Former PO Speaks For Many

Continuing to plunder the formidable mountain of evidence provided to the Justice Committee TR Inquiry, this forensic piece of work speaks for many I suspect:-

Written evidence from a former Probation Officer (TRH0004) 

This is a brief summary offering but a tiny glimpse into the impact of the Transforming Rehabilitation project from a personal perspective. 

1. After a variety of experiences in sport, economic development, advertising and media, I started my Probation Service apprenticeship, aged 28 years, as the first accredited Probation Volunteer with a pioneering scheme in the east Midlands. I was guided & supervised by an experienced Senior Probation Officer which led to a chain of events including my employment as an Assistant Warden in Approved Probation Hostels… as a Probation Services Assistant in a tough city centre team… and eventually to be accepted as a mature student on the Home Office sponsored scheme to study for the Diploma in Social Work, ‘Probation Pathway’. 

2. I qualified as a Probation Officer (and Social Worker), was immediately appointed as a First Year Probation Officer and the journey got ever more exciting… 

3. Over my 20+ years within the Probation Service my experiences were many and varied; no two days were ever the same. My places of work included prisons, courts, universities and community offices; I was involved in the early development of a common risk assessment tool (i.e. OASys, a laudable concept that became corrupted & misused); I delivered accredited programmes to individuals and groups; lectured and assessed Trainee Probation Officers; designed protocols with mental health professionals for co-working cases with severe and enduring mental health issues, including personality disorders; developed co-location community schemes with drug and alcohol teams; co-worked with Police Officers in an Integrated Offender Management team… 

4. I worked with some very high risk cases and fielded the brutally devastating consequences of a perpetrator’s actions – events that happened regardless of the timeliness, clarity or quality of any risk assessment. 

5. In the course of my work over the years I have been spat at, hit with furniture, bitten, followed home, received death-threats and had to face angry people wielding various weapons. I have had to cope with the sudden deaths of people I worked with; often through substance use, occasionally through violence. I have also been offered appreciative thanks by those I’ve worked with and/or their families, and/or their victims. 

6. Almost all of my working days during those 20+ years were in excess of the paid, contracted hours because I enjoyed my work, I valued the opportunity to make a contribution and I believed my caseload on any given day deserved the maximum effort I could give. I am not a martyr to lost causes, nor am I flawless or altruistic; I have screwed up many times, both personally and professionally. 

7. In November 2013, based upon some mythical algorithm, I was told I had been allocated to work in the privatised Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC). I appealed this decision only to be told it was non-negotiable and any further challenge would be regarded as tendering my notice. 

8. This was the second time in six years I had been forced to accept non-negotiable changes to my contract of employment; the previous occasion being the shift to Trust status. That does not include the numerous other contractual changes since 2007 including reduction or complete loss of in-service benefits (e.g. subsistence allowances, essential car user, etc.) or the loss of 3 days’ leave from my annual entitlement as part of some ham-fisted ‘pay harmonisation deal’. 

9. My working days were increasingly spent inputting data to an unreliable computer system when it should have involved face-to-face work with my caseload; or liaison with the Benefits Agency, with Social Workers and NHS staff. And whilst I was making myself unpopular fighting to get funding for the long-overdue assessment of an undiagnosed & untreated paranoid schizophrenic to facilitate transfer to a high secure hospital, or trying to organise a Circle of Support for a sex offender in the community, I was aware of the ‘noises off in the corridors of power’, e.g. Dame Ursula Brennan in her evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, 12 March 2014: 

“What I am trying to say is that we are not saying, “Here is how we do it now. We are going to do something that adds cost to it.” We are saying, “Here are all the costs now. They are going to lie in different places, and the procedures are going to look different.” So we are not simply saying, “Here is a process, we are adding cost to it.” We are saying, “Here is a process that is going to operate in a different way.” 

10. Or hollow promises from the ‘great and the good’: 

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con), 11 March 2014: 

"The efficiency savings that these reforms will generate will be reinvested in two major prizes that many noble Lords have long argued in favour of. The first is a through-the-gate system of support for everyone released from prison... The second is the extension of supervision after release to short sentenced prisoners," 

11. My union, the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), told us they had signed a national agreement protecting our terms & conditions, securing an Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy (EVR) scheme & confirming NO compulsory redundancies for the first seven (7) months of new ownership, i.e. until end August 2015. 

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con), 11 March 2014: 

“It is difficult to understand why there is apparently—so the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, says—discontent among the staff, because a deal has been negotiated with the unions. We have been undertaking negotiations with probation trade unions and the employers’ representatives over a national agreement for staff transfer that will protect the terms and conditions of staff transferring to the CRCs or the NPS. Probation trade unions and the Probation Association, which represents trusts, ratified the national agreement on staff transfer on 29 January 2014. Trade unions have also withdrawn all local trade disputes. 

The national agreement* offers a very good deal for existing staff, and demonstrates our commitment to fairness by going much further than we are legally required to do. Staff will transfer to the new probation structures with their existing terms and conditions in place. The additional protections set out within the 

11 Mar 2014 : Column 1694 

agreement include a guarantee of employment in the new probation structures from 1 June 2014, no compulsory redundancies for a period of seven months following share sale and an enhanced voluntary redundancy period of up to 67.5 weeks.” 

 (*There was a subsequent document – The Offender Management Act 2007 (Probation Services) Staff Transfer Scheme 2014, signed off by Chris Grayling on 29 May 2014.) 

12. In 2014 we were briefed locally to the effect that these were “exciting times” and “it was a great opportunity with lots of scope for innovation.” 

The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling) HoC Hansard, 18 March 2014, Volume 577 

“The guarantee I can give the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that we are not removing the people who are doing the job at the moment. We are freeing them operationally to innovate, and we are bringing new skills to the task of rehabilitating offenders.” 

13. On 1 February 2015 the new owners moved in. The CEO who was so unbearably enthusiastic about the CRC retired on 31 January 2015. 

14. At this point (i.e. February 2015) I applied for the nationally agreed EVR scheme (closing date for applications was 31 March 2015) only to be told by my new employer that my role as a PO was “not at risk” and I was “not eligible”. 

Andrew Selous MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice):

“Under the enhanced voluntary redundancy scheme opened in advance of the transition of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to new providers, probation staff were able to apply for voluntary redundancy on the basis that they would leave the service by 31 March 2016.” 

15. In July 2015 I received a letter from my new employer telling me I was at risk of redundancy. We were eventually to lose 65% of staff in our area team. 

16. In refusing to honour the agreed EVR scheme the new employer asked for expressions of interest in Voluntary Severance on their terms (estimates on social media put the offer at about 40% of the nationally agreed EVR arrangement). 

17. No guarantee could be given as to where the remaining staff would be based which, given the vast geography involved in the region, effectively required me agreeing to drive (at my own expense in my own vehicle) for up to two hours to a designated place of work, then two hours’ home again after a seven hour day (with no option of public transport as there wasn’t/isn’t any). With the commitments I had in my personal life I was faced with Hobson’s Choice. 

18. On 31 August 2015 my career as a Probation Officer came to an end. I am unable to elaborate further due to contractual arrangements linked to the severance agreement. 

19. I am still grieving for my loss and can find no reason or motivation to forgive the self serving ideologues who facilitated the travesty of TR. 

20. My submission to this Committee is that Parliament and the country were misled over the purpose of the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) project; that it was fatally flawed from the start; that it was wholly motivated by a blinkered political ideology to privatise public sector services; and as such there was no regard for the cost to the public purse or the jobs of existing staff. 

21. It most certainly was NOT based upon any relevant pilot evidence for a TR model. The Leeds model was abandoned… 

Oral evidence: Transforming Rehabilitation HC 484 Monday 4 July 2016, HMP Hatfield Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 4 July 2016. 

“Q10 Chris Evans: How much did the abandoned Leeds programme cost? 

Michael Spurr: 

I don’t have that figure. I am sure we can find it and write to you. You say, “abandoned”, but we were looking at different approaches to payment by results — the point was that it was a pilot opportunity and we took learning from the pilot. It was not quite abandoned: we sought to see whether anybody was prepared to run that project on a payment-by-results basis and we got an outcome from that, which was that they were not.” 

22. In Doncaster it was soon realised that providing a universal service was inefficient; and Peterborough was based entirely upon voluntary involvement by prisoners whose average length of stay was just seven weeks… 

The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling) HoC Hansard, 30 Oct 2013 : Column 986: 

“The shadow Justice Secretary talked about piloting, but the pilot programme delivering clear improvements in the level of reoffending that is closest to what I want to achieve around the country is in Peterborough.” 

23. And from the transcript of evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee on 12 March 2014: 

Margaret Hodge: But the Peterborough model, as I understand it, is voluntary. 

Antonia Romeo: That is correct. 

Margaret Hodge: And the model that you are designing is not voluntary. 

Antonia Romeo: That is correct. 

Margaret Hodge: Is there any international evidence on this payment by results stuff? Antonia Romeo: Very little actually. 

24. It was nevertheless crashed through Parliament; and it has since cost the taxpayer many, many unnecessary (and undisclosed) millions of pounds – monies which seem to have simply vanished into the pockets of the private companies. 

25. In a Civil Service World interview with Antonia Romeo, Senior Responsible Officer for TR, 24 April 2014, she notes there was… 

“… a timing issue, because the government’s policy is to roll it out by 2015, so we can really start feeling the effects in reductions to reoffending… NOMS has a business assurance board designed, she adds, to “give me, the senior responsible officer, the assurance that this is going to work and isn’t taking on any unnecessary risk.”

26. Concern at the speed of the implementation was widespread: 

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con), 11 March 2014: 

“I want to deal with the anxiety about the pace of these reforms. It is said that they have been going too quickly, although we say that that is not the case. We have drawn significant learning from earlier initiatives and have tested aspects of the reform programme. For example, our experience with the payment-by-results pilots at Her Majesty’s Prisons Peterborough and Doncaster has increased our confidence about designing robust payment-by-results contracts that drive the required behaviours and help generate improved value for money.” 

27. So at a time of so-called ‘austerity’ when we were “all in it together” the Government gave vast sums of taxpayer cash from the ‘Modernisation Fund’ (allegedly £80m, although no figure has ever been disclosed) to private companies - who had submitted £multi-million costed bids for CRC contracts – to cover the costs of pre-planned job losses. On this basis it could be argued that the Government were so determined to make the TR project work that they gave the private-sector bidders a publicly-funded ‘sweetener’ to cover the costs of making hundreds of Probation Service staff unemployed. 

28. When it subsequently became clear the EVR scheme was not going to be honoured by the private companies and staff would not be paid what had been nationally agreed, the Government confirmed the CRC owners could keep the money for themselves. The highlighted text below is my emphasis: 

Andrew Selous MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) in a Written Answer, 15 June 2015: 

“Under the enhanced voluntary redundancy scheme opened in advance of the transition of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to new providers, probation staff were able to apply for voluntary redundancy on the basis that they would leave the service by 31 March 2016. The total cost of these redundancies was £16.4m. All remaining Modernisation Fund monies were awarded to CRCs. Redundancy funding was allocated prorata to CRCs based on their size and estimated future staffing requirements.

As stated in my answer to questions 900, 898, 902 and 901, we have no plans to reclaim any monies allocated to CRCs from the Modernisation Fund; and consequently there have been no discussions with CRCs about this. Contract Management Teams are embedded in each CRC, closely monitoring how all monies are used and robust processes are in place to ensure all expenditure is correctly spent.” 

29. I remain angry, distressed and dismayed by the politically motivated, ideological vandalism that has not only cost hundreds of jobs and careers, but has sought to eradicate the nomenclature, professionalism and ethos of The Probation Service. 

October 2017

(Ed - the links have been removed for clarity)

Latest From Napo 129

What with all the excitement generated around the recent Guardian article on probation, I completely failed to clock the latest blog post from the Napo General Secretary:-   

NNC – members to be consulted on notice of withdrawal by NPS

Last Wednesday’s meeting of the National Negotiating Council (NNC) was something of a fraught affair. As largely expected, the National Probation Service indicated its intention to withdraw from the NNC and Standing Committee for Chief Officer Grades (SCCOG).

Members will have seen the report from the 2016 AGM in Cardiff where a decision was made that we should resist such a move and subsequently we have been doing all that we can to deliver on that directive. A short history of developments shows that the NPS decided well over 12 months ago that they were no longer prepared to sit alongside the CRCs at the negotiating table, and a series of meetings between the employers side and the unions have taken place to explore the potential for new bargaining machinery. Our aim throughout has been to try and defend the status quo, but to ensure that the legacy policies contained in the NNC Handbook and the National Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement would remain in force if local CRC wide agreements were agreed by our members.

As was pointed out very forcibly last week, our AGM voted that possibility down because our members, having seen how some CRC owners have been conducting themselves over their plans for achieving staff reductions (most notably a failure by some to honour Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy terms and seek variation of contracts and collective agreements without negotiation) are not to be trusted.

A formal letter was received last Friday afternoon from Sonia Crozier which was a good deal different from the original approach taken by the NPS employers last week. Whilst it confirms the intention of NPS to withdraw from the NNC, senior NOMS management have sensibly agreed to our request that this issue should be the subject of further discussion via the Arbitration and Conciliation Advisory Service (ACAS) and that there will be an extension of the intention to withdraw until 31st January.

Where next?

Material is now being finalised for issue to members across the probation service and your Branch representatives will be in touch to organise local consultative meetings where you will have the opportunity to indicate what steps you think Napo should take next in response.

As always the timing of these developments is not helpful given the upcoming Christmas holidays, but it’s likely that we will ask you to let us have a view by mid-January, so look out for news of a meeting near you very soon, or early into the New Year, and please ensure that you make every effort to attend.

More news will be issued directly to members over the next couple of days so please check your preferred e mail address for Napo communications.

Thanks to the Guardian - and to Napo members

The previous week’s Guardian survey on the state of Britain’s probation services attracted a sizeable number of responses which led to the publication of this story last week

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/09/the-job-used-to-have-integrity-readers-on-britains-probation-services

This offers a graphic insight into the difficulties that are being faced by our members that ought to make Chris Grayling (who we see has now been let loose to reform the rail network for goodness sake) to hang his head in shame. Or better still, do as Bob Neill, a senior Tory and Chair of the Justice Committee, suggested he should do last week.

I have today written to the Justice Select Committee alerting them to another imminent and high profile report from HM Inspector of Probation that is due to be released this week and asking them for an early opportunity to provide formal evidence to follow up on the private session I attended with them recently.

We have some important political momentum on the probation question and many of you will have noted that the Secretary of State announced last week that the Probation Systems Review is expected to make a full report by April. That’s either an attempt to ignore the issues for a few months more; or as is being suggested by senior NOMS sources, an extension which will allow a root and branch look at the shambolic contracts and payment by results system.

More news when it becomes available.

CRC Dispute Latest 17

Continued thanks to the Napo member for sending in details of what's happening with the Working Links dispute. Although a long read, it needs to be in the public domain and amply demonstrates the sheer amount of effort being expended by local union officials.

Branch report Redundancies 17+

16th November 2016
Updated 9 12 16

Forward

Dear Napo and Unison members,

This branch update report comes in 2 parts as things have been moving at a pace. The report below was delayed in sending out to members to take account of the ACAS situation and because the General Secretary and myself agreed to hold a little longer on the information position because we were scheduling a meeting with the lawyers. It was clear that Working Links continued to play games and have effectively stalled.

Having met in Bristol on the 23 11 in what appeared to us at least to be most of the management team. Their expectations were that we would have to spend the day listening to them presenting in component parts the proposed working model. What a shame they just do not appear able or willing to formally write down in one place and in order their proposal and that submitting them to the unions we should then formally respond. We could then manage all the appropriate checks and consultations process with our members before suggesting amendments or further disagreements.

We are still no further forwards on the model and as any sensible Trade Unions we presented quite properly all Health and safety Agenda requirements. Working Links having admitted to abandoning any committee or consultations on the requirements of your health and safety. No proper assessment on workloads because they openly admitted in direct question they do not have an upper workload limit on caseloads for staff. There is no misquote here these are the incredible facts of the failings and what is likely to beset Working links continued ignorance of what their responsibilities actually are to staff.

While the Unions and the General Secretary continue to wait patiently for any formal response to our serious letters dated the 13 11 and the 24th November both replies being held to ransom by a sulking “we don’t Like It” Working Links. When direct questions were put to Mr Hindson by the General Secretary Ian Lawrence we received a reply and that was duly recorded as you would expect. In closing and to tidy a few points the GS posed the same question only to receive a different emphasis in reply.

By the time the Unions in debrief had checked what was said the change in emphasis was a clear and serious concern to our negotiating side. This was noted in the letter of concerns put to Working Links on the 24th of November. We are now clear that this is never likely to be answered as we subsequently received a letter by e mail on the 5th December stating that Mr Hindson was now on Christmas leave. Mr Wiseman is now to lead on the current situation. This is an interesting position as the question of gardening leave and perhaps a forced early bath for the Working Links lead negotiator? The least said about this passing is perhaps the better part of being politic on that performance. Still there may well yet be another resurrection. What we hope for and if talks are to resume is Mr. Wiseman learns something from the way Working Links board appear to treat their representatives who fail to manage.

The sulking I mentioned above is by way of the refusal to formally reply to Napo unless we withdraw our letter of the 24th what a ridiculous position they adopt. You can draw your own conclusions as to why and what we think from what I have reported.

We are on the record for introducing the legislative requirements contained in the health safety at work act. The management appeared to be blissfully ignorant of their obligations at that point the same could not be said now from correspondence and the ACAS day last attended.

The legal Advice

Members will know that we have all been pressing for a legal position and some clear indications to all Members. You may well recall to get the employers to conduct the consultation process properly we required certain factual information. The situation has been that that Working Links have ignored all written correspondences bar a few and have given the Unions the total run-around. Poor data lack of facts or anything that could constitute a negotiation in order to ensure we could not impact on their plans. No chance to mitigate any staff losses. We have criticised their failings for squandering monies on EVR that should have been opened up equally to all staff to apply. Instead we have this staged nonsense where staff groups have been picked off and differential terms of termination have been offered. Our position is that we are looking carefully and have consulted on the legal position for the differing terms. This inequity is not consistent with the staff protections agreement and there is some good examples of employment appeals tribunals that make the working links position just plain wrong. We will continue with that head of argument for our members who are continually being misled by management. We also wait for the GS to make a further announcement on the legal response once it is received. Just on that point my thanks to all the members who have sent me factual information for the legal position and those documents have also been submitted.

In relation to the Central Arbitration Committee claim this has been passed over now as the position within other aspects of the redundancy process and sections 188 have been identified as much stronger if compulsory redundancies are actually to occur. However given the rush to get out so many members choosing to take severance, an offer not recognised in your terms and conditions is a matter for them. They have been sold well short of their entitlements. On what basis you believe your choices were properly informed or truthful is a matter for those who resigned. However I remind members that we had circulated a series of protections questions and that management had made their response to them. I would encourage anyone feeling deceived by their treatment to take a closer look at the tactics deployed.

The meeting with the lawyers was led by Victoria Phillips. Many staff may well know of Vicky and her considerable history of working with Napo and the wider Union movement. I have pasted her web link on to inform you of the calibre of the legal intellect that Ian Lawrence the General Secretary to act our advocate. The meeting was fast paced robust in parts and some tough reasoning. Yet despite the cut and thrust of some quickly dismissed but hopeful avenues the central themes were brought together and all that we are doing has been well constructed and well founded in the way we have approached the Working Links sham of consultation and zero negotiation. In our concentration of the issues we have a robust position for what we need and shortly that detail will be with us to hold firm. One thing worth a mention is that we will be making efforts to resume as a priority all health and safety sub committee activity and negotiations on health and safety at work legislative requirements in your immediate interest. Encouraged by our legal advice from one of the most experienced legal minds on these matters is nothing short of the best we can get. Taking that advice will be our Union position and despite the low brow rhetoric and clear distortions from the senior management. Anytime where matters impact negatively by compulsion on Union members we will be ready to make the fullest of challenges including all avenues of recourse.

The Branch meeting of the 7th 12

A thank you to Liz French Unison who has been something of an explosion in parts from Unison. I very much appreciate her direct style and level of tenacious engagement. Much refreshing and welcome although Working Links have not enjoyed one part of that. What is sad to report that we have an organisation that has a contract yet they are so far away in a working Trade Union relationships that they have destroyed many opportunities to work productively? It has been their chosen way and so a robust approach is the only position at this time despite their sudden leader change. That said we wait to see what signals we get to the Unions requirements and answers to the correspondence. Also to thank Unison for our joint Trade union meeting at their offices. An explanation for this has already gone out to members. That meeting saw nearly forty members attend from across DDC and we welcomed their support. We were joined by the General Secretary Ian Lawrence by a rousing and contextual telephone conference for a good period. This was welcomed and went well for our members in CP who are clearly angry and defiant to the appalling process that management have attempted to inflict upon them. Also in their attempt to destroying many of their employment terms and entitlements. Reducing their pay and failing to consult and act properly as required by the Amended and restated contract requirements. Job evaluations process and new job descriptions have all by passed the consultative process and members are encouraged by the advice we have issued and has been re issued in recent days. In the meantime members are reminded to reject any 1-1 interviews and just ask the basic question is management going to make the post redundant and then consult properly with my Union. After all that’s what you pay your subscriptions for. It was great to see our Unison colleagues and shop stewards in principled agreement and we have the makings of a strong team to move forward.

From this brief up-date on the current position I have included the previous and as yet unpublished report below for you, so that members are clearer as to where we are for now.

I will be taking a short break myself during this festive period but will be maintaining a watching brief. In both branch interests and leaving my phone on for NAPO members matters. Also keep sending us your concerns and details of the risks issues that you are experiencing and fears from the changes being suggested.

Whatever your choices over the coming periods of the Christmas break Napo Executive wish all our members well whatever you will be doing. Well see you in the new year and continue the process of protections for your jobs terms and well being.

--oo00oo--

16th November 2016

Dear Napo Members, 

It has been a difficult time for us. This is compounded by the ongoing talks at ACAS which are slow moving mainly by the tricks pulled by the contract holders. Hopefully we can start to get into a process that should look to define the legal position for us all. Before that however the route to this requires all sides to engage in conciliation and to look to form some agreement on the issues. After all this is what we, the unions, have complained to the joint secretaries about. That led to the engagement of  ACAS, as part of that resolution discovery process. 

The conduct and performance of the senior management of Working Links the company and the way in which their incredible negligence towards staff has been managed is something to behold in context of a deliberate and blatant attempts to deprive you from many of your most important employment rights. We had wanted to see a clear change in direction by insisting that Aurelius the new employers pitch up at the ACAS talks and show us clear ownership of their liabilities.  Instead we get a recently promoted and current Working links representative in the form of their new  finance director. In my view he simply repeated stock phrases he had been fed by Mr Hindson.  A fair point that Aurelius had only acquired Working links since the Summer and that he was there to deliver the Bank’s policy of cuts to staffing as the chief finance officer.  Also that he could only spare an hour and a half or so (REALLY).  Is this to generate profits to a company share group who take monies for doing nothing, while you are expected to forego your redundancy terms sign away  your pension entitlements to fund them?

Today 16th November a document by Mr Wiseman DDC in bold italics below where he makes it clear that he has been asked for clarification. I am aware Aurelius’ and working links the company were in a meeting yesterday following on from what they had been told at ACAS.  It may be  that Aurelius’ people wanted to check the status of our policy and this is what may have triggered the Mr Wiseman document today. 

In my view at least this document is nothing more than another poor attempt in the propaganda game. The employers (whoever they are Aurelius or Working Links) want to keep shovelling towards us to scare our members into signing up to the inferior and deceitful process of voluntary severance. This is a matter for you however, we have done and continue to alert you to your employment rights. (If they were not robbing you why use it?)

DDC Redundancy Policy - clarification  

I have been asked for clarification re the status of the DDC Local Redundancy Policy and felt it only right and proper to advise all staff of the position as it stands as follows:  

The current DDC Redundancy Policy remains unchanged at the time of writing and this can be accessed via the DDC Intranet page.  

However, it is also correct to state that this policy is currently under active review and a revised draft local redundancy policy is ready to issue to the local unions for consideration. The Unions were given notice of our intention to review this policy approximately 6 weeks ago and as such this is not new information.  

As a local policy this is not enshrined within the NNC agreements and can be amended through local consultation at any time.  

The current policy could have been reviewed in September 2015 but for various reasons this review has been delayed until more recently.  

I trust this clarifies the position.  

John Wiseman
Probation Director

Members you will have no doubt read this and it will have raised your concerns. However, many of you will understand it requires relentless effort to collate and record the full archive in order to gather evidence that makes the case for the unions. 

Trying to ensure the full protections of terms against the intentions of this hostile contract holder. As they have started in this vein it is reasonable to think they will continue aggressively and most likely get worse. Before then however, we have to stand firm and insist on some basic employment terms to be honoured. This includes 

i Rejection of any new job descriptions.
ii Reverting back to your roles from temporary cover
iii Reject the talk of lower pay for work as no proposals have been discussed with the unions.
iv No talks on job evaluations either.
v Do your existing job description and do not agree to any role or job variations that amount to changes in contract.
vi Be alert that dismissals in location and the drafting in by direction of staff from different areas to cover the work is a failure of their staff controls and reduction process.
vii Mobility and direction policies have not been harmonised and these need formal agreement with the Unions before staff are sent all over the place filling in gaps this cutting agenda has started to produce. This will only worsen. 

Members who know me well will not be surprised that I am constantly preparing briefings and strategy position on a range of activities. On this matter I am having to cut and paste a strategy document from a recent paper that myself and Ian Lawrence the NAPO General secretary have been working on. It formed part of our ACAS input. The matters were raised and these documents form the spine of our records to issues that have been disclosed within ACAS arena. I have cut and pasted these raw briefings document section 11 which would have been part of my response to Mr Wiseman’s letter of the 10th October. Mr Wiseman’s position today is of no real difference. 

Both Napo and Unison Trade Unions leaderships Ian Lawrence and Ben Priestly Unison recommended members sign up to the new twin organisations under the staff transfer and protections agreements. This is what happened and members rightly believed that all our collective terms on pensions and redundancies would be honoured. 

As yet it is not clear to me that the originating contracts contained a section that would have encouraged or agreed redundancies with the contractor. However if Compulsory redundancies were part of the original contracts we have the right to see them. Any argument that they are commercially sensitive is a nonsense because Working Links Aurelius have the contract now and commercial sensitivity defence to disclose it, just does not hold water! 

Besides this issue we have a right as a Trade Union joint sides to review the commercial contracts because if it is to be discovered that redundancies and to what extent they form the basis of the contract then the Government as the employer in charge at the time would have been required to consult the trades unions at that time. What we need to establish is the failure to consult lawfully and under the terms to mitigating losses. You can see why the contract managers at NOMs MOJ want to swerve this issue. 

Members, join us, help us to enforce upon the employers the sections of the agreements that protect you in the examples of their worst practices. We can be adamant to defend your rights to ensure ACAS talks make a breakthrough 

• The joint secretaries and the contract managers have finally made a determination on the head of this dispute.
• The employers must see sense and revert to appropriate terms and process to release staff; that they engage the unions properly and openly to get a change agenda that includes and brings staff with them.
• They must engage in a programme of agreed change that ensures an operational model service design that is fully tested to ensure the public is protected. 
• Redeployments must be agreed and current pay terms are fully maintained for the duration.  

Excerpt From DP Briefing note to ACAS Talks With GS Ian Lawrence. 31 10 16:

What the employers and Mr Wiseman clearly fails to understand here is their obligations under the staff transfer arrangements are a matter of protecting already established local policy. It clearly states this in 16 and makes reference to the protection as laid in the commercial contracts. For ease of reference from the DDC Amended and restated services Agreement  section 30.3 (d) The Contractor acknowledges that since the Employee Transfer Date the voluntary redundancy terms (the Voluntary Redundancy Terms) set out in Appendix B to the National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections dated 29 January 2014 (the National Agreement) a copy of which is contained in Part 2 of Schedule 25 to this Agreement have been applied in all cases of voluntary redundancy of Employees (save where more beneficial terms exist). (e) The Contractor shall be entitled to effect voluntary redundancies of Employees from the Employee Transfer Date in accordance with Applicable Law. Other than where more beneficial terms exist, in all cases of voluntary redundancy of Employees the Contractor shall give effect to the Voluntary Redundancy Terms, unless agreed otherwise between the Contractor and Employee. (f) For the avoidance of doubt, in the event that an Employee of a particular Transferor had at the Employee Transfer Date a contractual entitlement to more favourable voluntary redundancy terms than the Voluntary Redundancy Terms, the Contractor will honour those original terms unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Employee.  and the Contractor shall continue to comply with the NNC and SCCOG National Agreements on Pay and Conditions of Service for all Employees including the provisions set out in (i) and (ii) above, save to the extent that Employees’ terms and conditions are renegotiated by consent 

In simple language members the items in yellow are matters that are the clear intention of the agreement of the ARSA. This is also a contractual obligation on the employers despite their claims they do not agree NAPO interpretation. In any case that is not for the union or employer to determine. The final decision can only be within a legal challenge and we all have a right to take up legal action where we are clearly suffering a detriment by a breach of the expressed contract. 

Obviously it is my absolute intention to have these issues challenged on behalf of our members within our Trade Unions activities and through the Employment Tribunal process, although I am confident that we should not have to consider actions wider than our Union at this time.  

In relation to where more beneficial terms exist Mr Wiseman is arguing that somehow our beneficial terms are not within another aspect of the National Terms yet appears to fail again to realise, BUT THEY DO EXIST! Therefore they are our beneficial terms aren’t they? They exist as he has made so many formal references to the redundancy policy now as the effective position, he cannot deny it. 

Finally members, the sections in red are the single most cruellest trick this employer has attempted to perpetrate in the treatment of you and your employment rights. There is the clause that your terms and conditions can be renegotiated, by consent. 

For those of you signing a voluntary severance arrangement without any advice or proper indication of the extent to which you are signing an agreement that terminates all of your existing rights that is a matter for you. 

For NAPO members, and I would advise all staff to join NAPO now,  not one of our terms and conditions will be negotiated away under the life of this contract while I remain your Chair of the NAPO SSW Branch. The reason why we clearly do not have to, is because they have to have our consent. That will never happen! 

Members, this is just part of our collective position please remain strong and resolute. Your Union will support you in all matters that are employment related. If you are reading this now, and not a member, ask yourself why not at this time? 

Dino Peros NAPO SSW Branch Chair  

Pick of the Week 21

Why hasn't the breach of contract by Working Links gone to the lawyers, that's what we pay for. Ian Lawrence is over his head and ability and wants to save the union funds for his redundancy, as will surely come with members leaving in droves due to his ineffective position. NAPO needs and deserves an individual worthy of the vast £70,000 salary who takes control, not is controlled by the CRCs. He stifles local reps and blocks the progress they fight to achieve. 

Lets face it, Mr Lawrence has no life time career invested here and will move on, hopefully sooner than later. He cannot understand the devastating impact being robbed of our EVR, pensions and erosion of terms and conditions as he has had none of it inflicted on his own terms. Good riddance to bad rubbish, bring on the election and find someone decent and capable.

*****
What breach of contract? If I recall correctly, Sodexo ran roughshod through the framework agreement and paid reduced EVR. They were condemned on moral, not legal grounds. It's easy to bash Napo, but instead of just throwing out the assumption that there has been a breach of contract, you should explain why you believe there has been a breach.

*****
All we are after from Ian Lawrence is a categorical statement that he has run the contracts past Thompson's and they have confirmed there is no case to answer over our insistence on EVR, (or otherwise). Then we will know where we are. Currently, OUR reading (SSW branch) is that there IS a case to answer. And I, for one, want my (considerable) monthly subs to be used to pay for this legal advice. I have to admit I am completely flummoxed as to why this hasn't happened up til now. The fact the MoJ Contract Managers appear to have avoided the ACAS talks to date suggests there is something to hide and their position is not water tight. Because, if it were wouldn't you rush to prove the Union is wrong with the legal position? Simples!

*****
Oh what a shower of shite. I was at London branch meeting Friday. Dean Rogers attended, nice enough chap but not a trade unionist. Spoke of the positives of CRC and made a pitiful comment about some members deserve being fired. I'm cancelling my membership come Monday.

*****
I have heard on many occasions the General Secretary blaming members in Sodexo controlled CRC's for their redundancies. I can assure you he takes no responsibility for their demise and Dean the same mould. These two shower of shites want to throw members to the wolves and lay claims on the legal advice to support their inaction. NAPO is dead unless it gets rid of these 2 jerks but the chairs are never going to deal with that. Don't forget the members got what they voted for, turkeys for Christmas.

*****
When union members are hamstrung & left in limbo by what seems a union leadership intent on inactivity, then sadly you are right to observe that people become frustrated, angry & ineffective. During the Sodexo clearances I have often wondered if the Napo leadership intentionally dragged their feet such that the VS option offered by the CRCs became the only guaranteed paid exit as compared to the insecurity & uncertainty of  "will we win?"... thus Napo (as well as the CRCs) got rid of those troublesome old guard. The current SW scenario seems to be drifting in a similar direction.

*****
About the latest OASys knee jerk in the London CRC: we were told earlier this year we had to do OASys initial sentence plan within 10 days of first contact. Any OASys outstanding from before April we need not worry about. Because of the inspection we have now been told we must do all pre April OASys after all. For most of us these amount to quite a few. They must all be completed within a month. Here are the catches, unresolved and unlikely to be addressed: If we do the backlog OASys, well we are even less likely to be able to keep up with the current on going work than we are already. Hence the backlog OASys are likely to be done really, really badly and not worth the paper they are not written on. What would be the point of that? Still, NOMS and MOJ will be happy to see boxes ticked. Further, if we do all the Backlog OASys as initial sentence plan, we will have thousands of "misses" since all of them will be from before April. I can't wait.

*****
Cannot imagine any well trained Probation staff wilfully not doing OASys as it a key tool (arguably overly cumbersome and difficult to navigate). My experience was one of too few staff, high sickness rates, temps coming and going, not enough hours in day etc. I did manage to just do all mine but I recognise team I was in was lower caseload than most others and we managed some stability re staffing. Quality, now that's a different question as was implementing the sentence plan. We/I were working like stink and doing our best. I am sure same is true for vast majority.

*****
Oh purleese, the sentence plan is already sketched out in broad terms in either the Community Order detail or encapsulated within the licence conditions, as any competent practitioner will tell you. Anyone worth their salt knows exactly the direction of travel in any given sentence and what input is required. OASys sentence plans were only ever a way of trying to quantify this by a Service beginning to lose confidence in its professional abilities and standing and feeling required to justify its self, rather than being allowed to just get on with the job. OASys always has been a repetition of info held elsewhere and a waste of time. Now sentence plans are just meaningless cut and paste exercises completed by overworked court staff in order to hit completion targets.

*****
About the London branch union meeting last Friday: It does worry me when it seems that those who represent us appear to accept uncritically certain things they are being told by managers in the CRC, such as: "there's no money". I would say: unless you show us your accounts to prove this statement I am not prepared to believe it, What I am prepared to believe is that your company is unprepared to invest money, even though all businesses accept that investment is needed in order for profit to be made.

*****
Caseloads in West Yorkshire are 70 to 80 for PSO, sickness levels according to the hierarchy are 1 in 5 staff members. No support from managers or recognition that this is having a negative impact on staff morale or staffs mental health or well being.

6 core modules is the reinventing of the wheel that insults the offender and treats them like a child. The induction paper and sentence plan takes exactly the same amount of time for a 1st time offender or career offender. Once the offender has been released from prison he or she may have had 4 or 5 offender managers. The PSS is causing a bottleneck of offenders that the turnaround time for sorting out accommodation etc is wilfully inadequate and addresses nothing.

The staff who remain are so disillusioned with the job that they have just given up the ghost. There is no scope left to specialise or move into new territory as we now deliver programmes, hold DRR orders, community orders, licence cases, PSS licence, IOM and PPO cases. Can the last person out turn off the lights.

*****
The Conference resolution was very principled but practically useless and toothless. Yes we all love collective bargaining, but the employers don't want to play ball - especially the NPS. The last couple of NNC meetings were poorly attended by employers (read the briefing paper produced at AGM by those who actually attend these meetings) who voted with their feet and those who did attend said nowt because of commercial secrecy. The NPS walked away then came back again to a stony silence and a half filled room. Most of the big players including the NPS are expected to follow MTCnovo and serve notice in the new year and Napo will be sitting in an empty room twiddling their thumbs with Comrade Chas and his sidekick stood outside selling their newspapers and dreaming of the winter of discontent. At least Raho has the balls to see the reality of the new landscape and not kid himself that probation staff will take to the streets and strike - they won't.

*****
Are you not clear that this is a democratic union? This situation splits the union puts London at odds with the national membership and discredits his poor NPS chair colleagues in this political disaster and no doubt Rogers the bodges put him up to it as that is what they wanted at AGM. All the Officials were manipulating. Members are just the bankers we get no say.

*****
It reflects a real live issue that will soon be facing every branch. You can ignore the train coming towards you but if you stay still it will roll over you. You cannot change the fact that the NNC is disintegrating and has been for some time. It is not fit for purpose. The motion was passed in accordance with all the relevant rules.

*****
National collective bargaining is now a farce. Napo members were duped at the AGM into voting for a motion that meant zilch/nudda. If the private companies decide to walk away, no one can make them stay. Do you seriously think the MoJ will force anyone to parley with the unions? Of course London is only interested in London although we can stretch to Thames valley at a pinch. No one has mentioned Manchester going alone.

*****
I would like to suggest that the London NAPO branches apparent willingness to accept the loss of facility time without a murmur (please someone, correct me if I am wrong), would certainly have given confidence to MCT Novo to propose walking away from NNC. The local vote last week has unfortunately only endorsed this position. I have read elsewhere recently of trade unionists not wholly in favour of relying on the law in discussions with management. In my experience however, no amount of hand wringing or special pleading cuts it with the kind of employers we are currently having to deal with. Nicey, nicey won't stop them riding roughshod over our roles or our basic (hard won) terms and conditions. If we are seen not to accept our own internal democratic processes (the motion passed at Conference supporting NNC) then why should management? London has done the rest of us no favours and Dean Rogers role in this is shameful. He should resign immediately because he clearly doesn't accept the AGM outcome.

*****
We will continue to run around in ever decreasing circles until the politicians stop the rhetoric about being 'tough'. Try 'effective'. Try 'credible'. Try 'productive'. Try 'constructive'. But 'tough' is getting us nowhere.

*****
Fully agree, ever increasing applications of stick rather then carrot solves nothing. Indeed, prison is no longer being used as a last resort, but more of a naughty step. But I think the system is so broken now its beyond repair, and so offers great opportunities for a real change. Not just change in the numbers we send to prison or how we build them. But change in what we want prisons to achieve, and being realistic about what they can achieve. 

It's my opinion that any success in penal reform must come hand in hand with social reform. Drug laws need to be changed. Mental health issues require a whole different focus, individual wellbeing rather then criminalisation. Questions need to be asked about sending people to prison for 4 weeks or 6 weeks, what does that really achieve? What's the cost? Not just monetary terms, but the cost to the individual going to prison and the potential cost to society when that individual is released.

Rehabilitation is an overused word I feel, because many in our prisons haven't been habilitated in the first place. A whole new way of thinking is needed if we want an effective CJS. One that sees not only the punishment of people, but one that achieves something for everyone too. Unfortunately, to achieve radical changes in the CJS, people in power have to grasp some nettles, and Liz Truss, Gove or Grayling are not the people to do it.

*****
I have noticed a huge increase in the complex needs of offenders over the past 10 years. Most of those I work with now have complex needs such as mental health issues, personality disorders, alcohol and drugs, autistic spectrum, OCD, PTSD, ADHD, DV as victim, childhood abuse, etc. We deserve far more recognition and support for what we do and have become a dumping ground for the disadvantaged, abused and mentally ill.

*****
I have had a tough NPS day so sorry for not being upbeat, actually F*CK being upbeat. Also F*CK being professional and measured in responding and commenting. The IT doesn't work, the systems don't work, the prisons are hideous, the staff everywhere are in despair, about their jobs, their vision, their profession. Of course, this is the same in health, education ... (add your public service here). Our justice system is on a tipping point. I can't decide whether to grieve for the destruction of our public institutions, or for a man who has not got the release he has worked for and deserves, because F*CKING housing is non-existent. Rant over.

*****
I am spending increasing amount of time assisting depressed, suicidal and desperate individuals. Writing letters of support to ESA tribunals, working with bereaved, private company have no interest in this. I could do the minimum, meet the targets, take the money and run but I don't and neither do I see my colleagues doing that. They are on the phone regularly to support people who are quite frankly in a desperate situation regularly. There may be staff out there with that attitude but whoever you are I can tell you I have never known one in 15 years of service.

*****
The thing about "risk assessment": these are now very sketchy when done in courts, the basic layers, the minimum amount of info. Fair enough, that is all the staff have time for. But NPS were supposed to be the risk experts in TR landscape. They work with the risky clients. They alone can determine who is risky enough to be worked with by the NPS. Yet heavy risk assessment work now resides in the CRC, we the non experts must do full layer assessments on cases coming to us, after decision has been taken on sentencing based on very skimpy assessment. Not the court staffs fault. Systemic.

*****
Further problems arise over risk-escalation and ping-ponging between CRC and NPS. Have seen CRC staff, especially PSO's new to post, supervising complicated cases. Recipe for disaster if not receiving adequate peer support and line management. Teams being fragmented in WL CRC's - less staff support? More risky decision making?

*****
It will be even worse when we have no OASys. Too many people now involved in individual cases. The amount of breaches that are withdrawn due admin errors in the NPS. It's more luck than judgement that there are not more SFO's. We've been saying for the last 2 years surely it can't get any worse, but it does.

*****
Court closures have meant more cases going to already busy courts and no extra staff to undertake the expectation of all reports to be done on the day or written up by court staff. Of course they are going to be sketchy the majority of the time. Not the fault of the staff but those that think E3 is the way to go and bugger those who are trying the best they can in an ever increasing target-driven service. Staff should be able to work at a level they are comfortable with and let the targets take a back seat. Then maybe, just maybe the powers that be will see it as it is and decide public protection and staff welfare should be their priorities and employ more staff to squeeze into an already too small a working environment. One looks for 20 female staff and been told to use the public loos in the court foyer.

*****
Oral reports and short format reports are not based on risk assessment, but the formulaic outcome of a couple of risk screening tools.

*****
Another loss from TR: many of those writing reports and making proposals have never supervised anyone on an order or licence. Or they may have had pre-TR supervisory experience, but be totally unfamiliar with CRC post TR. This shows. We have DV perpetrators on 60 RARs but with no BBR although they could easily have done BBR and had never done it before. 

We have people with chronic orthopaedic problems being given 200 hrs Unpaid Work. Time was when end-to-end offender management was the ideal. We took responsibility of the whole experience from start to finish. This way relationship and trust were built, progress noticed, hurdles appreciated, investment in the process by service user as well as worker. Now we fail by fragmentation, by misunderstanding, by confusion and misdiagnosis.

*****
Rehabilitation has been well and truly 'Transformed' from an award winning service to a pile of excrement designed by people so far away from the real world who test out concepts on paper before decided what will work...E3 is the deskilling arm of this model designed purely to get probation work done on the cheap and the beauty of this are the SPO quislings who are pushing the model as if is the prelude to the second coming when in reality they're like the turkeys who voted for Christmas...

*****
Ah, the silent but deadpan Copsey, a behind-the-curtain career civil servant fixed in aspic rather than steeped in probation. I remember the sharp dressed bully from Lincolnshire many, many moons ago. He never liked social work training, was very pro-control & punishment; he will have fitted into the Noms' organism like a missing jigsaw piece. What, pray tell, does Head of Operational Assurance do (other than pocket a £120k salary)?

*****
Dame Glenys Stacey (HMCIP) ....... made a point of identifying impending areas for the Inspectorates attention, the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR's) being one area of supervisory concern - which followed on from my question on the current lack of accountability & transparency from CRC providers in offering information to sentencers on this 'innovative' option which if unaddressed threatened to undermine judicial confidence.

Certainly in the Magistrates' Court confidence in this disposal is very much undermined already. Sentencers have no idea 1) what is actually involved 2) how much real activity takes place 3) how the amounts proposed by Probation in court reports (eg 15 days, 20 days) are arrived at and 4) no means of relating amount of RAR to level of sentence.

Since privatisation of probation any contact between sentencers and probation has pretty much vanished; reporting of breach levels appear almost non-existent and indeed there is a strong perception that the number of breaches brought to court have substantially reduced.

*****
Greater flexibility in reporting frequency means fewer breaches. I avoid breaching like the plague. I would rather put half an hour into getting someone to attend probation than spend two hours on a breach which then gets rejected. Another thing that puts me off breaching: I don't get that two hours undisturbed, ever. And if I do take that time it will be at the expense of another vital task, which in this plate spinning CRC world in which I now work will result in further delays and frustrations, plates crashing to the floor. When I bend to retrieve one plate, others immediately come off their spinning poles and crash. What a circus.

*****
The RARs: a mystery indeed. The current London CRC wisdom is that the wording says: "up to x amount of days". That means we can do as many or as few as the need and risk of the service user demands. There is some assumption that the ideal would be to "send" the service user somewhere for their RAR. I have only ever been able to do this in three cases, and the service user accessed services which he had already set up in advance of his order: one was a psychological appointment, one was the AA meeting where attendance can be confirmed through a "chitty" system, and one was the local drug centre who are happy to liaise with us re people's attendance and are not perturbed by such a word as "criminal record". 

If no such options are open those "RARs" become supervision sessions, work for the probation worker. Why that would now be such a terrrible dirty word or undesirable situation I don't know. People who come for their supervision RAR with me get a chance to consider their situation with one other, me. I pay close attention to what they say, I reflect back, I assist with focusing their train of thoughts, I don't judge. Most have not had a chance to do this with anyone since they saw me last. They tell me they are clearer about what they need to do when they leave me. When they return they feed back to me how things have gone. It is personal and bespoke. 

I can no longer see people every week or fortnightly, because I have so many and there is so much bureaucracy to attend to when I do see the service user, I spend a good hour usually. I don't think we should be made to discount such bespoke RAR sessions as useless, they are useful and constructive. It is just that we need other things for the service users as well, like affordable housing, employment and social inclusion.

*****
I've had it confirmed that there is very little time factored into the proposed Working Links model of practice for bespoke 1:2:1 sessions. The assumption is that all clients will be farmed out to other agencies more or less - whilst the practitioners sit in front of their computers furiously logging everything in order to hit cash linked targets. Problem is, the proposed 'suite' of 16 RAR activities (homogeneous across all WL owned companies, is currently nowhere in sight.

*****
I can confirm that the number of breaches (throughout London) have dropped by 60 percent. The large majority of breaches relate to orders where the service user has not been seen for some months. Enforcement is now an agency whose primary function is to re-establish contact! (EO London).

*****
The experience in London has been that the majority of CRC breaches are rejected for the smallest of reasons. Many are simply not resubmitted and no one on either side seems to care.

*****
Staff shortages, overcrowding, and psychoactive drugs are very serious issues in our prison system. Too many people are being sent to prison, and many don't really need to be there. But I think it's worth remembering that Grayling, as well as cutting staff numbers also introduced some other very stupid and unintelligent reforms that I think should be remembered. He stopped many prisoners from wearing their own clothes, which apart from causing resentment amongst prisoners, created a need for extra resources, more prison clothes needed, clothes that need washing, and staff time to supervise kit exchanges. "Its easier to get drugs then clothes" is a common theme in many reports and commentary on the prison crisis. 

Grayling also stopped prisoners families from sending gifts on birthdays and Christmas (commonly known as the book ban), causing more resentment, especially when you consider what things you were allowed to be sent anyway was very little. Grayling also restructured the incentive and earned privilege scheme, making it almost impossible to climb the ladder, removing the feeling of progress achievable for prisoners, making those that did manage to climb the ladder the focus of suspicion (must be a grass or something) because no-one else can manage it, and very importantly, removing the ability of staff to use the threat of loss of privileges through the IEP system as a method of control, and leading to far more adjudications and days lost. Graylings staff cuts, prison closures with a growing population was stupid enough, but he didn't need to shake everything up like a wasps nest as well.

*****
Grayling has a lot to answer for and should be held to account for his evident failings. Prisons and Probation are in a mess as the result of his actions and failure to listen to anyone who actually knew what they were talking about. Evidence now clearly shows 'those on the front line' were right. I don't have much confidence in Truss either, however I would have so much respect if she were to stand up and say "We (Grayling/Tories) got it wrong". 

Will never happen though as this Capitalist Government will 'spin' their next move to make it look like they are improving things rather then state We created this mess and we are going to get out. "We're in this together" b*llocks - if we were in it together and you are reading this Ms Truss, as professionals in an extremely depleted "business" which seems to be the word of the day these days (I joined a Public Service), we would hold more respect for you if you admitted this mess is the fault of the Conservatives in the first place. #Blood on your hands.

*****
This is part of the great deception....they know that there's a retention problem in prisons.... the trouble is lots of officers are tied up with 'bothersome' rehabilitation work therefore to aid retention, shift all of those officers back onto the wings and fill their places with probation officers - genius...except the void will have to be filled with untrained (forgive me one days training per unit) PSO's who will now know the meaning of responsibility...prisons are dangerous places at the moment and we must resist going in at all costs until things have quietened down again.

Pick of the Week 20

What a disaster of an interview. It was PR gold handed on a plate which the GS managed to spill on the floor. Body language, tone & presentation was of someone not remotely interested, almost bored; the interviewer was more animated and appeared disappointed his enthusiasm wasn't reciprocated. It wasn't so long ago that Napo agreed NOT to use the term 'offender' but in reference to Sodexo's open plan policy the interviewer quotes the term "service users" and asks if that means Napo members: "No, no. Offenders" smirks Lawrence. 

He didn't give any impression of a leader of a union whose members are being shafted inside out, upside down & back to front; whose members have been fucked over day after day for the last ten years. Disgraceful, cringemaking, amateurish twaddle. £70K a year... Really??

*****
I have to say I gave up watching the video half way through in disgust. The interviewer was handing Ian prime questions that should have received a blistering response however he managed to sidestep many of them and waffle through the rest. Didn't sound like a Trade Unionist to me - disgruntled privateer more like. What a wasted opportunity.

*****
So that's one giant leap for the General Secretary's ego. So many opportunities handed to him on a plate about financial concerns, no mention of staff being robbed of EVR, pensions, whole life careers carelessly thrown away to save a shilling and then him appearing to welcome the privateers changes, staff pay, terms and conditions being eroded as long as they receive appropriate training! 

No mention of PO status being lost whilst the duties are passed to PSO grade, with no recognition or remuneration - as long as they are trained? The man needs to go, he is a fool and can't protect any of us with that attitude. He hasn't fought or successfully defended one action against TR - he admitted as much in the interview. His reputation is weak, vain and compliant and the privateers love him. He only talks a good job. Ambition way above ability and eager to preen like a peacock and drink like a fish. In the same mould as others who have been GS of NAPO and have gone down in history achieving nothing.

*****
Publicity for our cause is hard come by. Brexit, Trumpet being news headlines that have swamped the media headlines for what seems like forever. However, if we do not keep the beacons alight we will fail. Change is, I sense, is in the air. Let's us keep the flames burning. People are starting to cast their gaze in our direction.

*****
They may well look but the light house of Ian Lawrence will not shine on anything after that performance more like a defective bulb. From what I saw at least. We need a speaker who is a challenging force not a wannabe look a like intellect he certainly is not that. Not even a huff and a puff.

*****
Mr Lawrence is a poor advocate for the Probation Service and values. I agree, he missed a number of opportunities to be bold and forthright and that is to say nothing of his seemingly bored presentation.

*****
As someone who lived through the Voluntary Severance travesty by Sodexo last year can I offer some thoughts to those SW CRC staff caught in the should I/shouldn't I trap?

1. Staff didn't have any positive union backing in the form you have, no talks & certainly no ACAS. It does sound like lessons have been learned by the unions & local activism is very impressive.
2. Staff were mercilessly bullied by Sodexo via local collaborators, the fear & distress for staff being evident as timescales shortened, at which point levels of anger & resentment were very high.
3. The VS agreement was exceptionally restrictive, a straight jacket & gag to keep people under control & silent. Even backdated pay rises were lost.
4. The VS agreement was an insult, but some felt it was better than being managed out the back door under Sodexo disciplinary procedures - an implied threat from some of Sodexo's cutest operators.
5. The SW CRC staff have strong union support & the matter has reached ACAS, with the Lurkers clearly not playing ball. The political climate is very different & Hindson has been levered out the door.

In the Sodexo situation I would have taken VS & cleared off. It was toxic, it was bitter & extremely damaging to peoples' health & well-being. However in your position, on balance I would stay & fight for the full EVR.

*****

Thank you for sharing, I hope CRC staff everywhere reflect on this and gain some strength in numbers, as it is an incredibly stressful situation. I for one, would never criticise or judge people for the decisions they make. We all have our own issues, and a disenfranchised workforce is unlikely to make progress where the unions have failed. I hope ACAS bring some pressure to bear on Aurelius/WL.

*****

Something often missed about the Sodexo scenario was that most of those taking VS were not union members, either because they had never been so or had left whichever union they were in due to their union's inaction & silence. The current SW CRCs have the benefit of very active & tenacious union work - clearly something being driven locally by vigorous, informed & passionate reps.

*****
Contrary to the sobbing, heartbroken Hindson who has been elbowed out it is perhaps worth remembering that in Sodexo's CLCRC both Chief Execs cleared out at the earliest opportunity - Big Bad Kev on the day before ownership transferred across (having done all the preliminary dirty work he presumably knew how much dirtier it was going to get?) and Bigger Badder Penny who saw off busloads of staff through the shitty VS debacle but didn't last much longer; both served about 18 months before baling with generous financial packages. Wonder if their treachery ever keeps them awake?

By contrast we have members of the POA today saying they would rather continue to protest and face jail terms than collude with or perpetuate dangerous conditions for prisoners & staff in the prisons estate. That is principled commitment.

*****
Well the health and safety aspect is a major part of the SW dispute. Our branch was well informed of the deliberate tactic of Working Links Hinson and all not to release the operational plan service design to the national unions or to share any local service arrangements properly. All played out now and the unions have not penetrated the wall of silence and game playing but they will in time I am told.

*****
Be in no doubt, Dino is beating them up, our dispute and move to ACAS would not have happened without his leadership. Read his branch reports on this blog. No other CRC has had the challenges Working Links have had. Grateful thanks to Dino and his reps I'm still employed for now.

*****
Aaaaaarrgggghhhh!!!! For a supposedly key figure in our criminal justice system Napo's GS displays a dire lack of understanding and poor judgement when he writes: "Their [Prison Officers] willingness to ‘walk off the job’ when it becomes absolutely intolerable (despite the ban on industrial action) is both brave and commendable, although the injunction awarding judges obviously don’t agree."

The 'injunction awarding judges' have no role in agreeing or disagreeing with the actions of prison staff; the judges' must simply consider & implement existing law. That is a keystone of our criminal justice system.

He compounds his crass comment when he haughtily observes: "Naturally the action has sparked the usual wave of hysterical analysis by the likes of the Daily Mail and Express whose front pages are full of rump stake [sic] and video games exposes..." Or criticising the judges who ruled on the law regarding a parliamentary vote to activate leaving Europe? Oops!

*****
Those members of Napo who feel the case for finding another General Secretary is getting stronger by the day, citing the recent woeful appearance on Russia Today, will have to make sure there is at least one other alternative candidate next year when he finds himself up for re-election. Be warned, there will be forces within the union, especially at the top, who will try and ensure that there is no viable alternative candidate and hence no election.

*****
So where is the bar currently set? Lacklustre, uninformed narcissist? Naive, over-ambitious wannabe? What's been achieved by the last two GS's? Pay freeze for years; loss of annual leave; loss of essential car user allowance; loss of definition between PO & PSO roles; loss of a national service; loss of £130k as a leaving present to disgraced GS; agreement to sifting; no resistance to Sodexo; no public image or media presence, except for cringeworthy bits & bats; loss of hundreds of members; self-aggrandising blogs.

*****
He is flanked by doe eyed women who think they are there to serve him. So they do. The AGM gave me the biggest insight over the way they all buckled up to try and deliver his desires and one was to get out of national bargaining.

*****
Is Dino or anyone else involved able to clarify what is meant by "there is just not enough reassurance for the protections on your terms that should be required by all the representatives involved.... there may be some talks attended for on Wednesday next week that will potentially look to address the concerns the unions have on the operational plans for the delivery of services."

In the early morning gloom it sounds like the battle for EVR has been lost (or sacrificed?) and the focus is elsewhere. I hope I am mis-reading the meaning.

*****
I know Dino and others are working very hard to keep the focus where it should be. It will be very convenient for WL to be distracted into minutiae and thereby sidestep the EVR/contractual questions that have been raised.

*****
"The upscaling and downgrading of risk cases to PSO" This is happening in the NPS too and PSO's are being actively recruited to replaced PO's. What is Napo doing about this?

*****
For the record I also have this concern. I am a Napo member. I have told my rep. The response is that Napo are well aware of PSO's set to take NPS work and jobs from PO's and are doing nothing about it as they have limited bargaining power with the MoJ and civil service. In fact Napo was involved in the E3 consultation that paved the way and already failed to challenge this point. It is rather shocking the same concern is being raised and challenged for the CRC but apparently ok and ignored for the NPS.

*****
E3 definitely agreed and supported by K Lomas vice chair NAPO, her advice is collusive with NPS at the very least, ambition above ability here. This reflects the GS and 2 anonymous, lazy chairs. There has got to be something better for our Union when election of the GS comes soon. Campaign to find someone worthy of £70 k salary Jim et al.

*****

In response, I would be very worried about Katie Lomas in case she fancies herself as the Next Napo Chair. She doesn't want National Collective Bargaining and so is essentially backing the job cuts and devastation to the CRC's, let alone the equivalent concerns in NPS. I agree - we need to get a campaign going for the next Chair and also suitable candidate for GS too.

*****

I am an employee of DDCCRC and a Napo member. From what I can see it is the local reps who have pushed for the matter to be addressed by Napo and in particular the SSW Branch. Who is the branch Chair - DINO. Reading through Branch Reports it states that NOMS Contract people were not available for the Joint Secs meeting. I can't see that they have yet contributed their view. It seems to me that Napo should be providing some legal advice in this matter to reps and members alike. I would urge Napo and Unison members to go to the Branch Meetings and request their Branches to take up local matters otherwise nothing will happen.

*****
Agreed we need new arm chairs but not like the current spring less and shabby pair. Any from the current field will not be a nice new sofa. A useless performance because of complicit complacency over the failure to support properly the VLOs and more lately the E3 sell off. No protections for us and there will be none for them when the time comes.

*****
Dino's message could be seen to imply that the concrete issues of terms & conditions of employment, EVR & a nationally agreed position are being sidelined to allow for the vagaries & distractions of re-examining "risk to the public" vis-a-vis "operational plans for delivery of service".

1. Is 'risk' really an issue for ACAS in respect of EVR?
2. Time is not on the side of those wanting a resolution to EVR.
3. Where is the NOMS contract manager?
4. What about the SoS's "golden share"?

*****
Yes, risk is most definitely an issue! These cuts are not justified and will increase the risks to staff, offenders and public alike. Staff will be at risk of burnout/ stress etc. Offenders will be at increased risk of offending and all the consequences that go with that (including ending up in custody = increased risk of death). Public will be at increased risk of harm through being inadequately protected by experienced staff who understand risk management. This is every ones responsibility so why should ACAS not see it as an issue?

*****
Fair enough, but... the bids were invited, designed around & awarded on the basis of significant reductions in staffing costs, hence the Modernisation Fund sweetener to cover the cost of paying off staff. I can't see ACAS having any impact upon that aspect of the CRC operational design because they will say that's what MoJ asked them to do. However, I don't think the greedy globals should be allowed to misappropriate the monies allocated for EVR.

No, I do NOT agree with the sale of probation, the staff shrinkage or the ideology and I do NOT believe the business model was ever going to work (beyond adding to offshore corporate bank balances), but... let the fuckers fail. Get the EVR for the staff, don't give them the oxygen of co-operation and let the fuckers publicly & spectacularly fall from grace.

Just watching the BET HipHop awards on MurdochVision & heard this from an award wining crew: "Look after each other, don't let them divide & rule."

*****
Hey, Probation was always wanting to be the boy with his finger plugging the hole in the dam. How about making those who commissioned or constructed the dam take some responsibility? 'Cos when you get tired and your finger goes limp, everyone will blame you for the subsequent disaster. This is how SFOs work, & this is how Probation got shafted.

Maybe its time to step away from the dam. Let the cracks show, let the blame for cutting corners, shoddy workmanship & utter incompetence rest where it belongs.