Death Knell of Probation 3

Thanks go to the reader for pointing us in the direction of the latest Probation Change Bulletin which sets out where we are with the MoJ plans to gobble up probation under the dead hand of civil service control:- 

1. Introduction

An update from the senior team

Welcome to the September update on the probation reform programme. The common theme that runs through this update is that we are moving from design into delivery - from talking about the future of probation to making it happen.

We have begun the process of moving to the 12 new probation regions (11 in England, plus Wales) and have started recruitment for the six regional director vacancies. We hope that all regional directors will be in post from April 2020, allowing a phased transition to the new structures.

Consultation with staff in Wales is well underway and we aim to transfer offender management from the CRC to the NPS later this year. To support this process we’ve finalised guidance on how we will fairly and transparently assign CRC staff to either the NPS or to new contracted providers.

We have also reflected on the language we use to describe contracts. We have replaced Innovation Partner with Probation Delivery Partner. We think this is a clearer description of the purpose of those organisations and, importantly, it anchors them to the probation service of which they will be a key part.

We plan to launch the competition to appoint a probation delivery partner for each region later this year. 

Update from Wales

Seetec in Wales is currently engaged with staff and trade union consultation. This consultation process will formally end on 19 October 2019.

More information on the detail of the proposed Wales transition will be available after this consultation process. Our priority is to make sure that staff are fully informed at all stages.

Services will be commissioned in Wales at the same time as in England. We are working closely with HMPPS Wales to make sure that unpaid work, accredited programmes, resettlement and rehabilitation services are designed and commissioned in a way that meets the specific circumstances and needs in Wales. If you want to contact the programme team in Wales or have any questions please email futurepsw@justice.gov.uk

2. Service design

The design of future probation services

We have been sharing and refining our design with key stakeholders to build the first version of our Target Operating Model (TOM) for future probation services and we plan to publish it later this year. We will publish multiple versions of this TOM as the design work progresses.

2.1 Key features of the new system

• A high-quality service to protect the public - reducing reoffending and improving outcomes for offenders
• More support for our workforce to secure the skills needed to deliver effective probation services
• Delivery that is responsive to local needs, creates the right conditions for a diverse range of providers and ensures a clearer role for voluntary and private sectors
• Stronger engagement with stakeholders so that we can better influence levels of demand across the Criminal Justice System and improve sentencer confidence in probation delivery.

2.2 The role of the probation practitioner and the intervention providers

We are carefully designing a system based on a known evidence base, both for probation practitioners and specialist services, so that we can address specific needs and behaviors. We are using this information to more clearly define the roles and interfaces in the system, especially between the NPS and contracted providers. Here are some key facts:

• The relationship between probation practitioners and those serving a sentence is key and the evidence base confirms their central role as an agent of change
• Probation practitioners are likely to be more effective as agents of change if they can access specialist services to address specific needs - attempting to address practical needs can detract from building positive relationships
• Interventions that build social capital are likely to be better delivered by specialist local providers
• Our aim is to support probation practitioners by making sure interventions are available that meet frequently occurring needs
• The focus will be on interventions that build skills and secure appropriate outcomes for the individual
• Our approach should ensure we make best use of the opportunities and permissions that delivering a sentence can provide
• Our new regional leadership will champion and enable a whole system response to desistance
• The service will respond to the needs of those with protected characteristics, especially for groups where there is convincing evidence, such as women and young adults.

We thank those who have worked with us over the past month at various workshops. They have included HM Probation Inspectorate, Clinks, CRC and NPS leadership, academics convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Advisory Board for Female Offenders, a working group of women’s organisations and a range of voluntary sector providers. In the month ahead we plan more workshops. For example, we will further test our resettlement model with prison governors and current providers of ‘Through the Gate’ services and we will have conversations with prison reconfiguration and Offender Management in Custody staff.

3. Transition and mobilisation

How we are changing from current to future services

We are looking very carefully at transition - taking care to manage the pace of change and work closely with local partners to deliver the transition. No area or region is the same so our approach to transition and the speed of transition will be different across England and Wales. To support this work we have established transition boards across England and Wales - one for each new probation region.

These transition boards have representation from both the NPS and CRCs. In addition, we are establishing sub-boards for people and estates across the country. A growing transitions team in the probation programme will support these boards. Once these boards are fully established they will be a critical part of our plans to transition to future services.

Key activities of the transition team in September have been: * Establishing the regional transition boards and sub groups * Recruiting NPS and CRC transition leads * Requesting more workforce data from CRCs (and their supply chain partners) to inform the accuracy of our workforce planning.

Key activities planned for October are: * Establishing a central transition plan and regional draft action plans * A meeting with all key transition leads to affirm roles, responsibilities and activities in the transition space.

4. Workforce

What we doing to support the probation workforce and related professionals

We are working closely with local HR partners in the NPS and CRCs to support probation staff and the employees of supply chain partners. The regional transition boards will enable effective communication to a wide range of practitioners in their local area.

These HR partners will also ensure that planning is localised and detailed enough to inform both our national direction and what we need to do regionally. They will report to their regional transition board. There will be local operational staff as well as HR specialists on the transition boards. Work will include planning the training needs across regions for all staff prior to future changes.

We are also looking at workforce needs for the probation delivery partners. This is the competition for unpaid work, accredited programmes and non-accredited red interventions.

5. Probation structures

The design and development of new probation structures

We are finalising the new regional senior management structure. As a milestone in that work we have recently launched the external recruitment process for the new regional probation director roles. The job adverts have been posted on Civil Service Jobs. (Please open this link in Firefox).

A crucial part of future structures is the work needed to ensure that the NPS operates seamlessly with contracted providers. We have been working with colleagues across the programme to run workshops with staff so that we understand the referral, commissioning, contract and performance management processes that support the delivery of interventions. We will build on these workshops so that we have the right processes in place for the new commissioning frameworks under the unified model.

Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are vital local stakeholders and we will continue to work with them closely. We are organising a national event for PCCs on 21 October in London. At this event we will update on our work with them on a national level and, facilitated by the Association for Police and Crime Commissioners, we will define the role of PCCs in the future model. This includes how the NPS and PCCs will work together at both local and regional levels and how key enablers, such as data, will support this work.

6. Commissioning updates

How we are planning to purchase and manage commissioned or grant funded services

The commercial team have been working alongside service design leads to develop the right approach to buying services in the following areas: * Unpaid work * Accredited programmes and non-accredited structured interventions * Rehabilitation services * Resettlement services.

We have continued to work closely with the market and stakeholders to develop our approach across all these areas.

6.1 Probation delivery partners (unpaid work, accredited programmes and structured non-accredited interventions)

Following feedback from the market we have decided to amend the title ‘innovation partner’ to ‘probation delivery partner’. This better reflects the services that future providers will deliver while including our aim to work in partnership with future providers.

The competition for probation delivery partners has entered the market-warming phase prior to the launch of competition in November 2019. You can read the first set of draft documents published on the Government website on the probation reform consultation events and materials page.

6.2 Dynamic framework (rehabilitation and resettlement services)

We will make the dynamic framework available to other public sector commissioners and we are engaging with other Government departments and commissioners to seek feedback on: * Proposed categories of need areas and cohorts * Key principles of the framework and how other commissioners will be able to use the dynamic framework.

We are also engaging with the market by holding smaller scale workshops. At these events we will seek detailed feedback on our approach to ensure that we are proportionate and reduce barriers to entry wherever possible. We expect that the qualification phase for the dynamic framework will open in December 2019. Dynamic framework bidders will be able to qualify at any time during the life of the framework. But please note that call-off competitions for day one services will start in early 2020 so bidders are encouraged to participate from December 2019.

7. Links and further information

Response to the consultation on future probation services Draft blueprint on future probation services Event materials If you have any questions or would like to contact the programme team please email strengthening.probation@justice.gov.uk

A Return to 'Proper' Punishment?

Having already comprehensively screwed the system up, we once again have the spectacle of politicians using crime and punishment as a political football in order to win popularity at the polls. The Secret Barrister writing in the Guardian puts the position rather well I think:-  

The Tories' tough talk on crime is shameless and cynical

In the spirit of the party conference season, let me start with a platitude: everybody wants dangerous criminals to be dealt with properly.

But what “properly” actually means depends heavily on someone’s political perspective. The law sets out five purposes of criminal sentencing: rehabilitation; crime reduction (including by deterrence); reparation; protection of the public; and punishment. The problem with our current system, in the eyes of Boris Johnson’s government, is that there isn’t enough emphasis on punishment. So it was that justice secretary Robert Buckland QC trailed his conference speech by announcing in an interview with the Daily Mail that he was introducing “proper punishment” for “the most serious violent and sexual offenders”.

This will apparently be achieved by “stopping the release of the most serious violent and sexual offenders at the halfway point of their sentence”. The statutory regime that has been in place since 2005, under which any prisoner serving a standard determinate sentence is automatically released on licence upon serving half of their sentence, is a popular bugbear, not only among the general public but as featured in Johnson’s un-fact-checked columns in the Daily Telegraph, which took aim at “our cock-eyed, crook-coddling criminal justice system”.

The reasons in favour of early release on licence are mixed. Some are noble and based on evidence, including the government’s own research that early reintegration into society reduces reoffending; some are cynical and attributable to the political desire to generate tabloid headlines of long prison sentences without having to actually fund those prison places in full. And I have every sympathy with public anger at feeling misled by 10-year sentences that translate to five years minus time served on remand awaiting trial or sentence.

But the fundamental flaw in Buckland’s new policy is that the “most serious violent and sexual offenders” are, under the current law, not automatically released at the halfway point of their sentences. The most serious offenders, those deemed to present a significant risk of serious harm to the public, will usually receive either a life sentence or an extended determinate sentence (EDS). With a life sentence, a prisoner will serve a minimum term set by the court before being eligible for parole, and will remain in prison indefinitely until they can convince the parole board that they no longer pose a risk to the public.

With an EDS, a prisoner is given a notional determinate term – say nine years – and has to serve two-thirds before being eligible to apply to the parole board for release. If they are not safe for release, they may have to serve the full term. Those convicted of sexual offences against children and terrorism offences who do not receive a life sentence or EDS are deemed an “offender of particular concern”, and must satisfy the parole board they are not a risk to the public before they are released at the halfway point of their sentence.

So who is this policy actually targeting? The answer is a tiny percentage of defendants in the criminal justice system who are convicted of (as yet unspecified) serious violent or sexual offences, but who don’t receive a life sentence or an EDS. So people who are, by definition, not “the most serious offenders”. They will now have to serve two-thirds, rather than half, of their sentence before being automatically released.

The government has offered no evidence that this will in any way make the public any safer. The purpose is purely punitive; red meat tossed on the Conservative party’s buffet table for the salivating hang-’em-and-flog-’em brigade, with a beady eye on a nakedly populist election campaign and an increasingly authoritarian tabloid press. It’s cynicism bordering on nihilism; shamelessly undermining public confidence in sentencing by spreading misinformation about how the justice system actually works.

Meanwhile, as the home secretary, Priti Patel, stands at her podium and smirks: “To the criminals, I simply say this: we are coming after you,” our criminal justice system is in meltdown. It is taking years to investigate and charge offences, as the under-resourced police and Crown Prosecution Service drown in digital data. Cases I have been briefed on this week involve incidents that happened in 2018 and are listed for trial in the summer of 2020. This is because the government has taken what the senior presiding judge, Lady Justice Macur, described as a “political decision” to slash even further the number of crown court sitting days to save on the costs of running courts. This falsest of economies means that perfectly usable courtrooms sit locked and empty and judges twiddle their thumbs at home, on full pay, while the backlog of crown court cases rises to more than 32,000.

The courts themselves are literally crumbling: burst pipes and leaking sewage are par for the course. And we haven’t even started on legal aid: the injustice of innocent people of modest means who are forced to pay for their own defence, and being refused their reasonable legal costs when they are acquitted, forcing them to sell their homes.

As for victims of serious crime, rape crisis centres are in desperate need of funding, and the government has only offered £5m of the £195m needed to properly support victims of sexual violence. Meanwhile, the government estimates that our already grossly overcrowded and understaffed prisons – hellholes of death, violence and self-harm – will have to find another 3,000 places a year, at an annual cost of £110m.

It bears repetition: the government can find £110m for an ineffective, macho prison policy, but only £5m for victims of rape. Any government that is serious about criminal justice would make the real problems in the criminal justice system a priority. But this announcement confirms that we do not have a serious government, just a gaggle of cheap opportunists charting policy based not on evidence, but on the fact-free demagoguery of Boris Johnson’s Telegraph columns.

The Secret Barrister

The writer is a junior barrister who writes anonymously about the English and Welsh legal system, and is the author of The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken

A Message to the Tory Faithfull

I never intended to watch last night's episode of Ch4's fly-on-the-wall documentary series Crime and Punishment because it's just so depressing, focusing as it does mostly on the state of our prisons, through the eyes of HMP Winchester. But the tivo box recorded it anyway and I felt it necessary to see it through and have all my prejudices and pre-conceptions confirmed. 

I've never worked in a prison for a number of reasons, but as a probation officer mostly I've always been concerned regarding the risk of being professionally compromised by the very different culture of a uniformed service operating in a closed and secretive environment. Of course when I started out this was a recognised danger and officially enshrined in the rule that you could only do a maximum three year secondment before returning to community probation duties.

Nevertheless I took the view that being part of an external organisation working within a prison establishment was very definitely a good thing, not least so as to bring a different perspective and influence upon institutions that had little external oversight or challenge. I always felt we could be a breath of fresh air and force for good both in terms of rehabilitation and welfare. But of course probation is now completely neutered having been subsumed within HMPPS and now completely subject to civil service bureaucracy, secrecy, command and control. 

In all honesty, who could watch this disaster unfolding in our prisons and happily sign up to OMiC or indeed any other NPS/MoJ/HMPPS bullshit idea supposedly to get us out of the bloody mess created by our Tory politicians and 10 years of austerity? HMP Winchester and this documentary series demonstrates beyond question how hopeless the situation has become as a direct result of culling 7,000 experienced prison officers. I would argue that prison is no longer a safe or appropriate environment for probation officers to operate in until such time as our divorce from the forced marriage called HMPPS.

We need to be independent in order to help ensure our safety and call out the disgraceful way our politicians continue to treat prisoners giving them shit clothing to wear, shit food to eat and appalling conditions in which to live. How can you expect prisoners to behave when treated with so little respect and dignity? 

So my message to the Tory faithfull in Manchester, as they loudly-applaud ever-longer prison terms for more prisoners is, you are merely fuelling a fire that cannot be put out by such populist sound bite policies - which got us into this mess by the way - and the probation service wants no part of it. We demand to be split from HMPPS.                 

Latest From Napo 194

Napo takes our agenda to new Justice Minister

I, together with Katie Lomas National Chair, was among the Union delegation who met with Lucy Frazer last week in the Palace of Westminster.

The meeting came during a critical point in the current negotiations between the unions and senior MoJ and HMPPS leaders on the terms of the planned transfer of Offender Management work to the NPS from the Wales Region of KSS CRC in December, and the remainder scheduled to move across in 2021.

Ms Frazer is the fifth incumbent of the Justice Minister position in the five years since the Transforming Rehabilitation programme was implemented. But at least it quickly became clear that the new Minister was acquainted with the trade unions long running concerns and aspirations to see the full reunification of Probation to full public control and ownership.

The unions made it clear that whilst we obviously welcomed the Government U-turn to transfer OM work, we did not believe that there was any justification to the marketisation of Intervention and Programmes, thus stigmatising this work and the staff undertaking it, as somehow being of lesser value in the range of vital services that are provided to clients.

Moreover, the unions said that we still had serious concerns as evidenced in numerous HMI Probation reports about the community safety aspects of leaving this work to the vagaries of the market and urged the Minister to reflect on the plans to issue new contracts.

In terms of the scheduled transfer of OM work in Wales, we reported that while the national negotiations on the overall national staff transfer scheme were in the right direction, we needed to be sure that it would be safe to transfer staff across to NPS Wales on December 1st.

Next on our agenda was the issue of Professional recognition where we spelt out the pressing need to introduce high quality over-arching standards across the service irrespective of its future structure, together with supporting training and a Licence to Practice to re-establish confidence in Probation among staff and the judiciary.

Time as always was limited, especially in light of the political dramas that were unfolding just a few yards away in the House of Commons, but Napo were able to raise some other very important issues. These included calling for the suspension (and a review of) the NPS Attendance Management policy, the curtailment of the Double Waking Night Cover contracts which the unions believe are unsafe and a waste of taxpayers money.

Bring back collective bargaining!

The discussion on Pay allowed the unions the opportunity to again raise our concerns about the capacity of the Pay and Pensions Administrators (Shared Services Division) to cope with their requirement to pay staff accurately, or even at all in some cases. We said that this hardly provided confidence about the ability of the current payroll provider to accommodate the eventual transfer of several thousand staff to the NPS.

Notwithstanding the unions opposition to what we see as a flawed concept of a ‘mixed market’ in service provision, we urged the Minister to restore collective bargaining in the event that new contracts are awarded to probation providers post April 2021.

Before the Minister was called away to another meeting, we finished by saying that urgent remedial action was needed to stabilise the service following the catastrophe of TR. The Minister undertook to reinstate quarterly meetings with the unions going forward.

The joint union letter that formed the basis of our representations on the day can be found below.

Ian Lawrence

--oo00oo--
 

Lucy Frazer MP 

Secretary of State for Prisons and Probation 

Ministry of Justice 

102, Petty France 

London SW1 

25 September 2019 

Dear Minister 

Briefing for Probation Trade Unions Meeting: 26 September 2019 

In advance of our meeting with you on 26 September we set out below the key issues which we would like to discuss with you: 

1. Probation Programme 

The unions have welcomed the government decision earlier this year to bring back all offender management work from the CRCs to the NPS. However, we do not support the government’s intention to continue with the privatisation of unpaid work and accredited programmes for the following main reasons: 

• The biggest mistake in Transforming Rehabilitation was the artificial split in the Probation Service. 
• The proposed procurement of unpaid work and accredited programmes, (both core probation services) in 2021 simply perpetuates the split, only in a different place, so all the problems of service fragmentation, lack of continuity in offender management and poor communication will continue. 
• The unions remain unconvinced that the MOJ can identify a market for unpaid work or accredited programmes 
• Unpaid work has been one of the most criticised areas of CRC delivery, so privatising this work has a poor chance of success going forward 
• The unions referred the UK government to the International Labour Organisation in 2013 over our contention that the privatisation of unpaid work was a breach of the ILO Forced Labour Convention. Our representation to the ILO remains live. 

We therefore urge you to review the decision to continue to outsource unpaid work and accredited programmes. 

2. Wales CRC to NPS Wales Staff Transfer 

We are currently in negotiation with HMPPS officials over the transfer arrangements for members moving from the Wales CRC to NPS Wales. This transfer process has been complicated by the decision of the NPS to stage the transfers between Wales and England and also in respect of the fact that we have to negotiate in respect of a three-way transfer from the CRCs, either to the NPS, or to an Innovation Partner, or to a Dynamic Framework provider. The complexity of the industrial relations environment which the Probation Programme has created is only just being acknowledged in this respect. 

This complexity makes the 1 December date for Wales CRC offender management to transfer into NPS Wales in our opinion unsafe. We are not confident that we will have completed the necessary negotiations to protect our members’ interests in time for this transfer date. As far as we are aware, the 1 December date is not fixed in stone. 

We urge you not to proceed with the Wales CRC to NPS Wales staff transfer on 1 December if the relevant negotiations have not been satisfactorily concluded. 

3. Double-Waking Night Cover (DWNC) Privatisation 

The unions opposed the privatisation last year of double waking night cover in approved premises (APs). Since the two private contracts went live, our members have had to deal with a catalogue of poor contractor performance (one of the contractors is now in contract enforcement measures we understand), failure to provide the necessary cover, the use of agency workers instead of the directly employed staff, failure to deliver hot food to approved premises, the threat to remove our members’ right to a cooked meal if supervising residents at meal times, and the failure of the contractors to recognise UNISON or Napo, as we were promised by HMPPS during the transfer measures consultation prior to the transfer. 

We ask you to review the DWNC contracts and come to your own decision about the quality and appropriateness of handing over this skilled and challenging work to private companies which so far have failed to deliver. Privatised provision in APs does not fit the ambitions elsewhere in HMPPS to deliver professional recognition in the probation service. 

Our AP members are fearful that the private contracts will lead to a serious service failure. We need to make you aware of this as the Minister responsible for the safety of our members, AP residents and the community at large. 

4. Two Tier Pay and Pensions in Probation 

NPS union members voted overwhelmingly to accept the 2018 two year pay modernisation offer for NPS staff, which has undoubtedly improved the pay prospects of members in the NPS. 

However, with limited exceptions, this has not been matched by the CRC providers who now find they are lagging seriously behind the pay and pensions offer from the NPS. This of course has had predictable negative consequences for the delivery of probation services. 

Transforming Rehabilitation broke the unified employment market which had existed prior to 2014 and has replaced this stability with a chaotic and underfunded model where providers compete with each other for staff rather than taking a more collaborative approach. It is feasible that this outcome may have been the intention of the architects of Transforming Rehabilitation in order to save money via a race to the bottom on probation pay. If that was the intention, it has worked, but it hardly provides a baseline from which to launch a professional development strategy for probation. 

To remedy this we want HMPPS to re-establish parity of pay and conditions across the NPS and the CRCs. This includes pensions, as the CRCs cannot currently compete with the NPS on pensions.  

5. SSCL 

The private provider of the NPS pay roll function has failed to deliver an acceptable service to NPS staff from the outset. It has consistently failed to pay our members accurately, or on time, coupled with some spectacular disasters over the last five years. For both NPS staff and managers, payroll problems have been a consistent threat to operational delivery ever since the organisation was created. 

Many of these problems appear to have arisen from the fact that NPS pay and conditions differ markedly from prison pay and conditions, and SSCL were either not given appropriate payroll data by HMPPS, or SSCL simply did not have the systems in place to pay the probation allowances etc. This may in turn relate to the standard of service which the MOJ has contracted to receive from SSCL. Here is just a flavour of some of the problems: 

• SSCL failed to understand that all elements of pay under the Local Government Pension scheme are superannuable and failed to make the necessary deductions. 
• The Greater Manchester Pension Fund referred the National Probation Service to the Pensions Regulator for the NPS failure to deduct the correct employee contributions on a range of earnings for 8 months in 2017 
• Staff are regularly overpaid by mistake by SSCL who then have to recover monies in a way that is disruptive 
• Failure to pay staff increments  Failure to pay premium payments, particularly in approved premises 
• Failure of SSCL to provide staff with itemised pay slips as required by the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2018 

We ask you to launch an investigation into the competence of SSCL in its delivery of services to HMPPS with a view to asking for Cabinet Office permission to opt out of the SSCL contract and for HMPPS to provide its own payroll function. 

6. Professional Recognition 

The unions support the intention to roll out a professional recognition strategy as part of the Probation Programme. The creation of a Probation Professional Register is a key part of these proposals. 

However, this ambitious strategy will only be delivered if the MOJ is able to secure the necessary funding from Treasury to support it. It will not happen on the basis of mere ambition. 

We look forward to hearing of your plans to secure the necessary funding. Staff will want to hear from you, not only that you are committed to professional recognition, but also that you have secured the necessary funding to deliver it.  

7. Workforce Planning 

The Prime Ministers commitment to recruit an additional 20,000 police officers over the next three years will have major implications for the workload of HMPPS. 

Please could you let us know what staffing increase you are planning for the probation service to ensure that our members in the NPS and in the CRCs are not overwhelmed with the anticipated increase in service users coming through the courts as a result of the major increase in Home Office funding for policing? We assume that there is joined up thinking in government on this issue. 

We look forward to meeting you tomorrow. 

Yours sincerely, 

Ian Lawrence General Secretary Napo

Ben Priestley National Officer UNISON

George Georgiou National Officer GMB/SCOOP

Probation Death Knell 2

Our profession once more finds itself at a crossroads and with no effective voice. It should be noted that probation is of such little national interest that neither the Secretary of State nor Prison and Probation Minister are due to make an appearance at the Napo AGM, or the Tory Party conference in Manchester this week. 

But with the rapidly approaching demise of the failed CRCs, most of their work and staff will shortly be disappearing behind an impenetrable wall of civil service bureaucracy and command and control management. Whilst NPS continues to struggle with both recruitment and retention of frontline staff and fails to understand the reasons, it doesn't stop management and the bureaucracy from churning out endless 'alphabet soup' initiatives such as this highlighted by a concerned reader:-  

More confusion & B/S from 'the centre':

"NPS is also committed to ensuring that NPS court staff adequately consider mental health needs when supporting court sentencing, which includes recommending community sentences and/or MHTRs. NPS will also support the work of the MoJ, Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), NHSE and Public Health England (PHE) who have developed a Community Sentence Treatment Requirement (CSTR) ‘protocol’ to increase the use of Community Sentences with treatment requirements, which includes increasing the use of MHTRs. The NHS has also committed to set aside increased funding for CSTRs through the Long Term Plan, and it is critical that NPS engage with partners as this process develops. Moreover, it is imperative that NPS works more closely with NHSE Liaison and Diversion providers to ensure that health staff may contribute information to support court sentencing and proposals for treatment requirements where possible."

But the Protocols describe the following procedure:

"At Court

• Defendant pleads or is found guilty.
• Pre-Sentence Report is requested by the court and undertaken by the National Probation Service. Court will ordinarily require completion of report within four weeks.
• Report author, acting either at the explicit request of the court and/or, on the basis of professional judgement, assesses that the offender may benefit from the imposition of a MHTR and requests an assessment.
• Report author obtains consent of defendant to assessment and treatment; completes Referral Form outlining presenting issues and/or symptoms and forwards this by secure email to Community Mental Health Assessment and Recovery Team"

An adjournment of up to 4 weeks? Defendant's consent? Liaison with appropriate mental health professionals? Sounds a bit 'old skool' to me...

--oo00oo--

I think your post is representative of something more endemic, and worthy of another post. From the perspective of working in London NPS, there is a litany of "centralised" tools that, collectively, are leaving the staff in a sense of disarray. Nobody objects to getting feedback, encouragement, steers about their work, reflective discussion, or pointing out where things might be better - in fact most staff positively encourage this. However, when layer upon layer upon layer of initiatives are introduced without really questioning if the previous one added any value, problems occur. 

Here are a few examples of what staff now do or are subjected to, which didn't exist some years ago, and yet the senior management say "Oh, but your workload measurement tool says you are on 100%"

• Data quality days
• Updating "HETE data", "risk registers", "MAPPA flags"
• Whole days spent auditing one case using a tool bizarrely named the "LIPAD"
• OASYS reviews every 4 months whether the case needs a review or not
• "lifer panels", "IPP panels"
• PD case discussions; PD case consultations
• Not only entering Delius contacts, but doing so using the CRISSA Format which takes double the amount of time per contact
• OASYS QA tools which go into a plethora of details of what needs to be in a "current situation", "offender comments box", "sources of information", "what will increase the motivation" boxes, upon boxes, upon boxes.
• Going to "risk is everybody's business" training which is like going to an induction on day 1 of your job
• Going to "safeguarding" training which is pitched at the level of a primary school child
• Entering NSI's which nobody quite understands and hopes we have done correctly - the latest now being for "maps for change"

And how any of this benefits the end user (service user or victim) is beyond any of us - the HMIP tells us "YOU ARE CRAP AT DELIVERING WORK TO SERVICE USERS" and yet nothing, organisationally, has been focussed on this, other than implementing so called "IPAD" tool which is ridiculously unfit for purpose - and yet despite knowing all this, there we sit, click, clicking away, fearful that if we don't we'll be sacked. And then it dawns on us - there are OTHER JOBS OUT THERE - and the senior leadership team sits there scratching their heads thinking how they can "monitor attrition" and can't quite work out how their new workload measurement tool datadashboard quality assurance initiative hasn't given them the answer.

Probation Death Knell

For those who are still unsure why it's not a good idea to have Civil Servants running probation and why 'reunifying' under their bureaucratic dead hand of command and control will be the death of the profession, the following example of management 'alphabet soup' should serve as a warning:-

"Work on a refreshed PSR Quality Development Tool (QDT) was concluded in March 2019, this has now been supplemented with an Oral Report Specific QDT in recognition that this is now the predominant delivery format for PSRs. Both tools have now been approved by the National Court Strategy Group and are available for use across the division. 

Work is ongoing to develop a PSR Quality Assurance Framework, which will detail how the QDT aligns with Skills for Effective Engagement, Development and Supervision (SEEDS) and The Management Oversight Models. The framework will capture minimum expectations (and whether these expectations are mandatory or for guidance purposes) and will be presented to the Senior Leadership Team in October 2019 for consideration."

Squaring the Circle

So, Ken Clarke and other moderate senior Tory fears about it all being a part of a nasty plan are indeed correct, a situation gleefully confirmed by the career psychopath Dominic Cummings last night when he referred to it all as a 'walk in the park'.

But it gets even worse because we now understand why the Prime Minister is so confident that he can square the circle provided by the Benn Act - he intends to suspend the law. John Major tells us how in this from the Guardian:-

Boris Johnson may use the privy council to bypass the legal requirement on him to seek a three-month Brexit delay if he cannot get a deal, the former prime minister John Major has suggested. In a speech to the Centre for European Reform thinktank this evening, Major plans to say:

My fear is that the government will seek to bypass statute law, by passing an order of council to suspend the [Benn] Act until after 31 October. It is important to note that an order of council can be passed by privy councillors – that is government ministers – without involving HM the Queen.

I should warn the prime minister that – if this route is taken – it will be in flagrant defiance of parliament and utterly disrespectful to the supreme court. It would be a piece of political chicanery that no one should ever forgive or forget.

Major is referring to the difference between an order in council, which needs the approval of the monarch, and an order of council, which does not. Johnson has repeatedly made the apparently contradictory claims that he will, at once, abide by the law and refuse to ask for a delay.    

--oo00oo--

From Twitter:-

I expect to be on @BBCr4today at 7.10 am commenting on this suggestion that the Government may attempt to use an Order of Council to suspend the Benn-Burt Act that requires the PM to seek an Article 50 extension.

My view is that while a Government attempt to do this may cause delay (because of the need for judicial review) there is no sound legal basis for what appears to be proposed.

It is unclear from Sir John Major's speech exactly what may be in contemplation. One possibility would be an Order made under the royal prerogative. But that would plainly be incapable of suspending an Act of Parliament.

Attempting to use the prerogative to suspend an Act of Parliament would amount to an assertion of a dispensing power - a power that is explicitly denied by the Bill of Rights.

Using the prerogative to suspend an Act of Parliament would also be flatly inconsistent with fundamental constitutional principles, according to which primary legislation enacted by Parliament takes priority over the prerogative.

Another possibility is that the Government is contemplating the use of a statutory power to suspend the Benn-Burt Act. It is possible in principle for one statute to authorise the Government to amend or repeal (or suspend) another statute: a so-called Henry VIII power.

However, the Government would need to identify a statute that authorised it to suspend the Benn-Burt Act. The most likely candidate is the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. But this does not in fact provide a legal basis for what appears to be in contemplation.

Emergency regulations under the Act can only be made if the relevant person (Her Majesty in Council or, in urgent cases, a senior Minister) is satisfied there is or is going to be an emergency, and that the measures in the order are urgently needed to address the emergency.

It is very difficult to see how those conditions could be met. An emergency means threats of serious damage to human welfare, the environment or national security. No emergency exists or is imminent that would justify suspension of the Benn-Burt Act.

For these reasons, I do not think that there is any credible legal basis for an Order capable of suspending the Benn-Burt Act.

That is not, however, to doubt that if the Government purported to make such an Order, it may sow confusion and cause delay to the fulfilment of the duty imposed by the Benn-Burt Act, thus reducing the likelihood of the European Council granting an Art 50 extension.

It is worth adding that Sir John's use of the term Order *of* Council has caused some uncertainty. Such Orders can be made under statutory or prerogative power, their defining feature being that they do not require the Queen's approval.

However, an Order of Council cannot prevail over an Act of Parliament if made under the prerogative. If made under statute, it can prevail over another Act of Parliament only if the parent statute authorises that.

It follows that Orders of Council can, by virtue of being Orders of Council, have no special status that distinguishes them from other forms of legislation that are legally inferior to Acts of Parliament.

Mark Elliott

Professor of Public Law & Deputy Chair of the Faculty of Law, 

University of Cambridge.

--oo00oo--

We shall  soon all be experts on our unwritten constitution. This from the Spectator:-

Has the Supreme Court handed Boris Johnson a Brexit escape route?

The Supreme Court’s judgement is the latest constitutional perversion after the Benn act. But ironically it may assist the Government in achieving its objective of Britain leaving the EU by 31 October, without having to seek an extension to the Article 50 process.

In paragraph 34, the Supreme Court states that its ‘proper function’ under our constitution is to give effect to the separation of powers (which justifies court intervention in relation to prorogation). Then, in what appears to be an innocuous sentence in paragraph 55, it says that it is to be “remember[ed] always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts.”

Yet the Benn Act manifestly contradicts this principle. It dictates how the Government must conduct negotiations with a foreign body, the EU, to the extent of obliging the Prime Minister to write specifically worded letters and accept whatever extension it offers when certain conditions are not met. In the situation when the conditions are not met (i.e. if the House of Commons has not voted for a deal or approved exit without a deal), the Prime Minister then has no choice but to act as instructed, whether he wants to or not. At that point, in what sense is he governing? The Prime Minister becomes a mere puppet of Parliament, which to all intents and purposes is the governing body.

The judgement also outlines another fundamental constitutional principle: Parliamentary accountability. In paragraph 46 it says:

“Ministers are accountable to Parliament through such mechanisms as their duty to answer Parliamentary scrutiny of the delegated legislation which ministers make. By these means, the policies of the executive are subjected to consideration by the representatives of the electorate, the executive is required to report, explain, and defend its actions, and citizens are protected from the arbitrary exercise of executive power.”

But if the legislature takes on the functions of the executive, without taking office, then to whom is it accountable for its policies? To whom does it report, explain, and defend its actions to? Itself? Which of its members speaks on its behalf?

To show the absurdity of the current situation, suppose the Brexit select committee wanted to summon someone to scrutinise the effects of an extension to Article 50 to 31 January 2020 (or beyond). Who would it call? Perhaps it ought to call Hilary Benn, whose name is attributed to the Act that mandates the policy. But Hilary Benn happens to be the chairman of the committee. The Benn Act then arguably destroys the very principle of parliamentary accountability, which the Supreme Court cited as a cornerstone of the British constitution.

If the Benn Act is unconstitutional, the next question to ask is whether the Court has the ability to rule that it violates constitutional norms and provide a legal remedy.

Again, the answer lies in the present judgment. In discussing the justiciability of prerogative powers, paragraph 35 says that:

“The [first] issue is whether a prerogative power exists, and if it does exist, its extent. The second is whether, granted that a prerogative power exists, and that it has been exercised within its limits, the exercise of the power is open to legal challenge on some other basis.”

But there is no reason why this should not extend to virtually any claimed power – the courts can decide if the power exists, and if it does, what is its extent. This is one of the normal functions of a court. Why shouldn’t the power of parliament to enact laws be examined too and subject to scrutiny and analysis by the courts and its limits determined?

The counter argument to this is that the Benn Act is a proceeding of Parliament so is protected from court scrutiny by Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 (which the Court ruled does not cover prorogation). Yet it could be argued that this Article, which is a significant part of our constitution, cannot be used as an instrument itself to destroy the constitution. By way of comparison, judges ruled that the Statute of Frauds 1677 itself could not be pleaded as a defence against accusation of fraud.

If you maintain that Article IX is absolute, then it would mean that Parliament could legislate to abolish judicial review, open justice, the courts or even Parliament itself. This would do unlimited damage and destruction to the constitution, all without the courts having any say.

Before this judgment, I believed the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meant that parliament could do this. Now I am not so sure; the Court has taken it upon itself, under the common law, to be the guardian of certain constitutional principles. It could be argued then that while it has a constitutional duty to supervise the exercise of prerogative power, it also has a duty to supervise the power of parliament.

The sovereign was – before this ruling, at least – the ultimate limit on the use of prerogative power in the absence of statute. The Court in its judgment at paragraph 30 states that it expresses no view on the matter of whether the Queen was obliged to accept the advice to prorogue. Yet it then contradicts this by claiming that the Prime Minister was “the only person with power…to have regard to all relevant interests, including the interests of Parliament”.

This reduces the monarch to a nodding dog, who simply acquiesces to wherever her ministers drive the nation and its institutions. The Court has usurped the role of the constitutional monarch and invented a novel role for itself, essentially transforming Britain into a democratic republic. If it rules against prorogation today, then is it to challenge the Royal Assent, by which bills become law, tomorrow? What if the Government were, in an exceptional case, to advise the Queen to refuse such assent?

Before the Cooper-Letwin Act and the Benn Act, the House of Commons and the House of Lords were the checks on the unconstitutional power of the Crown in Parliament. The Government should now test whether the Court will apply with consistency the reasoning that it used to justify its new constitutional powers in relation to prorogation.

If the matter of prorogation is now justiciable because the Court can protect Parliamentary sovereignty and accountability as part of the fundamental separation of powers, then why should the Court not also intervene when that principle is violated by a Parliament which presumes to usurp the executive by taking upon itself the actual task of governing?

The way is now open for Boris Johnson to refuse to comply with the Benn Act on the legitimate ground that the Act is unconstitutional and that the courts (and ultimately the Supreme Court) will agree; and even if the Court won’t go so far as declaring it an actual nullity, then at least they will refuse to enforce it.

Alexander Pelling-Bruce is a political researcher

We Are On a Dangerous Road

Following the humiliating defeat in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, our Prime Minister had no choice but to cut his US trip short and return straight home to face a packed House of Commons. The spectacle millions of us witnessed was truly shocking and without doubt has demonstrated he is an unfit person to hold public office. 

In reckless behaviour that apes that of the current US President, Boris Johnson has clearly decided to follow the advice of his special advisor and career psychopath Dominic Cummings and set the People against Parliament. His appalling choice of language and dog-whistle rhetoric was specifically designed to incite anger and the ugliest forms of civil unrest within our population, knowing full well that it will be enthusiastically fuelled by the right-wing press and internet trolls. I don't think I've ever been so alarmed or appalled by any other politician in my lifetime and that includes Enoch Powell.

I suspect this Twitter thread from Jonathan Lis of British Influence will resonate with many this morning:-      

"I don’t think any of us who witnessed what happened in the House of Commons today, whether in person or on TV, will ever forget it. I think the genuine, inhuman, toxic horror of it will remain etched in my mind for the rest of my life. This sounds shrill or hysterical. It is not. Something died tonight that will never come back. Something of our decency, our love, our care for one another, not as political opponents but as human beings, trying to do what’s best for the people we care about.

This transcends Brexit. I don’t care if you voted leave or remain. It even, in fact, transcends prorogation. This was a festival of gleeful cruelty orchestrated by a political leader so removed from humanity that he was prepared to barrack and assail the friends of a murdered MP. Make no mistake. We’ve witnessed the first steps of a very deliberate revolution. This is the end of civility. End of playing by the rules. End of giving a fuck about anyone or anything beyond the nationalist prize you think will unlock the glory you couldn’t begin to deserve.

This is Trump’s Britain in ways we can only begin to compute. Language has no more limits. People have no more value. The aggressive, heartless contempt starts here and people have every right to be scared. These moments are as dangerous as any we’ve found in the last 80 years. We expect it from Johnson. The total unadulterated sociopathic malice was ‘priced in’ by his Tory enablers who denied what was in front of them and looked the other way. It’s the rest of the Tories who shame and devastate us. They saw, they listened, and finally they applauded.

If you value democracy, if you value civility, if you value basic fucking decency to your fellow human beings, now is the time to fight for it. We will get over prorogation. We will, somehow, get over Brexit. But unless we fight hard, fight now, we may not get over this."

--oo00oo--

This from Buzzfeed News:-

Female MPs Accused Boris Johnson Of Putting Their Lives In Danger After A Furious Brexit Debate In Parliament

Boris Johnson received widespread condemnation from across the House of Commons on Wednesday night and was accused of putting politicians’ lives in danger, after he claimed that delivering Brexit was “the best way to honour the memory” of the murdered MP Jo Cox.

Amid furious scenes in parliament — with some MPs walking out of the chamber in protest and others left in tears — the prime minister shocked the Commons by responding to a plea from Labour MP Paula Sherriff to moderate his language in the wake of death threats to politicians by saying “humbug”.

In astonishing exchanges across the House, Sherriff told Johnson: “We stand here under the shield of our departed friend with many of us in this place subject to death threats and abuse every single day. “And let me tell the prime minister that they often quote his words — “Surrender Act”, “betrayal”, “traitor” — and I for one am sick of it. We must moderate our language and it has to come from the prime minister first.”

To cries of “shame” from opposition MPs, Johnson replied: “I have never heard such humbug in all my life.”

Several Labour MPs left the Commons chamber in protest at Johnson’s description of legislation passed by MPs aimed at preventing a no-deal Brexit as a “Surrender Act”. Despite the criticism the prime minister doubled down on his language by calling it the “Capitulation Act” and the “Humiliation Act”.

In an emotive intervention, Labour’s Tracy Brabin, who took over as MP for Batley and Spen after Cox was killed a week before the EU referendum, asked Johnson: “As the woman who has taken over the seat left by our dear friend Jo Cox, can I ask him, in all honesty, as a human being, please, please will he going forward moderate his language so we will all feel secure going about our jobs.”

The PM replied that “the best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox and indeed the best way to bring this country together would be, I think, to get Brexit done”. Cox campaigned vocally for Remain before she was shot and stabbed to death by a far-right terrorist in the final days of the referendum campaign.

Johnson’s words were condemned by Cox’s husband Brendan on Twitter:

Feel a bit sick at Jo’s name being used in this way. The best way to honour Jo is for all of us (no matter our views) to stand up for what we believe in, passionately and with determination. But never to demonise the other side and always hold onto what we have in common.

In response to another question from the Labour MP Anna McMorrin about the abuse politicians were receiving on social media, Johnson warned that it would not stop until Brexit was delivered. If McMorrin thought “that storm on Twitter is going to abate, she’s got another thing coming,” the PM said.

Johnson was also criticised by Conservative MP Jeremy Lefroy, who said: “With freedom of speech comes responsibility, and sometimes that responsibility means not saying what one might like to say — words like surrender, betrayal, treason”.

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson said: “The Prime Minister tonight proved he is totally unfit for office. To suggest the best way to honour Jo Cox, an MP who was murdered for what she believed in, was to pass his Brexit deal was sickening.”

As the debate raged in the Commons, BuzzFeed News spoke to several MPs who expressed their horror at the prime minister’s language. Sherriff revealed the level of abuse she and other colleagues have received in recent months: “I’ve had swastikas left outside my office. And I know now as a result of that, I might not be able to go home this weekend, stay in my own house. We’ve had MPs have to move addresses, stay in hotels, there’s a lot that goes on that we don’t necessarily talk about.”

Alison McGovern, a close friend of Cox, said: “It is devastating that our Prime Minister cannot realise the consequences of his words. They have real life effect. This isn't a game, and he should listen when people express grief and distress at what he says.”

Earlier this year, BuzzFeed News revealed the specialist police unit set up to investigate crimes against MPs has received 558 complaints since its inception and has seen a huge increase in reports in the last 12 months.

Scottish National Party MP Alison Thewliss called for Johnson to resign, saying his behaviour was: "Absolutely despicable. And what makes it worse is it's deliberate. He's doing this deliberately to wind people up, to get people out on the streets. It's irresponsible and it's dangerous, and it's got to stop. He's got to go."

Labour’s Rosie Duffield said: “He is inciting violence, implying to [women] MPs repeatedly that if we vote his way, we will all be safe. His answer to Anna McMorrin sounded like an outright threat. I had written a question about Kent but when he upset so many of my colleagues, I felt compelled to call him out. This is what real privilege looks like.”

The Spider Gets the Fly

I simply can't let such a momentous occasion as today's Supreme Court Judgment pass without comment. It's history in the making as 11 Justices of the Supreme Court unanimously confirm what we've all known from the beginning, that our Prime Minister is a serial liar, doesn't do detail or read briefs and instead prefers to just 'wing it':-

"Perhaps most tellingly of all, the memorandum does not address the competing merits of going into recess and prorogation. It wrongly gives the impression that they are much the same. The Prime Minister’s reaction was to describe the September sitting as a “rigmarole”. Nowhere is there a hint that the Prime Minister, in giving advice to Her Majesty, is more than simply the leader of the Government seeking to promote its own policies; he has a constitutional responsibility, as we have explained in para 30 above.

61. It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful."

I'm particularly interested to hear how the PM can say he 'strongly disagrees' with the decision given that I don't think he's legally-qualified and there were no dissenting voices from a bench of eleven Justices. 

So, as Parliament resumes its work and scrutiny of the government tomorrow, our unwritten constitution seems to have survived, despite the best endeavours of Boris Johnson and his career psychopath special adviser Dominic Cummings, but surely the position of both is now untenable? 

I suspect the events of the last couple of weeks will have struck a chord with probation staff, familiar as they are with the easy propensity with which some clients lie as the automatic default position in any tricky situation. The Whipps Cross Hospital episode where, when cornered by an angry father of a sick child accusing him of just wanting to stage a press stunt, Boris just lied as quick as a flash, straight to a BBC camera.

Of course, in addition to having form as being a proven liar, Boris Johnson displays that other very similar trait often seen in some clients, that of entitlement. The sad thing of course is that despite all this, he will still garner support in certain unsavoury quarters with the likes of Toby Young ridiculously suggesting that if the Judiciary are to have the 'upper hand', then Justices must be subject of questioning and confirmation hearings before appointment to the Supreme Court. 

Sadly I suspect there will be much similar nonsense spouted before the day is out, but in the mean time, lets take comfort from a truly momentous day and the Law having taken its clear and utterly unambiguous course in upholding our famously unwritten constitution. 

I'm guessing the choice of Lady Hale's brooch was purely accidental.             
   

Napo AGM Motions

The Napo AGM is fast approaching and there's only a week left for members to express a view as to the respective priorities for debate from a line-up of 35 ordinary motions. Given the stifling nature of the Civil Service, not surprisingly there are a number of themes about breaking free of their stranglehold, but nothing much that looks particularly contentious, apart that is number 34. I don't know what others think, but this particular motion strikes me as quite extraordinary and has all the hallmarks of some serious disquiet amongst the ranks in appearing to tell Granny how to suck eggs. Anyway, these are the ones that particularly caught my attention:-

1. Serious Further Offences and workload 

This AGM moves that an officer’s Workload Management Tool (WMT) must be a mitigating factor when in a Serious Further Offence investigation. WMT must be discussed during the Serious Further Offence process and be included in any official documentation or report on the findings of the Serious Further Offence. 
Proposer: Napo Cymru

2. Workload 

Probation Officers and Probation Service Officers are increasingly working above capacity on the Workload Management Tool and for prolonged periods of time. The over-allocation in case management has resulted in officers feeling their workloads are impossible and unachievable, yet they are still expected to meet all targets and achieve best practice standards. Working over-capacity naturally reduces the quality and timeliness of assessments, reports and recording, and the ability to provide the level of supervision needed to manage complex cases. The current system of over-allocation puts the responsibility on managing an over-capacity situation with individual officers and not with the organisation that systematically over-allocates cases. This AGM moves that officers should not, in any circumstances, be allocated over 100% for any length of time. 
Proposer: Napo Cymru

5. Workload Measurement and Management 

South Yorkshire Branch welcomes the development of Workload Measurement Tools in the CRC, the NPS SPO Project and Probation Review but results have been slow in coming or are patently overdue. It is crucial that workload measurement is as accurate as possible and covers all grades and roles vulnerable to excessive workloads, furthermore, that workload is not only measured but managed. Situations impacting on members’ wellbeing include: 

• no national measurement or management of prison workloads or for certain grades of staff; 
• ad hoc and retrospective arrangements within the CRCs; 
• the regular additions of court tasks without a corresponding increase in time allowance;
• SPOs being pulled away from supervision and staff support because of time consuming HR tasks; 
• weightings for new cases not being sufficient to reflect the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) and the front-loading of work. 

Underpinning all of this should be an understanding that 100% capacity is the maximum work an employee should be asked to do. This AGM calls on Napo to:

• continue to press the employers to improve workload arrangements across all areas of work and report back to the November NEC;
• register a national workload dispute; 
• encourage and support individual members to submit foreseeability notices to their employer. 
Proposer: South Yorkshire Branch

6. Pay and pension parity 

AGM will be aware that, since Transforming Rehabilitation (TR), we have seen a huge disparity in the pay and terms and conditions of probation staff. This has caused a great deal of anxiety amongst staff and lack of job security, disproportionately affecting women. In turn, this destabilises the workforce and undermines performance and public safety. Conference believes that, in order to resolve these issues and rebuild public confidence, pay parity and the harmonisation of critical terms and conditions such as maternity and paternity leave is crucial to achieving this. This AGM calls for a campaign to make this a top priority. This includes the endeavours of paid Officials, Officers and critically, all members working to achieve this through, for example, letter writing and lobbying MPs. 
Proposer: Campaigning Committee

7. Serious Further Offences 

This AGM understands that the ’early look’ process puts members into possible disciplinary action before the Serious Further Offences (SFO) investigation has taken place. This AGM believes the current SFO process places our members in highly stressful situations and possible double jeopardy, if the ‘early look’ has resulted in a disciplinary and the full investigation results in further punitive action whereby dismissal would be hastened. This AGM calls upon National Officers and Officials to negotiate a new SFO process which is less punitive and supported and take into consideration factors such as workloads. 
Proposer: Patricia Johnson Seconder: Peter Halsall

11. Replace OASys 

This AGM is conscious of the requirement for an assessment tool that captures information about an individual that relates to risk, need and responsivity. However there have been longstanding concerns around the time spent in administrative tasks, one of the most time consuming of these is completing OASys assessments, over 50% of practitioners expressed their concern in an MoJ study (Moore 2015) that there were not enough working hours to complete assessments. OASys atomises an individual into component parts, leaving a reader/assessor unsure of who this person actually is (Aas 2004). Significant time is spent by workers in probation completing assessments due to the length and repetitious nature of the OASys, but the utility of this information to anyone outside of the MoJ is unclear, particularly as it draws practitioners away from developing relationship with their clients. AGM therefore calls on Napo nationally to pressure HMPPS over the need to review the relevance of OASys given that a tool developed in 2001 in response to ‘What Works’ is now out of date, and to develop a streamlined assessment tool relates to the current desistance and strengths-based research. 
Proposer: South Yorkshire Branch

13. Training that is fit for the job 

Staffing shortages in the NPS are widespread and negatively impacting on workloads and staff wellbeing. Despite the attempts of HMPPS to recruit new staff, some are leaving after just three years. This AGM believes that the current training programme is inadequate and does not properly prepare learners for the role or profession. The reduced amount of time the qualification takes means learners are only able to cover the basics, with little or no time for reflective practice. Those learning in the NPS are expected to cut their teeth on high and very high risk of harm cases, while those in the CRC get very little time to experience the full role of a probation officer with Courts etc. HMPPS’ own research shows that newly qualified staff do not feel adequately trained to do the role and are overwhelmed. This is a risk to staff, clients and the public. This AGM calls on the Professional & Training Committee to challenge HMPPS on this, to campaign for a full review of the training and to demand that HMPPS take this issue seriously. It also asks branches to actively recruit new learners and newly qualified officers so they can be better supported by Napo. 
Proposer: Professional & Training Committee

14. Group Work Programmes 

This AGM believes that group work programmes play a vital role in the process of change and personal development – making a significant contribution to the work of the probation service and the lives of clients. However, we are alarmed by the BBC report published on 4th June 2019 which shows that both short duration, non-accredited and accredited programmes have not been evaluated for years. In essence there is no current outcome based evidence to show that programmes work. This is clearly unacceptable for clients and for our members who deliver programmes. It is also not acceptable for members of the public. It is another example of the failure of all probation providers and indicative of the mess made by TR. This is further proof that programmes should be an integral part of a unified and locally accountable probation service. This AGM therefore calls upon Napo nationally to insist that programmes are delivered to best practice and agreed group work standards and are evaluated as a matter of extreme urgency. Napo will insist that outcome based evidence is published publicly by the MoJ by May 2020. 
Proposer: South Yorkshire Branch

15. Protect our role boundaries, before it’s too late 

For too long now we have witnessed diminishing boundaries that define the roles of Probation and Probation Services Officers. Whilst PSO roles are increasing in responsibility without any true correlation in pay, the role of the PO is threatened by what are fast becoming POs on the cheap. The time is now to stop the drift before offender management is reunified in two years’ time. Failure to act now may allow the Civil Service to take advantage of the current vague guidelines that are continually exploited by management to use poorly trained and sometimes untrained staff to cover for the lack of qualified POs. The current move in the NPS towards PSOs completing reports on sex offenders and domestic abuse perpetrators is not the thin end of the wedge, but the culmination of years of slippage that has been allowed to evolve. This AGM instructs Officers and Officials to take action now to stop the constant drift and blurring of role boundaries and ensure that clearly defined boundaries to protect both grades are in place before we move towards reunification of Offender Management as a department of the Civil Service. 
Proposer: Staffordshire and West Midlands Branch

20. Integrated service 

Napo welcomes the move by the MoJ to bring “offender management” back into the public sector. Napo however rejects the separation of “offender management” and rehabilitation. This is a false distinction made by the MoJ. Napo believes that Unpaid Work and Interventions are an integral part of the probation service. This AGM calls for a fully integrated, united service with all core functions, including Unpaid Work and Interventions, delivered from a single organisation. This AGM therefore calls upon all members, Officers and Officials to campaign both nationally and locally to raise awareness of this flawed model and to work alongside stakeholders to achieve 100% reunification to restore confidence of both the Courts and the public. 
Proposer: Campaigning Committee

21. TR2: Full reunification 

Unpaid Work and Programmes are core Probation functions. In Wales, Offender Management staff will transfer to NPS in December this year. The language used to justify the re-marketisation of Unpaid Work and Programmes has drawn an erroneous distinction between “Offender Management” and “Rehabilitation”. TR2 will not be completed, even in Wales, until the contracts with CRCs are terminated in 2021. Therefore, December 2019 is not a “cutoff” in terms of this campaign, nor the deadline by which this fight must be won. We will not rest until Probation is reunified in its entirety in the public sector and we call on Napo to continue its fight for the full reunification of Probation. 
Proposer: Napo Cymru

26. In the public sector and never for profit but out of the civil service and released from prison 

The delivery of probation services belongs in the public sector. However, the move to the Civil Service as a result of TR has meant that the National Probation Service is now overly bureaucratic and follows a top down “command and control” culture. Probation Officers are encouraged to think critically about the work that they are doing and how. This is almost impossible from within the Civil Service where criticism of the establishment is forbidden. Although we recognise the advantages of working closely with our colleagues in the Prison Service, we are not an adjunct to that service. While the senior roles in HMPPS are predominantly held by those with a background in the Prison Service and while the second ‘P’ in HMPPS is generally silent it is difficult for the Probation Service to focus on developing its own culture and values. This AGM calls on Napo to campaign for all probation services to exist outside of the Civil Service but in the public sector, as a nondepartmental government body in the same way as organisations like Cafcass and many others. 
Proposer: Campaigning Committee

27. Give us back our Probation Identity 

Throughout the reforms of Probation, from Jack Straw’s concept of a National Probation Service through NOMS to the current format of HMPPS, the Probation identity, once held up as a beacon of excellence, has continued to be consumed and marginalised. In the continued barrage of instructions and policies, the identity of Probation continues to be expunged or at best seen as an afterthought. In some cases, there is barely an effort to disguise the fact these are churned out with the word Prison changed for Probation. The staff transfer is the ideal opportunity to assert the values and true identity of Probation as a standalone and vibrant organisation, whose contribution to protecting and serving the community, is not recognised by renaming us as justice workers. Probation requires its own structure and champion and where its achievements and unique contribution can be nurtured and recognised. Where training and development is linked to the professionalism that already exists rather than being treated as an afterthought. This AGM, as part of the Licence to Practice debate, asks the Professional & Training, Campaigning and Negotiating Committees to collaborate on advancing the basis for a separate Probation Service with its own director. 
Proposer: Keith Stokeld Seconder: Maureen Vernon

30. The shame is with the leadership not the professionals who deliver 

This AGM is ashamed to find the leadership of the services we work for is prepared to blame the staff for failed inspections in CRCs and more lately over a high profile SFO in the Midlands. The Chief Probation Officer, rather than acknowledging the impact of the high caseloads the staff were working under, chose to express her shame for their practice. It is time to acknowledge that, no matter how many times the organisation seeks to reintroduce the latest version of quality assurance or a regurgitated version of desistance, staff are sinking under the pressure. It is not for the lack of professionalism or the desire to develop and deliver effective practice, it is simply the weight of work that increases the risk of failure. This AGM calls on Campaigning Committee to campaign to redress the blame game on staff and focus on reducing workloads. For the Professional & Training Committee to develop a toolkit of reforms on which staff are able to resist the relentless pressure of high risk cases. To support the measures being undertaken to remove the blame game from staff in preference to focusing on the systemic failures of the services we work for. 
Proposer: Staffordshire and West Midlands Branch

31. The Future of the Probation Service 

Having considered the government’s proposals for a future probation service, as set out in “The proposed future model of probation - a draft operating blue print” this Conference calls upon Napo’s Campaigning Committee to make clear that:

• it believes the future service, while providing national coverage, should cease to be either a part of the Civil Service or the Prison Service and should seek alternative arrangements for its governance based on shared responsibility between local authorities and the Ministry of Justice; it rejects the distinction between “offender management” and “interventions” as designed to promote a market for services that ought to be united and delivered as one, free of market interference; 
• it discards the phrases “protecting the public” and “preventing reoffending”, for which the evidence is slender, in favour of “advise, assist and befriend” which should seek to enable desistance from offending; 
• insists the term Probation Court staff designated to Court are appropriately trained to oversee the delivery of the court’s supervisory orders and to otherwise assist in the fair delivery of justice. 
Proposer: Chris Hignett Seconder: Mike Guilfoyle

33. It always was ‘Foreseeable’ 

AGM notes the reports from members working for Interserve Justice of the significant impact of work-related stress, created by the lack of capacity and support, to undertake meaningful rehabilitative work with clients. This has been shown to lead to increased risk of serious harm posed to the public as a direct result of an inadequately resourced operational model. Workloads are consistently well above the agreed threshold, resulting in unacceptably high stress levels and a staff group which is told that there is nowhere for the work to go, leaving it dejected, completing tasks outside of paid working hours and at risk of disciplinary processes. This AGM also notes that an ever-decreasing staff group, combined with increasing workloads, can only increase the likelihood of Serious Further Offences. This AGM instructs Napo Officials to work with the employer to address the issues, to support the use of Foreseeability Notices and ensure that the appropriate remedial action is taken by the organisation on receipt of such notices. If this is not forthcoming, a dispute should be raised to ensure that the health, safety and well-being of members is protected so that risks of harm to the public are minimised. 
Proposer: West Yorkshire Branch

34. It’s not reunification until it’s reunified 

Conference welcomes the emergency resolution submitted by West Yorkshire Branch and passed by the NEC at its June meeting (reproduced below). This AGM calls on the National Officers and Officials to provide the membership with an update on the progress that has been made with this critical campaign. In addition, this AGM instructs Napo National Officers and Officials to request a copy of the risk register relating to the reorganisation, as part of a campaign to highlight the dangers of leaving this section of the workforce outside of the statutory sector. Napo must increase the profile of this important campaign to ensure the failings of TR are not replicated, to protect those members currently outside of the reunification, increase the morale of current members and illustrate the importance of Napo to a layer of employees not currently organised by the union. ‘Napo notes and welcomes the decision to unify the offender management section of the CRC’s with the NPS. We also note with concern the decision to leave interventions, unpaid work and ITTG in the private and non-statutory sector. Napo recognises the anxiety this has caused for members working in these sectors and is aware of the dangers of demoralisation and membership loss. Napo will prioritise a high profile campaign to bring all sectors of the CRCs into the NPS by:- 

1) Convening a meeting of representatives from all the CRCs to discuss and develop the strategy. 
2) Produce written material for members to use in lobbying MPs and other key stakeholders 
3) Lobby Parliament regarding the inherent risks to the public and service provision should interventions and UPW remain in the private and non-statutory sector. 
4) Produce a regular bulletin for members to update them on the progress of the campaign.' 
Proposer: West Yorkshire Branch