes in the community that can help them turn their lives around.

The court of appeal's tough talk and upholding of severe sentences produced predictable tabloid cheers, but unlike the guideline which it replaced, R v Saw says nothing about public attitudes. Research has long found that public calls for tougher punishments reflect a large underestimate of the degree to which imprisonment is actually imposed, and when asked about the appropriate sentence in particular cases (including burglary), people often propose one more lenient than that which is actually handed down.

The public seem keen to see a more constructive approach to crime problems. It is unfortunate that the court of appeal has joined the Ministry of Justice in supporting an approach that distorts a laudable wish to support victims of crimes into a more punitive policy towards offenders.

Rob Allen

--oo00oo--

However, it's probably worth taking note of the first few comments at least on this article as they give both an indication of the uphill task we face on the subject, but most importantly, the reason why politicians find the subject just too tempting not to mess with for political advantage:-

I got burgled by a guy who lived a few doors down. He got caught and put away and couldn't burgle me (or any of his many other victims in the street) again. I spent a happy year or so not being burgled. It was nice. The day he was let out on a tag, he burgled me again. He had to stay close to home you see, because of the tag. From this I formed the conclusion that when he was in jail he couldn't burgle me, and when he wasn't he could. So yes, longer sentences please.

*****
One small point.Whilst they are incarcerated they won't be committing burglaries elsewhere, or any other crimes come to that. Victims first, scum bags last.

*****
Takes a lot to get sent to prison in the UK. Perhaps the solution may be to isolate people from their peer group far earlier in the cycle of offending and to focus intervention then rather than going through the whole cycle of warning, youth intervention, warning, fines, CSO's and then Jail. Perhaps jail should actually come in earlier in order to deter behaviour before it becomes set in stone.

*****
I guess it all depends on how you ask the question. Would I prefer a world in which people don't rob other people? Yes. Would I consider non-custodial remedies to help rehabilitate robbers? Yes What would I like to do to someone who robs me or my family? String them up by the balls and then set them on fire. But I'll settle for a long prison sentence as an alternative.

*****
Most people are in agreement that effective education, rehabilitation and drug treatment programs are a better option that just locking someone up. However, given that these programs do not currently exist, the only solution is imprisonment. Given that burglary is a career rather than a one-off event, the longer burglars spend in prison, the fewer houses will get burgled.

*****
"Other appeals dismissed by the court include cases of a foreign worker who was homeless and hungry; a young adult with well below average intelligence and a young man who had himself been so victimised that a psychiatrist concluded that he would have real difficulty coping with imprisonment" Oh bless those poor foreign criminals, I'm welling up here.

*****
Burglary is a crime for which prison is the best possible solution.
Arguments for:

* Any burglar in prison is incapable of stealing from anyone else.
* They will get a clear message that stealing is a very, very bad thing to do.
* Anyone who steals because they are addicted to heroin will be under constant medical supervision and can get off the drug without the tempation of crime.
* While inside, they can take o levels or NVQ's which might help them avoid crime in the future.

Arguments against:

* They won't be free to live in a squat, inject themselves with dodgy skag, and nick from vulnerable old ladies.

Gosh, really, this is a difficult one.

*****
Perhaps jail ought to be a place to be feared. That may just be a good deterrance in the first place. No Playstations, pool tables, Sky TV and other associated comforts. I am all for prisoners gaining PhD's whilst behind bars, but can they not fit in lots of hard labour in the meantime? It is not as if our streets do not need cleaning ........

*****
Interesting (infuriating). I was burgled by teenagers from the offenders' unit down the (expensive to live on) road. I only knew about the unit afterwards, from a neighbour. When the police came to write me a receipt, they made no mention of it. Can't help but feel that if they'd been locked up properly they wouldn't have been rummaging around in the room while I was asleep in there. Longer sentences would be excellent, especially if we could make them cheaper to the taxpayer. How about repeat offenders being given a one-way to that island that cost us so much in the eighties, down Argentina way?

*****
Tough new sentencing guidelines for burglary won't benefit victims or help rehabilitate offenders they are'nt meant to, there supposed to punish criminals. Many burglars...who are addicted to heroin unless I've missed a change in the law, heroin is still illegal, so those in question have commited two offences instead of one, and therefore logicaly should receive a longer sentence. This article merely proves how out of touch this paper is with the real world, where most people feel more sympathy towards the little old dear whose had her front door stoved in and her pension money nicked than they do with the piece of scum that robbed her.

*****
This is particularly true in respect of many burglars – including two of the cases whose unsuccessful appeals against severe prison sentences form the basis of the guideline judgment – who are addicted to heroin. Maybe we should also go soft on junkies who beat up old ladies for their pension money. After all they "can't help it" and prison won't deter them (well actually it will).

Although whiny liberals, criminologists, lawyers and the criminals themselves don't see it in this way, a house burglary is not really an offence against property. It is, like robbery, an offence against the person because of the way it affects victims. A home is where you are meant to feel safe and secure. Burglars undemine that. They should be punished for that more than the property element.

I can see the point of not routinely jailing people who break into unoccupied shops on their first offence but the starting point for domestic burglary should be prison. If there are exceptional circumstances then the burglar should escape prison but as a general rule of thumb domestic burglary should mean prison.

In truth the burglars would rapidly learn that stealing cars and breaking into shops is less risky. I would personally prefer my car to be nicked than the place where my wife children sleep be broken into. Unfortunately burglars are more likely to dabble in rape and murder than the general population. I wouldn't expect a first-time car thief to go to jail even if it is my car that is stolen but I would expect anyone who burgles my house to.

*****
Agreed but expect to have loads of stats thrown at you by the bleeding hearts who can't quite grasp the simple truth that Prisoners Don't Burgle.

Privateers Cosy Up to Government

Thanks to the reader for pointing me in the direction of this on the BuzzFeed website:- 

A Think Tank Is Charging Thousands To Organise “Behind Closed Doors” Meetings Between Ministers And Private Companies

A free market think tank is organising “behind closed doors” meetings attended by big public sector contractors and government ministers, among others, for £10,000 a time, leading to criticism from campaigners about transparency and the possibility of secret lobbying at such events. The meetings, organised by the think tank Reform, involve ministers from the Ministry of Justice and Department of Health. The revelation that they are taking place has drawn criticism from both Labour and transparency campaigners.

Reform says it charges a fee of £10,000 a time for companies to sponsor the meetings, at which “public services” are discussed with “Ministers, MPs and leading Opposition figures”. One meeting is an invitation-only “policy round table” on probation with justice minister Sam Gyimah, planned for next month and listed on the think tank’s website. The event is sponsored by MTC, an American justice firm with a controversial record in the US. In the UK, it forms half of MTCNovo, a partnership with public and private sector providers that has a £453 million contract to run probation in London.

According to Reform, the meeting is to be held under Chatham House rules, meaning participants agree not to disclose what is said. Reform has also organised a “high level roundtable" meeting in Westminster in early October to discuss “NHS Medicines” with Lord O’Shaughnessy, the health minister with responsibility for medicines and industry. This meeting is sponsored by the drug firm Pfizer and will also be held under Chatham House rules.

Closed meetings hosted by think tanks are uncommon. Out of over 300 seminars, meetings, and round tables advertised in the fringe programme of this week’s Conservative party conference – many held by think tanks, pressure groups, and industry associations – only around 20 are “invite-only” or "private”, excluding “receptions”, which are more commonly ticketed because they are more like parties.

Sarah Clarke, spokesperson for the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, which campaigns for better regulation of lobbying, told BuzzFeed News: “When companies can purchase a seat at the table with ministers in private seminars, the impression can be given that policy-making is taking place behind closed doors, away from public and parliamentary scrutiny.”

Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat chief whip in the Commons, called on Britain’s most senior civil servant to ensure the meetings did not break transparency rules: “The cabinet secretary must satisfy him that meetings of this sort do not breach the ministerial code. Tory ministers themselves cannot act as judge and jury in that regard.”

The meeting on probation services comes at a time when outsourcing of criminal justice services to private companies is under intense scrutiny. Probation services attempt to steer ex-offenders into jobs and housing and away from crime. MTCNovo took over responsibility for all but the most violent ex-offenders in London and Thames Valley in 2015, when the Conservatives handed over regional probation services to private companies in a “rehabilitation revolution”.

The company’s performance in London was heavily criticized in 2016 by the chief inspector of probation, who said its “poor work” meant the public was “more at risk” from ex-prisoners who might reoffend. According to her report, MTCNovo’s service was not properly managing ex-offenders, “despite the heroic efforts of some staff”. She went on to say MTCNovo had “unmanageable caseloads, inexperienced officers, extremely poor oversight and a lack of senior management focus and control” that “meant some service users were not seen for weeks or months, and some were lost in the system”.

Recent figures in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) show that in spite of MTCNovo’s failings, Gyimah, the minister in charge of probation, gave the firm an extra £36.5 million over the next four years. Labour shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon has condemned bailing out the firms, describing it as “rewarding failure”.

This is not the first paid-for meeting Reform has organised that Gyimah has attended along with a probation company. Last year it organised a “private roundtable” on probation with Gyimah inside the Conservative party conference. That meeting was “held in partnership with Interserve”, which runs probation in five UK regions. Among those present at the meeting were two members of the justice select committee, the director of G4S-run HMP Birmingham, senior charity staff, and the general secretary of the probation officers’ union, Napo.

Interserve has also been criticised by an official report: Its Manchester probation service “had not made a sufficient contribution to protecting those at risk of harm”, according to inspectors. OJEU figures show that, like MTCNovo, Interserve has also received a bailout since the meeting: £58.6 million in fees over the next four years, assuming the volume of work carried out by the company remains consistent. According to Reform, Interserve paid the think tank £11,299 last year.

A spokesperson for Interserve said: “Many events of this kind are hosted by think tanks at party conferences, covering a range of topics and sectors. As a key provider of probation services in the UK, we sponsored a Reform event on prisons and prisoner rehabilitation at the 2016 Conservative Party conference, which was attended by a variety of parties including politicians, business leaders, union representatives and charities who discussed best practice for prisoner rehabilitation.”

The spokesperson continued: “Since the inspection into the effectiveness of probation work in Cheshire and Greater Manchester, published in February, we have rectified areas where improvements were deemed necessary, and delivered a 3% reduction in reoffending. ... The report was largely positive and highlighted the fact that the CRC has a sound vision and is making good progress.”

However, Labour's Burgon told BuzzFeed News: “Once again the government appears to have far too cosy a relationship with the privatised probation companies. Instead of participating in secretive meetings, organised by its Tory party friends, the government should be getting a grip of these failing companies.”

The meeting on medicines involving the health minister and sponsored by Pfizer takes place as the health service is preparing to re-negotiate the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, a vast agreement between the health service and the drug firms on the prices of medicines – a product on which the NHS spends £12 billion a year.

Last year Pfizer was fined £84.2 million for overcharging the NHS on anti-epilepsy drugs, a decision the company took issue with and appealed to the Competition and Appeal Tribunal over. A Pfizer spokesperson said: “From time to time Pfizer provides corporate sponsorship to a variety of think tanks in the UK, including Reform, in order to explore and understand the key health policy issues of the day, including access to new innovative medicines.”

They went on: “Further detail about the event can be found on the Reform website and details about Pfizer’s corporate sponsorships are captured and made public within our annual disclosure reports.”

On the issue of anti-epilepsy drugs, the spokesperson said: “While it would not be appropriate to go into any further detail at this time due to the ongoing nature of the appeal process, we have previously stated that [the drugs] were a loss making product for Pfizer and the Flynn transaction represented an opportunity to secure ongoing supply of an important medicine for patients with epilepsy, while maintaining continuity of supply.”

Both the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice said ministers “meet with a wide range of people” and “representatives from many organisations”, which is “in keeping with Cabinet Office guidance.” No money is passed to any of the ministers involved.

But Sarah Clarke of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency said the content of the meetings must be transparent. “The perception that politicians listen to big business more than to voters corrodes public trust in politics,” she said. “A more robust statutory lobbying register combined with more detailed ministerial diaries would create greater accountability and transparency around those seeking to influence policy, and would help voters feel they were taking back control of our democracy.”

Reform says it is “politically independent, with an MP of each of the main parties on our Advisory Board”. However, the think tank has a strong Conservative history. It was founded in 2001 by Nick Herbert and Andrew Haldenby, both of whom worked in the Conservative Research Department. Herbert is now an MP and police minister, while Haldenby is still Reform’s director. On the think tank’s site, he writes: “Some people call us “centre-right” because of our interest in value for money in public spending. The best description is ‘liberal’ with a small l.”

BuzzFeed News asked Haldenby if these seminars meant Reform was taking cash for access to ministers. He said: “The fact is it is not cash for access. We are an educational charity and we bring together policymakers and companies and others to discuss an issue. The minister and the sponsoring company will be there, but crucially they won’t be the only people in the room. This won’t be a secret conversation. Other experts, people from other companies and other groups will be there.”

He added that he would consider inviting BuzzFeed News journalists to the events to show that there was nothing untoward going on – but as these events were under Chatham House rules, we would not be able to report the conversations that took place. Haldenby also said the think tank is “entirely transparent about corporate support on our website”.

Solomon Hughes

--oo00oo--

From the Reform website:-

Transforming lives: delivering an integrated offender journey

Reform is delighted to convene a policy roundtable with Sam Gyimah MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Prisons and Probation, on the theme ‘Transforming lives: delivering an integrated offender journey’.

The Government’s white paper has laid out much needed prison reforms, aimed at ensuring safer, more productive prison regimes and therefore better outcomes. Absolutely key to realising a rehabilitation revolution will be the successful delivery of through-the-gate support. Evidence clearly shows that consistent case management leads to better offender outcomes. The right interventions must be delivered at the right time, by the right people, in the right place. Offenders should experience a seamless journey though prison and probation, which requires a joined-up approach between the two services. Community Rehabilitation Companies will be at the heart of this, working closely with the newly autonomous prisons to transform offenders’ lives.

This event is being held under the Chatham House Rule and is kindly supported by The Management and Training Corporation (MTC).

Privatisation : Success or Failure?

I notice that a recent article from the FT and sign-posted on Facebook by David Raho has prompted some discussion on Facebook:-  

The pendulum swings against privatisation

Political fashions can change quickly, as a glance at almost any western democracy will tell you. The pendulum of the politically possible swings back and forth. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the debates over privatisation and nationalisation. 

In the late 1940s, experts advocated nationalisation on a scale hard to imagine today. Arthur Lewis thought the government should run the phone system, insurance and the car industry. James Meade wanted to socialise iron, steel and chemicals; both men later won Nobel memorial prizes in economics. 

They were in tune with the times: the British government ended up owning not only utilities and heavy industry but airlines, travel agents and even the removal company, Pickfords. The pendulum swung back in the 1980s and early 1990s, as Margaret Thatcher and John Major began an ever more ambitious series of privatisations, concluding with water, electricity and the railways. The world watched, and often followed suit. 

Was it all worth it? The question arises because the pendulum is swinging back again: Jeremy Corbyn, the bookies’ favourite to be the next UK prime minister, wants to renationalise the railways, electricity, water and gas. (He has not yet mentioned Pickfords.) Furthermore, he cites these ambitions as a reason to withdraw from the European single market. 

Privatisation’s proponents mention the galvanising effect of the profit motive, or the entrepreneurial spirit of private enterprise. Opponents talk of fat cats and selling off the family silver 

That is odd, since there is nothing in single market rules to prevent state ownership of railways and utilities — the excuse seems to be yet another Eurosceptic myth, the leftwing reflection of rightwing tabloids moaning about banana regulation. Since the entire British political class has lost its mind over Brexit, it would be unfair to single out Mr Corbyn on those grounds. 

Still, he has reopened a debate that long seemed settled, and piqued my interest. Did privatisation work? Proponents sometimes mention the galvanising effect of the profit motive, or the entrepreneurial spirit of private enterprise. Opponents talk of fat cats and selling off the family silver. Realists might prefer to look at the evidence, and the ambitious UK programme has delivered plenty of that over the years. 

There is no reason for a government to own Pickfords, but the calculus of privatisation is more subtle when it comes to natural monopolies — markets that are broadly immune to competition. If I am not satisfied with what Pickford’s has to offer me when I move home, I am not short of options. But the same is not true of the Royal Mail: if I want to write to my MP then the big red pillar box at the end of the street is really the only game in town.

Competition does sometimes emerge in unlikely seeming circumstances. British Telecom seemed to have an iron grip on telephone services in the UK — as did AT&T in the US. The grip melted away in the face of regulation and, more importantly, technological change.

Railways seem like a natural monopoly, yet there are two separate railway lines from my home town of Oxford into London, and two separate railway companies will sell me tickets for the journey. They compete with two bus companies; competition can sometimes seem irrepressible. 

But the truth is that competition has often failed to bloom, even when one might have expected it. If I run a bus service at 20 and 50 minutes past the hour, then a competitor can grab my business without competing on price by running a service at 19 and 49 minutes past the hour. Customers will not be well served by that. 

Meanwhile electricity and phone companies offer bewildering tariffs, and it is hard to see how water companies will ever truly compete with each other; the logic of geography suggests otherwise. 

All this matters because the broad lesson of the great privatisation experiment is that it has worked well when competition has been unleashed, but less well when a government-run business has been replaced by a government-regulated monopoly. 

A few years ago, the economist David Parker assembled a survey of post-privatisation performance studies. The most striking thing is the diversity of results. Sometimes productivity soared. Sometimes investors and managers skimmed off all the cream. Revealingly, performance often leapt in the year or two before privatisation, suggesting that state-owned enterprises could be well-run when the political will existed — but that political will was often absent. 

My overall reading of the evidence is that privatisation tended to improve profitability, productivity and pricing — but the gains were neither vast nor guaranteed. Electricity privatisation was a success; water privatisation was a disappointment. Privatised railways now serve vastly more passengers than British Rail did. That is a success story but it looks like a failure every time your nose is crushed up against someone’s armpit on the 18:09 from London Victoria. 

The evidence suggests this conclusion: the picture is mixed, the details matter, and you can get results if you get the execution right. Our politicians offer a different conclusion: the picture is stark, the details are irrelevant, and we metaphorically execute not our policies but our opponents. 

The pendulum swings — but shows no sign of pausing in the centre.

Tim Harford

--oo00oo--

From Facebook:-

Privatisation undoubtedly works in some markets but definitely not in others. I am not opposed to some involvement of the private sector in the delivery of public services where this is subject to well formulated contracts, tight public sector governance and oversight, and private companies involvement is strictly in the interest of proven cost effective service delivery i.e. cleaning, IT and vehicle leasing to free up money to invest in core services. It should never be contracted for ideological reasons.

However, the experience in England and Wales criminal justice system where the provision of core services has been outsourced and privatised for ideological reasons as opposed to evidence based reasons indicating that privatisation would result in improved service delivery not just reduced financial costs is a good example of how not to privatise. Increasingly the evidence coming out of the criminal justice system in England and Wales suggests that privatisations in one form or another whether in prisons tagging Probation or courts by successive administrations have at best been flawed and at worst a reckless gamble with public safety.

The market has simply failed to drive or deliver improvements in respect of reoffending or innovative interventions. Time for government to reconsider their approach. David A Raho

You cannot create a market where one wouldn't freely exist and certainly not as a cost saving measure...the ridiculousness of the dogma is hard to believe. And so often, especially with central government, their capacity to ensure any kind of accountability has been proven to be nil. The irony at the heart of the debate is that Government's incompetence at managing contracts has fuelled arguments that governments can't be trusted to run anything - hence providing cover for those promoting privatisation to make money for their mates and donors. We must remember this when arguing for alternatives to replace failing privatised contracts. Publicly owned and locally accountable doesn't mean state run. Dean Rogers

As we know the so called ‘Justice Market’ was artificially created by those in the coalition government who no doubt sincerely believe that the de-establishment of a national Probation service consisting of devolved Trusts and the establishment of a competitive market with a mixture of providers of services - even if artificially created - is the most effective means of disrupting, re-forming, and bringing innovation, into a system that appears to have reached a plateau in terms of outcomes. This is a seductive idea that at the time generated little actual opposition in Parliament when put to the vote as there appeared to be some sense to the majority of MPs in trying something else to improve on a system that had hitherto delivered slow but fairly steady improvement and that although not actually failing was successfully portrayed - however unjustly - as demonstrably failing to address reoffending in respect of a significant group of offenders (never mind the history as to why they hadn’t been required to work with them).

The argument against such a politically seductive and undeniably bold and novel approach is that its obviously intended disruption predictably introduced greater potential for inconsistency, problems around accountability, and the real risk of both corruption and failure, into a system that should be publicly accountable, well governed, consistent and robust. Splitting and dismantling a system that needs a degree of unity and stability in order to function generates far greater problems than it could ever hope to solve.

I agree that when looking at alternatives that publicly owned and locally accountable doesn’t necessarily mean state run. My personal preference is for a devolved justice system as probation services are delivered best when an easily recognisable probation organisation is fully engaged with and integrated within the communities they are meant to serve. This assumes a degree of national standardisation is both necessary and desirable and that such a service cannot be effectively delivered by a system comprised of a separate centrally controlled national service and an increasingly unsustainable and diverse hotch potch of other providers with various commercial interests that are compelled to operate in an artificially created market distorted by political and corporate interests. David A Raho

Agreed. Disrupted could be devastated and I think there was, especially by the time we'd finished with the Lords, quite a lot of parliamentary opposition and scepticism, some of which is now helping the push for a full review - a key step towards a new system. We strongly agree on localisation of delivery and accountability and, I think, as much unity in provision. The state is proving itself to be as hopeless as any privateer in actually delivering. The rebuilding must start with independent localised commissioning. Also see the piece I'll be publishing on Napo's site early next week in response to HMIP inspectors speech last week 're standards. Dean Rogers

'Probation Must Do Better' Says Minister

Listening to the Justice Secretary delivering an upbeat message to the party faithful, you'd never guess there was a crisis in our criminal justice system. And as is now usual, it was all about prison and probation barely gets a mention:-  

David Lidington’s Conservative conference speech, full text

“Yesterday morning, as Lord Chancellor, I joined our country’s senior judges and lawyers in Westminster Abbey to mark the opening of the new legal year. Then we processed together across Parliament Square to Westminster Hall – the heart of our democracy. It was a great occasion, a celebration of the long history and ancient traditions of our legal system. But at heart, what was being honoured was not wigs and robes, nor ritual and protocol, but the living constitutional principles which that ceremony affirmed.

The rule of law and the independence of the judiciary underpin our democracy and lie at the heart of our way of life. They are the very cornerstone of our freedoms. No individual, no organization, no government is above the law. That is why the refusal by the leadership of today’s Labour Party to rule out supporting illegal strikes is a shameful abdication of responsibility from a party seeking to govern.

I believe, this party believes, in the rule of law, and in our system of justice that protects the innocent, punishes the guilty, and gives voice to victims. And after seven years of Conservatives in office, crime is down by a third. More victims of serious crimes – particularly sexual offences – are coming forward, no longer silenced by fear of stigma or mistrust.

Of course there is always more to be done. That’s why, together with Amber Rudd, I am developing a comprehensive strategy to tackle domestic violence and abuse, a pernicious crime that has been in the shadows for too long in our country. I pay tribute to our Prime Minister, Theresa May, who has been unwavering in the fight against injustice throughout her time at the Home Office and in Downing Street.

I also want to thank my outstanding ministerial team – Dominic Raab, Sam Gyimah, Phillip Lee and Richard Keen, our whips Mike Freer and Charlotte Vere and our PPSs Lucy Frazer and Alan Mak. They all work incredibly hard for our party and for our country. They deserve our thanks.

The greatest challenge facing our criminal justice system is in our prisons. The men and women who work in our prisons are the unsung heroes of the criminal justice system. Day in, day out, they accept responsibility for more than 86,000 offenders, to keep them secure and the public safe.

As I’ve visited prisons and listened to officers and governors, I’ve been struck by their professionalism, their dedication and their commitment, not just to keep prisons secure, but to do everything they can to help prisoners make a change in their lives. Too often, this work can be forgotten. It’s unseen behind the high walls of our prisons. But we should all take this opportunity to thank our prison staff for what they do on behalf of us all.

Prison officers face enormous pressure. The levels of violence inside our prisons are too high. So are cases of self-harm and suicide among prisoners. Last year, the Prisons Ombudsman said that the arrival of new synthetic drugs into our prisons was a game-changer. These drugs, smuggled in from the outside, were – he said – increasing violence, debt, poor health, and instability.

Today, more of that drug traffic is being orchestrated by sophisticated criminal networks. Gangs smuggle not only drugs, but mobile phones for their operations. They use drones to drop as much as a kilo of drugs at a time. They stop at nothing, even spraying children’s drawings – sent to inmates – with liquid synthetic drugs to infiltrate our prisons. This is no cottage industry. This is not a matter of opportunism. It is serious organized crime.

I am determined to do more to track and target that crime. So today I can announce the start of additional intelligence-led counter-drone operations, to disrupt drones as they enter prison airspace and trace them back to the criminals involved.

Inside prisons, we’ve already deployed hundreds of sniffer dogs trained to detect drugs, and we’re working with the technology companies to block mobile signals and drones within the prison walls. And today I can announce pilots of a new generation of body scanners to add to our tools in the fight against drug smuggling.

And we have ramped up our efforts to deploy more and better trained staff. Today we have 868 more prison officers on duty than at the start of the year, meaning we are on course to hire two and half thousand extra frontline officers by the end of 2018. And we are keeping them safer too – training staff to use body-worn cameras to deter assaults and capture evidence whenever they occur. We will not let up on action to ensure that our prisons are secure and that prison staff and prisoners are safe.

Here today, in Manchester, we are reminded of the loss and the grief this city suffered when terrorists struck here in May, at the most innocent and vulnerable of us all: children emerging from a concert. As the Prime Minister has said, we cannot and must not pretend that things can continue as they are.

We have stepped up the work within prison to contain dangerous extremists, opening separation units to stop our most toxic prisoners from being able to groom or intimidate others. And we’ve established a counter-intelligence unit to monitor and disrupt the evolving threat of extremism behind bars.

Safety and security are important in their own right, but they’ve got a broader purpose too. The real prize of a calm and ordered prison environment is to make it possible to transform them into places of genuine reform and rehabilitation.

All bar a tiny handful of prisoners will one day be released. And we cannot be satisfied with a situation in which nearly half of prisoners reoffend within a year of release. That failure matters. It matters to us, as Conservatives, because in the end the cost of reoffending is borne by the victims of those crimes.

Let me be clear: those who commit crimes are responsible for their actions. And successful rehabilitation has to start with the prisoner wanting to make it work. There are some who, no matter what support is offered, will show no remorse and no desire to change.

Nothing can excuse crime. But we have to recognise that the problems in our prisons don’t start at the gates. A quarter of prisoners have spent time in care. Many come from homes that were at best chaotic, at worst violent and abusive. And the cycle perpetuates: nearly two thirds of prisoners’ sons go on to commit crime. Most prisoners assessed on arrival have the reading skills of an 11-year-old, and half have no qualifications at all.

When these prisoners return to society I want to see them able to get a job and to keep it. I want them willing and able to take responsibility for themselves and their families, keeping on the straight and narrow rather than falling back into their old ways.

And I want more intensive rehabilitation to take place in the community, particularly to tackle offenders with substance misuse and mental health needs. We also need probation to work better, so we have tough community sentences that command the confidence of the courts and the public.

Now, rehabilitation does not mean that we ignore the need for punishment and deterrence. It means using the time that we have people inside to maximize the chance that they will change their attitudes when they get out, spending as much time as possible in classrooms and workshops, not banged up in cells.

So I am pushing ahead with reform. I am giving prison governors new powers over how their prisons are run. Next year, every governor will be given the power to tailor education and training to the needs of their prisoners. They’ll have more freedom to innovate, but they will also be held to account for the results of their work.

And that goes for us too. Openness and transparency are powerful instruments of change. The reports of prison inspectors shine a spotlight on problems. Where recommendations are made by the Inspectorate, they should be followed up. So I have set up a new taskforce, charged with responding promptly and publicly to inspection reports and following those through with action to put problems right – and if we disagree, providing a clear, public explanation.

We have a particular responsibility towards young prisoners. We cannot sit back and allow them to become the adult offenders of tomorrow. Since we took office in 2010, the number of young people in custody has plummeted – by nearly two-thirds- leaving only the most serious and difficult offenders behind bars. These youngsters also have the most complex needs. Youth custody cannot just be the dumping ground for society’s problems.

So I can today announce a new investment of £64 million to entrench reform of youth custody. We will boost the number of frontline staff in youth offender institutions by 20% – that’s 120 additional recruits, including newly trained specialist youth justice workers, equipped to tackle the needs of young offenders.

The work of overcoming the challenges in our prisons means we are also looking beyond the prison walls for solutions. It includes the work Jeremy Hunt is leading across government on a new strategy for mental health. That will help ensure offenders get the help they need both in prison and after release. It embraces Justine Greening’s drive to promote high-quality apprenticeships and first-class technical and vocational education to give prisoners – old and young – the chance to get steady, quality work after prison.

The private sector has a role to play, too. Redemption Roasters, a new start-up working at Aylesbury Young Offender Institution in my own constituency, is offering the boys there a full-time barista training programme, with a real prospect of employability. They are working with one 22 year-old apprentice, who in his own words has “never had any experience of working legit”. He’s now about to begin his first job at Redemption’s flagship coffee shop in central London. This is what a fresh start looks like.

From Timpsons, to Greggs the bakers, to Halfords, to the construction firm Mitie, employers are appreciating what ex-offenders have to offer: the hard-work and dedication of someone committed to proving they deserve that second chance. We need to take this further. That’s why I am today announcing a new national task force – the New Futures Network – to match offenders with employers and make sure training in prisons mirrors the demands in the local jobs market.

The evidence shows that a former prisoner who has got both the responsibility and opportunity that comes with work is far less likely to reoffend. Getting prisoners into employment works. This work of reform is ambitious and difficult. I’m not going to promise instant solutions. We are dealing with some of the most troubling and troubled people in society. But there are two things which, despite those difficulties, still fill me with hope.

The first is the success stories I’ve heard in our prisons. There’s the officer in Northumberland who runs the recycling yard in his prison, who’s built basic English and Maths skills into the work, and set up links with local businesses to secure jobs for his men when they’ve done their time. One of the prisoners in his team put it this way. He said: “Not only does this give us hope, it also gives us purpose in life”.

Or the prisoner in South Wales who told me how it was the work of staff there to maintain and strengthen contact between prisoners and their families that had finally made him realise how much damage his criminal past and his absence in prison had caused to a partner and children whom he loved, and how he was determined, once released, not to let them down again.

Or the amazing work by charities, from women’s groups to churches to sports clubs to get them to see that there is a better way than going back to a life of crime. I want to see charities and voluntary groups, large and small, play an even stronger role as we move forward with our reforms.

And the second thing that gives me both hope and confidence is what, after more than 40 years of membership, I know about our Party. We say that the Conservative Party is the party of one nation. We are at our best when we speak and act and work on behalf of every part of this country, when we strive to do our best for people from all walks of life, whatever their background, their accent, their beliefs or the colour of their skin.

And just as there can be no no-go areas, no city, no estate, no street that is out-of-bounds for us in our campaigning, so there should be no area of policy, no social challenge that we should fear to address. So let our government and our party work together, with energy, confidence and determination on the great cause of prison and penal reform.

And through our efforts let us pass on to the next generation a country that is more fair, more ready to offer a second chance, and more just than the one that we inherited ourselves.”

David Lidington

Latest From Napo 164

Here we have slightly edited highlights from the Napo General Secretary's latest blog post:- 

SSCL Failures Writ Large

Last week saw a meeting (at last) between the Probation Unions and the HMPPS senior managers in charge of the shared services division (SSCL). This is the organisation who are responsible for paying NPS staff correctly and administering the deduction of pension contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS).

There have been a number of mail outs from Napo over the last couple of months which include details of how members should complain if they spot an anomaly in their pay.

The letter below to the Secretary of state is published as part of our audit trail and to provide transparency to members about Napo’s formal claim for the department to make reparation and our efforts to get to the bottom of the systemic failures by SSCL which our estimates suggest is impacting on 1 in 5 of NPS staff.

I also want to record appreciation to Assistant General Secretary Dean Rogers for his tenacity in helping to expose the shambles that has been going on for too long and for dealing with numerous enquiries from worried members.

We await formal feedback from the meeting where we were given assurances that SSCL are on top of the problems, but given what has been going on it’s hardly surprising that we are some way for being convinced.

If these current issues can now be resolved quickly then we obviously welcome that, but the key questions that we intend to continue pursuing are will we see a repetition and why can’t the NPS be designated as a stand-alone Agency responsible for administering its own payroll and pension arrangements.

More news to follow as soon as it is available.

Letter to Secretary of State for Justice

JTU 24-17

Rt Hon David Lidington MP
Secretary of State for Justice
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

27th September 2017

Dear David,

Failure of National Probation Service/SSCL to Pay NPS Staff and Pensions

We are writing to you to put on record our concern as the recognised trade unions for staff working for the National Probation Service over the catalogue of errors caused by NPS/SSCL in relation to our members’ pay and pensions.

In this letter we set out the sorry catalogue of errors/problems, which we assume has already been brought to your attention. The most recent pay errors have been the result, so we have been told, of the failure of SSCL and its sub-contractor to copy over pay and pensions instructions in the migration from the previous Phoenix pay system to the new SOP system.

However, as we set out later in the letter, NPS has been unable to reassure that the latest pay errors were not also in evidence under the previous Phoenix system. We have evidence of pay and pensions maladministration pre-dating the SOP migration, which have probably been in existence since the inception of NPS on 1 June 2014.

The inability of your department to pay its staff properly is a matter which the unions take extremely seriously, as we hope you do likewise. We were informed at a meeting with NPS ,and the MOJ contract manager for the SSCL contract, that the contract price paid to SSCL required the government to retain liability for any mistakes made by the contractor. As a result, we have been told that our members will have to bear liability for the contractor’s mistakes. We are sure that you will recognise the inequity of such a position and we seek your intervention to resolve this in our members’ favour.

1. SSCL issues inaccurate P60s

HMPPS NPS News No. 93 August 2017 confirmed to NPS staff that:

‘HMPPS is aware that for members of the LGPS (Local Government Pension Scheme) there are issues with the accuracy of the 2016/17 P60 you have been sent or viewed online. The issues are related to the calculation and recording of pensionable pay elements. We have been working with SSCL to investigate the problem, resolve these issues and to ensure the correct information is provided to HMRC and GMPF.

We recognise this is an important matter to all staff in the LGPS and we will provide regular updates until this matter is resolved. At this time, staff are not required to take any action, and we would ask you to please refrain from sending emails so that resource is not diverted from resolving the issues.

We are also aware that Annual Pension Benefit statements will be issued shortly and these will be reviewed once the known issues with the calculation and recording of pensionable pay elements have been resolved.’

Staff have been told that this was a printing error and that the mistake will not affect tax, but as the following error indicates, staff will have little faith in such reassurances.

2. SSCL fails to collect or pay Local Government Pension Scheme contributions in respect of premium payments to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund

Following contact from members, who believed that the employer was not deducting pension contributions in respect of some elements of pay, UNISON wrote to the NPS to ask for an investigation. The NPS Director of Probation confirmed to UNISON on 3 August 2017 that:

‘I am aware that HMPPS failed to collect and pass on to the pension fund, employee pension contributions in respect of the NNC Unsocial Hours Allowances (30% & 50%) from February to June 2017 inclusive. I appreciate that this is a frustrating error, and I understand this has been brought to your attention on numerous occasions by your members. I want to apologise for this happening and want to assure you that as soon as this error was realised it was corrected as a priority.

As ....explained to you this was a failure on the part of a sub-contractor of SSCL to correctly migrate the collection arrangements for these two allowances in the move from Phoenix to SOP. As a result of this our employees claiming this allowance did not have correct pension contributions deducted for a period of 5 months. As.... has told you, this has now been corrected, and pension deductions will be processed and paid to the pension fund in the July payroll.’

As the failure to pay over the pension contributions exceeded 90 days, the Greater Manchester Pension Fund is required to notify the Pensions Regulator of this serious failure in pension administration. Given the admission of fault on the part of the private contractor, UNISON has asked NPS to cover the cost of the pension contribution arrears.

3. SSCL fails to collect pension contributions from staff on maternity leave

Following enquiries by Napo on behalf of their members on maternity leave, NPS confirmed on 9 August 2017:

‘Thank you for your email of 4 August relating to an error with the deduction of pension contributions for those on maternity leave, and for bringing this issue to our attention. We can only apologise for this error and for any stress and/or inconvenience this has caused your members.

We have contacted Shared Services Connect Limited (SSCL) who have confirmed that the error was created due to a “background software” issue with the Single Operating Platform (SOP), and they have instructed the software providers to urgently look into this issue and provide a solution to re-configure the system correctly.

At the moment SSCL are interrogating the payroll to ensure they capture all employees who may have been affected by this software error and we will be individually contacting them in writing to confirm the situation and how this is to be resolved.

We have also contacted Emma Mayall in GMPF with regards to the issue with the error in deducting contributions being potentially identified as a break in service and not as continuous service. We have asked them not to take any action at this point with regards to the pension records for those they have identified, so we can bring this issue to a satisfactory conclusion.

We will keep you updated throughout the process of identifying all of those affected, and will contact you on the next steps in resolving this issue once the interrogation of the payroll is complete. HMPPS is aware of the disruption that this may result in and wish to express our sincere apologies to employees for any inconvenience this may cause. We would ask that you work with us to alleviate staff concerns and reassure them that we are working to resolve all issues as soon as possible to minimise any distress that may be caused.’

4. SSCL fails to collect pension payments from staff on sick leave

NPS also confirmed on 25 August that staff in receipt of occupational sick pay had not had their pension contributions collected by SSCL.

In September, NPS confirmed in relation to points 2, 3 and 4 above that: 

‘Those affected by the pensionable pay elements on SOP have been identified (SSCL have identified 1,582 individual cases) and will be contacted in writing in due course, providing them with details of the error that has occurred to their pension record, how this will be corrected and how the underpayment of contributions will be made to the pension scheme.

The correction to the underpayment of pension contributions could impact on an individual’s tax record, as pension contributions are calculated before the calculation and deduction of tax. Individuals may need to contact HMRC personally to sort out any issues, once their tax record has been corrected.’

5. Publication of inaccurate Annual Pension Statements to NPS Staff

NPS reported at the end of August that, ‘Annual Pension Benefit Statements have been printed and will be sent out to staff to meet the 31 August deadline. Unfortunately, due to the reporting of pensionable pay elements to GMPF (Greater Manchester Pension Fund) these are incorrect, and due to the process of production and posting of benefit statements in GMPF these will be dispatched.’

6. Failure to auto-enrol NPS staff in the Local Government Pension Scheme

For the five months following the introduction of SOP the NPS failed to auto-enrol new starters in the Local Government Pension Scheme.

7. Pay and Pensions Errors Pre-SOP, unrelated to SOP

As set out in the introduction to this letter, NPS has been unable to confirm that the problems which have been identified as a result of the botched migration of the NPS payroll to SOP were not already impacting on staff prior to the migration. NPS has indicated that it will need to work with SSCL to audit individual salary statements before it can provide any such assurances. Any such problems identified are likely to go back three years to the start of NPS on 1 June 2014.

However, we can confirm that the following were pre-existing pay problems prior to the SOP migration:

• Pension contributions not collected for sessional hours of work undertaken by NPS approved premises staff 
• Pay protection payments for approved premises staff not paid, or paid incorrectly 
• Late payment of contractual increments in 2014, 2015 and 2016 by NPS leading to failure of these increments being applied to unsocial hours payments and additional hours payments going back over three years 
• Pension contributions on the outstanding three years of incremental pay rises on unsocial hours not collected 

These examples are just a selection of the pay problems which are only gradually emerging as a result of the diligence of our members who have had to work out themselves that their employer is not paying them correctly.

8. Prohibition on NPS staff raising grievances over pay errors

The NPS has confirmed that:

‘As an employment relationship does not exist between SSCL and our employees it is inappropriate for an employee to raise a grievance, to NPS, regarding the service received from our HR Supplier SSCL. Neither can an employee raise a grievance directly with SSCL, as SSCL are acting on behalf of HMPPS. It is more appropriate that the employee raises a complaint should they feel the service received from SSCL, was not up to standard.’

This Catch 22 situation effectively prevents employees from seeking resolution of pay problems via the normal channels open to most employees, and which are required in respect of any subsequent claims to an Employment Tribunal.

The fact that NPS has outsourced its payroll provision does not absolve NPS of its responsibility as an employer to comply with the ACAS ‘Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures’. Many employers have their payroll administered by outside organisations (many former Probation Trusts for example contracted their payroll to their local authority), but this does not prevent the staff in these organisations from raising grievances over pay with their legal employer. The NPS actions here seek to frustrate access to justice for staff via Employment Tribunals, which is extremely troubling for a directorate of the Ministry responsible for the Tribunal Service.

We draw these issues to your attention as they point to a near total breakdown in the ability of your Department to pay its staff correctly, or administer their pensions in line with regulations. Due to the maladministration of the pension deductions for the five month period earlier this year, the Greater Manchester Pension Fund is bound by law to refer the National Probation Service to the Pensions Regulator. The Regulator is able to fine an employer for failure to follow pension regulations.

Napo and UNISON have asked the National Probation Service to take responsibility for settling both the employee and employer pension arrears in relation to the failure to deduct pension contributions, but so far it has been unable to respond positively to this request. The potential size of arrears is apparently a factor which is limiting its ability to take responsibility in this respect.

We therefore ask you to:

• take personal responsibility for the above failings and to instruct NPS to shoulder the cost of paying both the employee and employer arrears in respect of pension contributions which have not been collected. 
• take responsibility for correcting any adverse tax implications which may arise for individual staff (see point 4 above) and instruct NPS/SSCL to resolve any such issues rather than requiring employees to undertake this onorous work themselves 
• instruct NPS to comply with the law and accept employee grievances over pay matters 
• instruct NPS to provide reassurance that the pay and pension problems which we believe have affected NPS pay from 1 June 2014 will be resolved and NPS take responsibility for the cost of any pay/pension rectifications 

9. Secretary of State’s Pensions Guarantee

Which brings us finally to the novel arrangement which your predecessor, the former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, entered into with the privatised probation companies, whereby he relieved them of the cost of obtaining the usual bonds to guarantee their pension contributions and put in their place his Secretary of State’s Guarantee to cover any liabilities which the privatised companies became unable to discharge once their contracts had gone live.

In the same way that the Secretary of State’s Guarantee is designed to cover any shortfalls in Community Rehabilitation Company pension contributions, we now expect the same principle to apply to the shortfall in pension contributions which have resulted from pensions maladministration in the Ministry of Justice.

Neither Napo, nor UNISON, expected that the NPS would be the first employer under Transforming Rehabilitation to breach Local Government Pension Regulations and fail to discharge its legal responsibilities in respect of our members’ pensions.

Both Napo and UNISON are available to provide you with more information on these matters as necessary. We have referred all the matters above to the Public Accounts Committee for its deliberations.

We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Ian Lawrence                        Ben Priestley
General Secretary Napo       National Officer UNISON                  

Probation:What Next?

I see that in an attempt to fill the obvious vacuum left by an increasingly side-lined Probation Institute, Napo have teamed-up with independent reporter Hardeep Matharu in her efforts to stimulate a discussion as to how 'probation' can best be recast:- 

That those who commit crimes are still a part of our society, the majority of whom will one day walk past us in the street and again live in our communities is an uncomfortable truth conveniently overlooked by most. How such people are supported through their offending and its consequences should be something that interests everybody. After all, we – each of us – want to live in safe environments in which people can build fulfilling lives and reach their potential; don’t we?

The dual crises engulfing both our prisons and probation services are the ultimate result of a reluctance to even consider how to engage in a wider societal debate about what the role of criminal justice should be and how best its aims can be achieved. Sadly, few could argue that such a debate is not now desperately overdue.

As suicide, self-harm, violence and drug abuse rockets in our overcrowded, under-staffed prisons, failings in the supervision of offenders has fed into, and been exacerbated by, the state of our jails. Chris Grayling was warned that splitting probation into two public and private arms would have deep repercussions.

I remember speaking to deflated, passionate probation officers at the time who told me that their work wasn’t a job, but a vocation – it could be immensely challenging professionally and personally, but that they were driven by a strongly-held desire to help people and better society.

While the Probation Inspectorate has noted that many staff are still working to do the very best they can, the sheer uphill struggle presented by the system in its current state must be frustrating beyond belief.

In its latest report of services in Gloucestershire, the Inspectorate found that while the work of the NPS was “reasonably good… efforts to rehabilitate offenders often came to little or nothing”. While the “CRC’s work is so far below par that its owner and government need to work together urgently to improve matters”.

Now, more than ever, we need well-informed reporting of these issues – a discussion in the public domain about how we can solve the current crises consuming our prisons and probation, but also how we can bring about a new social paradigm around our whole approach to criminal justice.

I have been reporting on justice issues since I was a local newspaper reporter for the Epsom Guardian, covering Chris Grayling’s constituency. I was there when Napo’s members marched through the town centre voicing their opposition to Transforming Rehabilitation.

Now, as an independent reporter, I have recently launched a project on the crowdfunded journalism website Byline to explore the questions I have posed above: what are the solutions and where do we go from here?

If we can’t now return to the “advise, assist, befriend” model of probation, how can we move past the more punitive, bureaucratic approach of recent years? How can prisons better prepare offenders for life outside? Who should be ending up in prison, what are its alternatives and how can probation and community-centred social justice play a role here? Which social failures are being passed off as criminal justice shortcomings?

I am keen to hear from anyone who would be willing to share their thoughts and insights – anonymously if required – on any of the issues I have raised. Please feel free to contact me by emailing matharukhardeep@gmail.com or through Twitter @Hardeep_Matharu. A link to my Byline column can be found here: www.byline.com/column/71. Any support would be much appreciated.

Hardeep Matharu