Napo Annual Report 2019/20

The Annual Report stretches to 82 pages and I notice that the NEC met 5 times since the last report:-

"The NEC has met five times since the last annual report was written: scheduled meetings in September and November of 2019 and in March and June of 2020; and a Special NEC in July 2020. The Special NEC was to consider constitutional amendments to go to AGM in October. The NEC oversees the work of all Napo’s standing committees and networks and receives regular reports from them. Much of the business conducted by the NEC is therefore reported in other sections of the Annual Report."

Probation Negotiating Committee

1. The Committee carried one vacancy in Bands 1-3, one vacancy in Band 4 and one vacancy in Bands 5+. It has met in November, March, May July and August since the last annual report was written. The Committee would also want to thank former PNC members Esther Barton and Dino Peros for their work over previous years. 

2. The items below were discussed at meetings and incorporated regular updates by Link National Officials for their respective CRC areas. 

3. Probation Reunification update. The announcement in June this year that Interventions and Programmes would follow Sentence Management into the NPS, completed the first part of Napo’s campaign to return Probation back to full public ownership and control. 

4. Since the first announcement in May 2019 the General Secretary and National Chair have been involved in intensive negotiations on a new staff transfer and protections agreement to facilitate this major project, and after the new announcement in June 2020 the negotiations changed to accommodate the new plans. 

5. At the time of writing it is expected that there will be a CRC members’ ballot on the outcome of the negotiations in the summer. 

6. NPS Pay. The two year NPS pay deal ended in March 2020 but it became clear late last year that agreement on a Competency Based Framework model that was to provide the basis for future pay progression with effect from April 2020 would not be possible. This was through no fault of the recognised trade unions but a failure by the NPS to sufficiently resource this project. 

7. After further negotiations, the employer agreed that pay progression would be awarded to NPS staff in April 2020 and that unless the CBF was in place for a 12-month period prior to April 2021 then pay progression would also be enacted at that date. 

8. Unfortunately, the election of a new 80-seat majority Tory Government in December saw a hardening of attitude in respect of the pay remit policy and we heard the bad news that pay progression for NPS staff would be delayed. 

9. Napo were among many trade unions who had expressed concern prior to the General Election at what another Tory Government would mean for public sector pay. 

10. Obviously, the trade unions expressed outrage that our members were facing this unjust scenario and several meetings have taken place with the Director General for Probation and the Justice Minister over recent months. We have been reassured that pay progression will be paid when the 2020 pay negotiations are concluded. 

11. At the time of writing NPS Pay negotiations are at last set to resume. 

12. Pay Unity Campaign. Napo National Officials have maintained pressure on CRC owners to take positive steps to redress the imbalance between CRC and NPS pay rates, and recognise the significant recruitment and retention challenges across the whole of probation. 

13. On-Going HR Process issues, including PAYE and Pensions. Whilst further progress has been made in addressing the high number of members who continue to suffer from PAYE, pension and HR processing errors – including over and under payments. There have been intermittent problems since the last AGM. 

14. Representations on these systematic failings continue and Napo has continually raised the loss of trust and confidence in these systems with Ministers, as they must inevitably impact upon confidence in how safely staff from CRCs can be absorbed into the NPS when the CRC contracts come to an end in June 2021. 

15. CRCs Negotiating Items: 

a) Kent Surrey and Sussex CRCs/Seetec (including ex-Working Links owned CRCs) 

• Pay. After months of hard work by reps and national officials from Napo and our sister unions, SEETEC KSS CRC, made a pay offer at the turn of the year covering staff across all of their regions for 2020/2021. This follows an earlier joint pay claim and the declaration of a pay dispute which led to further talks between the parties. 

• It is fair to say that the improvement in industrial relations between senior SEETEC Management and the Unions since SEETEC took over the CRC contracts in Wales and the South West from Working Links, was a major factor in this pay offer being made. 

• SEETEC KSS CRC were the first employer to declare that they were prepared to match the current NPS pay rates. This was a major step forward in Napo’s long running campaign to achieve pay parity across both arms of the Probation service. 

b) The SEETEC offer 

• Realignment of all salary bands to the current NPS Pay bandings (if this results in less than a 3% increase for any employee, SEETEC would apply an unconsolidated payment for the % differential) 

• This proposal resulted in staff moving directly to the 2019 NPS position. Increasing the maxima of the band enabled employees at the top of the current pay band to receive an actual increase on their base pay. The employers offer meant that that the new minimum salary for any employee would be £19,977. 

• Mirroring the NPS bandings resulted in 74% of the workforce receiving an increase of 4% or above, and 52% of the workforce receiving an increase of 5% or above. 

• The offer was subsequently overwhelmingly accepted by members 

c) Interserve CRCs - pay 

• Following the 2018-19 award which was paid in February 2019 and was back dated to April 18, Napo and UNISON submitted a pay claim for 2019-20 in March 2019 for a minimum 3% increase for all Interserve CRC employees to be achieved through the payment of an annual increment on 1 April, restructuring of the pay spine and an unconsolidated payment if necessary. 

• An initial offer was rejected by 92% of Napo members and a series protracted pay talks ensued. Eventually a new offer emerged which was accepted by Napo members in July this year as follows: 

- April 2020 to November 2020 - one spine point increment. This was paid in May 2020, for all eligible staff; 

- April 2020 to November 2020 - an unconsolidated amount of £200 for those at the top spine point for their grade (This is pro-rata of the £300 full year amount taking it to December 2020);

- Removal of pay band overlap between bands 4 and 5, effective from 1 April 2020; - 5 December 2020 to June 2021 (at which point the CRC contract ends)

- NPS pay parity which will be paid in December 2020 payroll; 

- April 2021 to June 2021 (at which point the CRC contract ends) - one spine point increment to those eligible as per the NPS national agreement reached with the unions; 

- Allowances will remain unchanged. Any agreed changes with the NPS will take effect when pay parity is implemented in December. 

d) Sodexo CRCs 

• Pay. Napo and UNISON have held a number of further meetings on pay with Sodexo since the last AGM. Significant progress was made and the employer has recognised the importance of delivering pay reform in these discussions. 

• The Sodexo Pay agreement covers the six Sodexo CRCs for the years 2020/21 and 2021/22 (up to the CRC contract end). The offer was designed to modernise the pay structure so that staff will reach the top of the scale within a much shorter timeframe. 

• The main terms of the offer comprised for 2020/21 a 2.5% Non-consolidated payment for those at the top of their pay band A minimum pay increase for all other staff of 2.0%. For most this will be achieved through incremental progression however in instances where incremental progression is less than 2.0% a non-consolidated payment will be made. 

• The 2021/22 Pay Offer is a 2.5% non-consolidated payment for those at the top of their pay band 4 and a minimum pay increase for all other staff of 2.0%. For most this will be achieved through incremental progression however in instances where incremental progression is less than 2.0% a nonconsolidated payment will be made. 

e) Durham Tees Valley CRC 

• Pay. The second instalment of the two year pay agreement reached with Durham Tees Valley CRC has been enacted 

• This comprised a deal for 2020/21 and 2021/22 covering the remaining 15 months to contract end in June 2021. The pay deal provides a guaranteed minimum pay award of 6%, payable from April 2020 and assimilation onto the NPS pay scales. This means that the new pay scales will significantly reduce the time to progress through each pay band and the value of progression will be larger than in the current pay structure. Also, the offer guarantees each member of staff a minimum increase of 6% and some staff will receive a greater increase. As this offer met Napo’s demand, that the pay scales at DTV CRC are aligned to the NPS, Napo recommended acceptance of the pay offer. As a result Napo members voted overwhelmingly to accept the offer. The result of the ballot was 92% accept and 8% reject with a 50% turnout. 

f) MTC – London and Thames Valley 

• Pay. Whilst MTC have proposed a series of initiatives to help recruit and retain more staff across London and Thames Valley, where the problem continues to undermine workloads and performance, progress on taking forward the issue of pay beyond incremental progression has been very slow. 

• At the time of writing it was hoped that the employer would soon be in a position to make a realistic pay offer to the unions but the business case was awaiting central clearance. 

g) RRP: Staffordshire West Midlands and Derby, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire & Rutland 

• Pay. At the time of writing the company CEO is hoping to be in a position to make a formal pay offer to the unions once the business case has been cleared. The pay offer is only from October 2020 onwards but is a better position than was originally offered. Napo are working with RRP to push the MoJ into signing off the proposal as soon as possible. 

h) WWM CRC: Warwickshire West Mercia 

• Pay. WWM have only been able to make incremental progression payments and have been slow to address the wider issues of excessive workloads and staff shortages. At the time of writing a business case has been made for the opening of formal pay talks in September when the CRC believes it may be in a position to offer an increase for the last 6 months of their contract running from January 2021 until June. 

16. National NPS JNC and TU Engagement Meetings 

a) Privatisation of NPS Approved Premises - Double Waking Night Cover 

• Napo has continually raised the issues arising from the privatisation of DWNC at senior levels of the NPS and with Ministers. The results of a review of the project is expected later this year and we have made it clear that we do not believe that these contracts should be extended. 

• Regular reports on the impact of these flawed arrangements have been made to the PNC by the National Link Officer Siobhan Foreman (Vice-Chair) on which valuable feedback has been provided by PNC members. 

b) Approved Premises – Transition of Approved Premises to Community Interventions 

Regular reports on the progress of this project have been made to the PNC by the National Link Officer Siobhan Foreman (Vice-Chair) on which valuable feedback has been provided by PNC members. 

c) AP Staff Rota 

Trade unions have regularly raised issues around the impact of the national rota and this is now under review at the AP TU meetings. 

d) AP Pay Issues Update 

The unions have raised the issues around inconsistencies with pay in particular pay- protection, toil, overtime, unsocial hours and SSCL errors. 

e) National Facility time agreement update 

• The NPS presented an offer calculated on the basis of Cabinet Office rules i.e. the entitlement to facilities is a proportion of the pay bill. We have not yet accepted this and continue to discuss the actual allocation of time needed to support the employer in their reform programme. 

• The emergency measures introduced as a result of C-19 has meant that Napo has successfully sought additional time for our representatives to undertake Health and Safety duties. 

• Once circumstances allow it is intended to resume the negotiations and it is hoped that the introduction of a new Regional structure within the NPS will facilitate these exchanges. The changes to branch structure will further support negotiations at regional level. 

f) Offender Management in Custody 

• This has been a complex and difficult issue and the following summary reports the position that has been reached at the time of writing. 

• The consultation process. Napo have been consulted by the employer on the plans to implement OMiC. This is a consultation not a negotiation and although we can raise concerns and make suggestions and requests, we are not in a position to agree (or fail to agree) the plans. We are aware that many members have significant concerns over the fundamental design of OMiC and we have communicated these concerns. 

• The implementation process. There are Divisional Implementation Boards (DiBs) which are made up of both prison and probation representatives. These boards have now all submitted their OMiC implementation plans and Napo reps should have been consulted on this locally via the NPS JCC (Joint Consultative Committee) for the division/region. 

• The Women’s Estate. The model for the Women’s Estate varies in that the allocation of resource is based on complexity of need rather than risk. In the most complex cases (around 19% of the total) the POM will carry out the key work rather than having a separate keyworker allocated. This, it is hoped, will aid continuity and relationship building. 

• The contracted out estate. These are the privately run prisons and the original plan was to require (via the contracting process) them to have an SPO who holds a Probation Qualification but not to require these prisons to have Qualified Probation Officers holding cases as POMs. More work was undertaken on the plans for the contracted out estate following representations that Napo and the NPS senior leaders have made about this. Napo’s position is that Offender Management should only be done by someone who has the appropriate skills and qualification for the role they are carrying out and who are offered the appropriate support and remuneration for doing so. 

• The current position is that there will be POMs with a Probation qualification in each contracted out prison and they will either hold high risk cases or oversee the work done on these cases using the Case Management Support model. This does not necessarily have to be a member of NPS staff however it is reported that most of the private prisons have requested a staff loan/secondment arrangement from the NPS which will have a further impact on staffing. 

• Workloads for SPOs and POs working in OMiC 

The current method for looking at SPO workload is on a ratio basis. In community teams this is 1:10 FTE (full time equivalent). Under the OMiC model it will be up to 1:14 FTE. This means that some prison SPOs will have a high workload in terms of team members reporting to them in addition to the other tasks they need to undertake in their role. Napo have made representations on this, as well as the fact that the SPOs will be managing a team made up of staff from differing employers who will have different terms and conditions and potentially differing expectations in terms of line management. We will continue to press the employer on these issues and a review is underway. 

• The introduction of EDMs during the Covid-19 crisis highlighted the issues relating to NPS SPOs being line managed by Prison Governors. There have been reported tensions between expectations of prisons and NPS and the plans for line management have not been fully implemented as yet. We continue to use every opportunity to press HMPPS to rethink this part of the model. 

• IT solutions. There is a new IT based allocation system for use in prisons. This is to assist with the allocation of cases to either Prison staff OMs or NPS OMs within the team. The tool has been tested with some users and further work and testing will be carried out. Napo have asked that this tool is properly tested for AT compliance by end users before it is rolled out. We have also asked if an aspect of workload measurement can be built in to further assist the SPO will allocation decisions and this is in progress. Further work is being done on digital tools for the project and we are being consulted on them. 

g) Workloads 

• Workloads remain a critical issue across probation. It is hoped that the reunification of the service will allow for a wholesale review of the workload measurement and management process and the mis-match between demand and staffing levels in both CRCs (where they have not recovered from often cutting staff at the start of contracts) and the NPS (where they have not recruited enough POs after under-estimating how much work would remain in the NPS at the time of the original staff split). 

• Current data is still being gathered from CRCs, but at time writing there is a 23% + vacancy rate for POs across the NPS. Napo’s work in the wider reunification campaign has featured the fact that staff routinely report a normal case load allocation that places them at 130-140% on the workload measurement tool. This is dangerous and unsustainable. 

• Napo have also issued guidance to branches and members about how to protect themselves from excessive workload, including how to serve a foreseeability notice on their employer ahead of likely injury. 

• PNC has also focused much discussion on the particular pressures that increased workload and excessive additional HR burdens have placed on SPOs in CRCs and especially the NPS. Overloading SPOs creates wider problems – mistakes occur that stall HR processes; local employee relations become tense, reducing engagement and productivity levels; staff feel unsupported or isolated so become more prone to mistakes; and higher than expected sickness amongst SPOs has a disproportionate multiplying factor on all the other challenges. 

h) Serious Further Offence (SFO) procedures

 • There continue to be a number of high profile (as well as less high profile) SFOs coming to light. Napo has supported members who have been involved in resulting processes such as capability and disciplinary as well as those called to give evidence in Coroner’s Courts. HMPPS has consulted on both updates to SFO investigation and reporting guidance (making this more streamlined and the report more of a narrative than tick box as well as updating disclosure guidance) and updated guidance to support managers who, as a result of information that comes to light in an SFO process, need to consider taking action using either capability or disciplinary processes. 

• Throughout these consultations we have successfully argued for the consideration of workloads and have ensured that managers are always prompted to consider ‘no action necessary’ as an outcome. SFO investigations are necessary to ensure that organisations learn from these tragic events. We support all efforts to do this, especially where lessons can be learned by the organisation(s) involved however we will use whatever steps necessary to protect members from being unfairly scape-goated for organisational and systemic failings.

Justice Committee Hears From CRCs 2

Here we have the final part of the oral evidence from the CRCs:-

Q45 Dr Mullan: We heard from the probation inspectorate that two of the providers are rated as good. You have all talked about some of the positive work that you think you do. We are all keen to make sure that is carried across in some way. 

There are two things. The dynamic framework obviously sets out, just for resettlement services, that other people will be involved in providing services out of house. If the dynamic framework could be adjusted, and if there was an ability for providers like yourselves, on a non-geographical basis or even a smaller basis, to get involved in providing some of the intervention services that, for example, at the moment are going to go in-house, would that work for you? Would you be able to respond to that market approach, where you did not have a whole contract but could come in and help deliver some of the services that you may have a good track record of delivering? 

Trevor Shortt: There are some really good principles underpinning the dynamic framework. It gives local commissioners real opportunity to commission services that make sense in their patch. The wash-out on it, if you like, is that the procurement of those services is now under way, but not all of them will be in place for 26 June next year. The question we need to deal with is what happens to services that are not part of the day one services, and what happens to the organisations that are currently providing some of those, and indeed the people who were involved in some often small and bespoke organisations and local services that we need to look after through the transition. 

Q46 Dr Mullan: Let me pick up on that answer. I get from that that you perhaps think there is a wider scope. Our current interpretation is that the dynamic framework just allows for the resettlement services and not the broader interventions that you might undertake with a probationer. Do you have a different interpretation? 

Trevor Shortt: I think we see it as being both. From a Sodexo perspective, we are interested in what we might be able to provide in the dynamic framework. To answer your original question, we are looking at each of the call-offs in their own right, but it is not something we are seeing as a substitute for what might have been under the PDP. 

Suki Binning: The employee owners of Seetec are very much interested in continuing to provide services in this space, including the dynamic framework. Some of the concerns we have are that it appears that some services that we currently provide will fall between the cracks. For instance, at the moment we do not quite know where restorative justice sits. We have dedicated teams that provide restorative justice and mentoring services. From some of the initiatives that we have seen up and down the country with other CRCs it is not really clear where they sit. That is our concern. Certainly, the employee owners are interested to continue contributing in this field. 

David Hood: The first question was on whether we would interested in providing services that at the moment are going to be taken in-house— the intervention type services. Of course, we would be interested in exploring that. We have some very capable people in our organisation. That was part of our PDP approach, so the answer to that is yes, we would be interested in exploring that. 

It is important to echo Suki’s point, because it applies to us as we look at the current dynamic framework and what appears to be in scope for day one. There are services, including in London in particular, that are not currently in scope for day one of the dynamic framework. A question arises as to staff, but also what about the needs of service users currently receiving those services? 

Adam Hart: I would echo but not repeat the points that have been made. My understanding of the day one services is that they include employment, training, education, personal wellbeing and accommodation types of services. There is a reasonable spectrum with, hopefully, more to follow. We think we have a great deal to offer in all those spaces. That is of interest to us, but, as Suki articulated, there is a potential gap that we need to make sure is filled. Suki cited restorative justice. I would cite mentoring, specifically peer mentoring. 

Within my organisation—others do something similar—I now have over 40, either voluntary or employee, ex-service users. They have been on our case load and have shown a desire to come and work with us, and we have provided employment for those individuals. It is important because they are the ones with real lived experience. We place them in a peer mentoring programme. At the moment, we cannot position that anywhere in the framework or, indeed, potentially in the services that are going to the NPS. The dynamic framework has some very good aspects, but it would be even healthier if it could be widened a little bit further. 

Q47 Dr Mullan: Would you agree with me that there is perhaps a bit of tension? You currently have people working in this field and you currently hold those contracts. Then there will be a switchover, but probably ideally what would happen is that the people you are working with transition over time to a different provider. You are holding people that we might want to recruit directly in-house to deliver some of the stuff that you are doing at the moment. 

Trevor Shortt: There is no doubt that we are facing a challenge as we head into the end of these contracts for that reason. A number of our staff sit very comfortably in the new arrangements in the national service, but that does not capture everyone, particularly staff who fall into the dynamic framework arrangements where those services are not competed and settled this side of June. They face some uncertainty, and there may be disruption to service that we will need to manage as part of that. 

David Hood: Because it is an important point, I echo Trevor’s point. We need to resolve the position quickly in relation to those staff. Some of those staff are some of the best staff in the service, and the most capable. Losing them elsewhere would be a tragedy and not in anyone’s interest, where they decide that the uncertainty means they need to look elsewhere. 

Q48 Dr Mullan: I will move on and ask Suki in particular about how the changes to the model affect Wales. Obviously, the arrangements are different in Wales. 

Suki Binning: The Wales transfer of case management took place in December. The transition went quite smoothly. We had reservations that maybe post the transfer we might see a drop in referrals for programmes because we would have two organisations, but I am really pleased that that has not happened. The number of referrals for the behaviour change programmes has continued. 

We have a group of staff who were really motivated to take on the unpaid programmes work and be solely dedicated to do that, and they are quite disappointed now. In terms of the transfer, we were transferring case management which, on the whole, nationally is quite similar. There are only so many ways you can do case management of probation. Where we have differences is in how across the CRCs we deliver our unpaid work programmes, and we are transferring a very different thing. That is where it gets more complicated. 

Q49 Dr Mullan: Can I ask all of you about the impact of Covid-19 on the delivery of services? 

Adam Hart: Obviously, there is no getting away from the fact that there has been substantial impact on the service. I repeat a little bit of what I said earlier about the way people have managed to approach that. Organisations have stood up their best available people, plans and technology capabilities to rise to the challenge. What we are seeing now is the real impact of local lockdowns and the need to be incredibly flexible. We are literally monitoring the situation daily, if not hourly, to respond to that position. 

It is having a huge bearing on the way we operate. It is also of course increasing backlogs where they exist in the system. They exist in many places, so the pandemic is obviously a very long-lasting situation for all of us in the system. We are very mindful about how we hand that system back to the National Probation Service. We want it to be in the best possible space it can be. 

It is right to say that there have been some elements of the pandemic that have forced the system, and us as organisations, to react and respond slightly differently. There have been some benefits. I would cite the ability to work flexibly and remotely. Our capability has increased as a response to the pandemic. Also, some of what we do and how we do it has fundamentally shifted. It would be good if we did not lose that good-quality change, and if we embedded it in the new system. Overall, it is obviously a very significant and challenging time across the piece for us. 

Q50 Chair: Does anybody disagree or have anything to add? 

David Hood: I entirely agree. Adam has just made a good summary from our perspective. It would be remiss not to make the very clear and important point that heroic through this process have been the staff. Our staff have been quite remarkable in their adaptability, resilience and willingness to work together and with the Department to do something that is very different from what they are normally used to doing. I think we would all pay tribute to the staff within our organisations for that. They have been exceptional. 

Chair: Fair point. 

Q51 Rob Butler: I would like to talk, if I may, about some of the specifics of transition. I will pick up where Mr Hood left off in paying tribute to your staff. In my previous role as non-executive director of HMPPS, I met staff from all your companies, and was always incredibly impressed by their dedication, their commitment and their absolute determination to do the best by the service users. It is important that we do not lose sight of that when having discussions about the bigger picture. I am sure that view is shared by other members of the Committee. We would probably all wish you to pass on our thanks to them for working through an incredibly difficult period, not just because of Covid but because of the added uncertainty that the transition is creating for them, none of which has been brought on by themselves.

With that in mind, I am clear that they are working incredibly hard to try to hand over as effectively as they can. Some are going to move into the new unified model by next June. I would like to hear a little bit from each of you about how you see the transition going. If I may, I would like to start with Mr Hood, simply because I was in one of your hubs—the Bicester hub—a couple of weeks ago. It happens to deal with offenders from my constituency. I know there are particular concerns there about the case management system. Could you kick us off by talking through where you see us with transition, please? 

David Hood: Transition is incredibly difficult. If I can go back again to the points that Justin Russell made, he made the point that as with any transition of this dimension there are many moving parts. It is exceptionally complex. You are trying to take 21 CRCs, many of which have different operating models, and combine them with NPS regions. You are trying to deliver a dynamic framework and do all of it in the context of Covid, and within a period of less than a year. That is incredibly hard. 

The approach the Department is trying to take, as I understand it, is to do what they refer to as lift and shift and, rightly, try to deliver a new model with as little disruption on day one as possible. The reality is that, when you look at our CRCs, they are not delivering a lift and shift. The case management system is a good example, because it is a fundamental tool that our staff use. It is very different from what the NPS uses. It took us well over six months just to roll it out and train staff on that new tool. It sits within a suite of other technologies that support operations and are delivering operations in the context of reduced staff numbers over the years. Combining all those things together, we are presented with a very difficult proposition to get all of it working in June 2021. 

Q52 Rob Butler: Do you think there is any risk to public safety as a result of those difficulties? 

David Hood: In June 2021, if we have not effectively transitioned and we end up with something a bit chaotic, inevitably there must be some risk to public safety. The goal and the aim of all of us must be to make sure that that is not the case. That is certainly our goal. I acknowledge that it is also the Department’s goal, but they have really taken on a difficult task. 

Q53 Rob Butler: Do you feel that you have sufficient input to the Department to flag warnings when they are appropriate, and that they are being heeded? 

David Hood: Initially, when it started off, I think we were probably kept a little bit at arm’s length in terms of the planning. That has improved. We have a reasonable amount of input at the centre, and that seems to be increasing—necessarily so. At regional level, we have a lot of input in London and in the Thames Valley. Both those regions are served, I must say, exceptionally well by two very exceptional regional directors, who are very collaborative, as are their teams. That picture has improved, but it does not take away from the fact that this is an incredibly complex and challenging exercise. 

Q54 Rob Butler: Ms Binning, from your CRC’s perspective, how would you assess the process of transition? 

Suki Binning: Similarly to what David said. The timetable is very ambitious. It is not helped by the Covid situation. Locally, relationships with the regional transition boards are positive and very collaborative. That is all very good. I would, however, welcome a pause and a reflection on the timetable for transition in the light of Covid. 

Q55 Rob Butler: What would feel a more realistic timeframe to you? 

Suki Binning: I would look for a pause to look at where we are now and, in light of today’s news about further restrictions, take that into account and say, “Is June 2021 now a reasonable date to transfer?” The staff you have spoken about are very committed and are working very hard on making sure that we continue to provide a service that serves our communities, at the same time as doing the transition. I would like some time to have a look at that date and say, “Is that realistic now because of the pandemic?” 

Q56 Rob Butler: I infer from what you are suggesting that you do not think it is realistic. 

Suki Binning: I think it is really ambitious. It is putting a huge amount of stress on the operational delivery of services. 

Q57 Rob Butler: Mr Shortt, what is your assessment of the transition process, and would you share similar concerns to those we have already heard? 

Trevor Shortt: Yes, I share the concerns that have already been expressed. This is a complex transaction. We have the added complexities of Covid and the speed at which it is being done, all of which are stressors. Doubtless, there is a real will to deliver it both on this side and on the side of the Department. There is a huge amount of resource, time and energy going into that. 

As David said, at the beginning we felt perhaps a little distant from it. That position has improved at national and regional level. We also have some incredibly good regional directors across the NPS working with our own regional chief executives across some quite complex programme lines on the project to deliver it, but there is likely to be a chunk of outstanding work post transfer that will take some time to pack down and for the system to be performing again in the way we would all like it to be. 

Q58 Rob Butler: Mr Hart, do you want to add anything to what has been said about the generalities of transition planning? I would be particularly keen to hear your views on risks that are associated with it, and what you are doing to mitigate them. 

Adam Hart: I have a couple of points to add. First and foremost, it is right for me to say that I believe we have had very good engagement from the Department, especially over latter weeks and months. They are to be commended for the efforts that they are undertaking. It is a challenge. It is incredibly ambitious. I think that is recognised. 

It feels, however, that, because of that engagement, we are able to shine a spotlight on the areas of deficiency at this moment in time. We have to recognise that we are three months in, since the Lord Chancellor’s announcement. I would articulate that it perhaps does not quite feel like three months into a 12-month programme. I think we are still getting off the blocks. We need to expedite in order to safely deliver a transition in June 2021.

It feels like we are trying to do a 12 to 18-month programme in the remaining nine months. That would be my best descriptor. I say that because of the complexities of the programme itself, which is, effectively, taking 20 or 21 unique models and moving them into a unified model, whether that is technology, training requirements or staffing. The second reason I say that is that operating in the pandemic is, quite rightly, draining resources away to the frontline service that we need to provide and giving less management time to something as important as the successful transition. That can only heighten the risk. 

We are looking to mitigate as a CRC provider. I know that the MOJ is always seeking to mitigate risks, but for me those are the risks that we are currently facing. Having continued open and frank dialogue is a big risk mitigator. I am encouraged that that is there, but I think the way to best mitigate the risk is to slow things down a little bit and take stock. We should make sure that we have all the attributes of the system understood, known and planned for. We should have a single detailed plan. At the moment, we have a relatively high-level milestone-based plan. We need something of real rigour that sits underneath that milestone plan. I have no doubt that is being worked up, but, three months in, it would be good for all of us to be working to that. 

Another way of de-risking is to make sure we have clear dependencies between what is a donor recipient arrangement between the CRCs and the National Probation Service, and indeed the DF providers, and to understand the critical path to try to head off some of the risks that we have not even identified yet, because we do not have detailed analysis. If we could determine that critical path, we could head off quite a few of the risks of the future. I am sure some of those things will be available, hopefully in the near future. 

Some of them link to having a detailed target operating model for us all to share as the end state, the goal. As was mentioned in the previous evidence session, I do not believe that is due until early in the new year. Along with other materials, those are the types of things that will de-risk the approach and make it a success, which we all want, regardless of what our individual thoughts are about the good and the bad of undertaking the change. The change is going to happen; it needs to happen safely. 

Q59 Rob Butler: Briefly on that last point, do you share any of the concerns that Mr Hood expressed that there could potentially be a risk to public protection and public safety? Adam Hart: Given the statement that I just made, running what feels like a 12 to 18-month programme in a nine-month window has to heighten the risk to public safety. We are duty-bound to attempt to mitigate that. 

Q60 Rob Butler: Mr Shortt and Ms Binning, would you share those concerns? 

Suki Binning: Yes. The risks increase when you are trying to rush the transition through. 

Trevor Shortt: Any structural change brings its risks. I support what has been said, and we will obviously do everything we possibly can, together with the Department, to ensure that we mitigate those risks. 

Q61 Maria Eagle: You have all just expressed varying levels of concern about the risks of transition to the capability of the system and to public safety. Do you think there has been enough consideration of the needs of those who are being supervised by the system in the design of the new arrangements and the implementation of the transition? 

David Hood: I will leave one of those points to Suki. In terms of the transition, it feels to me that the best outcome for service users will be that the transition is carried out and completed smoothly, so that the services, as far as service users are concerned, feel very much the same moving from one to the other. 

That must be at risk if we are rushing a transition that is in danger on day one of being in a difficult position. It will inevitably therefore have an effect on the quality of service to service users. Coming back to the point made earlier, we need to be very careful that the transition is done effectively in the best interests of service users. 

Q62 Maria Eagle: Does anybody else want to come in on that point? 

Suki Binning: We have a service user council with representation from our service users, and they have been involved. We are also inviting the National Probation Service to seek representation from our service user council on the transition boards, which will ensure that they are part of the plans and can highlight concerns from a service user perspective. 

Adam Hart: Every major service I have ever run has always benefited from having service users in the design process. We are about to undertake a substantial change. To my knowledge, service users are not directly involved in the design of the future state solution. It is a little bit difficult because we do not have the TOM in the underlying plan to fully understand whether it is planned to engage with service users. I do not believe that service users across our communities have been engaged. I think that is one of the ways we will mitigate the residual risks. 

Where we have managed to engage with service users as groups and as communities, we have always taken stock and managed to improve services. Like Suki, we have something similar where we listen to the concerns and the positives that come from service users. We tailor our services on a regular basis. That would feel a totally appropriate thing to do. 

Trevor Shortt: I echo that. I do not think there has been, to my knowledge anyway, any input from service users in the overall design. However, we have service user councils, which are quite mature, running across all our services. Since the initial change in direction 12 months ago, when it was clear that CRCs were not going to be part of the landscape, we have been working quite closely with NPS regional directors as they have come into post to extend those service user arrangements and join them up, with User Voice as the VCS organisation sitting behind that and helping us to operate those services. 

I echo one other previous point. Critically in this transition, we want to ensure that some of the small bespoke and local arrangements that are of real benefit to service users are able to be picked up and carried on. 

Q63 Maria Eagle: How are the probation service users or offenders who are being managed by the system being supported during the transition? Are there plans in place? What are some of the risks, if any, associated with the transition for those who are being managed at present by your organisations and by the NPS separately? 

Trevor Shortt: Our expectation, which was set out by Justin Russell in evidence earlier this afternoon, is that, as case loads move, the staff working on those case loads move together with them. There should be a fundamental underpinning continuity that helps in the transition. As I said a moment ago, it is some of the other services that are placed in and around the interventions that we particularly need to secure. 

David Hood: Agreeing with Trevor’s point, I reiterate a point I made earlier. Continuity is critical. We know what our services and needs are. You can predict them looking forward. At the moment, many of those needs are met by the additional services that we receive and benefit from, delivered in particular by third sector providers. It is critical that those are available on day one of the new world. It is not clear to us that all of them will be either the type of service or the volume of service to meet the need. 

Adam Hart: The only thing I would add is that every CRC is relatively unique in its delivery model to some extent. In the CRCs in which we are involved, we have a model where approximately one in two, or one in three, of our staff are probation practitioners offering supervisory and other services. The other staff provide wrap-around services. Some provide interventions, but quite a lot provide services that do not readily appear in the user manual. Some of them are peer mentors or are in other services that we provide outside the norm. It is important in terms of the day one service in June 2021 to recognise that those wrap-around services are really important to the transition process itself, not only the safety of that process but the quality of the process. 

Q64 Andy Slaughter: I am reflecting on this discussion as we get towards the end of it. It has a bit of a feeling of after the Lord Mayor’s show about it. You are all concerned that there are risks in the transition or at least in the timetable for the transition. A lot of other people were concerned, including the Government, that it is a model that has not worked and that is why it is being abandoned after a short period of time. Whichever perspective you come from, it is a traumatic process and perhaps an unusual process for the public sector to go through. 

It affects the public and it affects users. I want to go back and look at staff again. As Mr Butler said, staff are at the heart of this. It is the quality of staff and the morale of staff that will deliver a decent service. Without being too personal about it, what is going to happen to all of you? Some of you come from a public sector background. Are you going back to that, or are you going to manage other parts of your private company’s organisation? What is happening to the senior management, and what is happening to the staff on the ground? 

Suki Binning: Senior managers and the staff will be transferred to wherever the work is going. If it is work that is going to the NPS—unpaid work programmes and case management—they will be on the list to transfer to the National Probation Service. If the work they do falls into the dynamic framework, they will move to those services. That includes staff across the spectrum. 

Q65 Andy Slaughter: I think you said you had a probation service background. Are you going back to that, or are you sticking with your company? 

Suki Binning: I will be on the list for transfer. What happens in the future, I do not yet know. 

Q66 Andy Slaughter: Does that go for the rest of you? I think some of you have more of a consultancy background, so I do not know where you are going. 

Trevor Shortt: The process of assignment is happening right now for the majority of our staff. There is, in all fairness, quite a degree of clarity for people who sit in very obvious places in the national system post June next year. There is less clarity for some of the parent organisation staff and some of what we call our back-office staff—that is inelegant; they are staff who look after things like finance, HR and other services. Finally, there is a group of staff who perhaps sit across different service areas. The balance of that is not quite clear yet in the new model. Some of them are disproportionately represented in the VCS partnerships we have. There is still some degree of uncertainty for a section of our staff, albeit with clarity for the majority. 

Q67 Andy Slaughter: That must add another layer of uncertainty on top of what must be a very traumatic period for the staff in any event. I do not know whether any other panellists want to comment on that, particularly with an eye to the fact that perhaps a high proportion of your staff will not have worked for the National Probation Service previously. For them, it will not be going back to something; it will be something fresh. How are you supporting them, and how is that transfer being managed? 

Adam Hart: We are very much at the start of that assignment process. It certainly has not completed yet. What we are already experiencing are probably more questions than the answers we are able to provide at this moment at time. Where that leads us is having very regular dialogue with our staff, who, in some respects, fall into at least two categories: those who have certainty about their future and those who do not. Those who do still have a huge number of questions that remain to be answered; hence my points about the target operating model and so on. That would immensely help with being able to answer those questions. The second group, however, are the people I and Mr Shortt mentioned in terms of the support service—the back-office staff. We are awaiting those responses as we speak. 

It is worth adding that various key senior members of staff have already started to transfer under agreement, where it is seen as appropriate to do so. I think that is the correct collaborative approach to take, but it applies more pressure to the CRCs in general, as we are now starting to lose quite senior managers to the NPS system, to allow the NPS to run their own programmes of change, because of course they are changing at the same time. That is a really important point. 

We have also undertaken quite a few secondments in both directions to look at how we embed some of the thinking from CRCs into NPS, and NPS into CRCs, so that we can learn rapidly. There is willingness to collaborate and demonstration of that fact. However, I do not think that gets us to the point of being able to answer everybody’s questions quite yet. It feels like we are a little way from knowing those answers just yet. 

David Hood: Echoing Adam’s point, there are a lot of opportunities for communication with staff and for staff to ask questions about the transition. Many of those opportunities are very collaborative. Last week, there was a joint session in London that involved the current MD of MTC and the London regional director. It involved CRC and NPS staff. It was focused very much on transition. The opportunities are there, but Adam is absolutely right: until we have answers to critical questions around where certain individuals will be placed and whether they have a role in the NPS, we are in a place where a lot of the answers to the questions that are being asked cannot be given. Therefore, the uncertainty cannot be addressed. The sooner we get to a place where it can be, then of course the better. 

This is obviously a staff business, and we have to make sure that they are retained and looked after. The history of the last few years has seen many experienced staff depart from probation. The challenge is how we stem that and, indeed, how we bring more experienced staff back into that world. Giving them clarity around the future will be critical to that. 

Q68 Andy Slaughter: If you are not getting answers to those questions at this stage, with only a matter of months to go, why is that happening and who are you not getting answers from? 

David Hood: The answers are not coming from the Department at the moment. That reflects where they are in their transition planning. We are about to enter a process of identifying those in the CRCs who will be assigned. That will take place over the coming months. As Adam said, we are expecting an answer on other staff very soon. We expect the answers to come soon. From my perspective, they cannot come soon enough, but they need to come from the Department as part of their planning process. 

Suki Binning: We have been working very closely with the regional probation directors on the transfer of staff, particularly from a cultural perspective. The staff in my CRCs are going from being employee owners to the civil service. We are conscious that on both sides that is going to be quite a significant change. We have been working very closely with the regional directors and having joint communications to make the transition, and ensuring that staff adapt to those changes. 

Q69 Andy Slaughter: I will end on this point. You are not quite as garrulous as a lot of the witnesses we have in front of us. 

Chair: That is a compliment. 

Andy Slaughter: It is a sort of compliment. I get the feeling that you all feel rather bruised by this experience, but also a little bit reticent. I do not know whether that is because you have to continue to negotiate the transition or because your companies have other contracts with Government, but I will give you a final chance. Our role is to report and send a message to the Ministry to say what we think has gone wrong and what still needs to be got right. Can you have a final go at saying what you think are the key mistakes and what still needs to be got right? 

Adam Hart: I would summarise it very succinctly: there is no contingency. To move forward with a programme as important as this and as sensitive towards public safety as this with no contingency is the area that needs to be looked at. 

There is no doubting that given sufficient time the risks can be mitigated, but I do not think that the nine months or so available is sufficient time to mitigate all of the risks to a highly satisfactory level. The simple comment I would make is to try to create that space and the contingency so that nothing feels rushed, and everything feels appropriately considered before action is taken. 

Chair: That is a fair observation. Thank you very much for your help and for your assistance. Although I appreciate that the circumstances cannot be easy for everybody, whatever one’s views of the policy decisions that were taken, I want to thank all of you for the work that you have done in relation to the sector. I hope you will pass that on to all your staff and your colleagues. We appreciate it. If we do not have more evidence from you, we wish all of you individually well and also those who work for you. I am very grateful to you for your time and for your evidence today.

Justice Committee Hears From CRCs

A few days ago we covered what HMI Justin Russell had to say to the Justice Select Committee. Here we have the first instalment of what the CRCs had to say and unsurprisingly they are not happy:- 

Q31 Chair: Let us move to our second panel, all of whom are appearing virtually for us. Lady and gentlemen, thank you very much for coming to help us and give evidence to us today. As there are four of you, I will ask you each to introduce yourselves. 

Suki Binning: I am Suki Binning, chief executive of the Seetec-run CRCs covering the south-west, Wales and the south-east. 

David Hood: I am David Hood. I am the vice-president of international business for MTC. I was the MD for MTC in the UK. We run London and Thames Valley CRCs. 

Chair: Yes. We met, I think, in the London context. 

David Hood: Yes, we did. 

Chair: It is nice to see you. 

Adam Hart: I am Adam Hart, the CEO of the Reducing Reoffending Partnership. We operate the two CRCs across the midlands. 

Trevor Shortt: I am Trevor Shortt. I run six of the CRCs in the east of England and across the north for Sodexo.

Q32 Chair: Thank you all very much for the introductions. Obviously, we saw from the things you said at the time that you were not best pleased when the decision was taken to end the probation delivery partnership contracts. How much of that do you think was a result of a bit of hard cheese sort of thing—“We lost these contracts. We have to defend our professional reputation”? Were you surprised when they were brought to an end? The decision was taken, rightly or wrongly. 

David Hood: I think that, yes, we were disappointed; there is no doubt about that. We had put in a lot of time and investment, and our staff had put a lot of time and investment into the work that happened over the last few years in the PDP competition. We thought we had something to offer the system going forward. 

Our primary concern now is that we are going to lose some of the innovations that were introduced over the last couple of years that have made a difference and helped the system. We also lose the prospect of the future innovation that would have come out of a mixed economy model, with private sector providers operating with the public sector. I think we lose that and it is not a good thing. For us, that was part of the disappointment. 

Q33 Chair: Can you give me an example of some of the innovations that you think might be lost? 

David Hood: From our perspective, I heard Justin Russell refer to our case management system, Omnia, which we introduced in MTC. We think that is a fundamental shift forward from the systems that are currently used in the NPS—nDelius and OASys. I agree with the point he was reflecting that was made by our staff. It is a backward step. For us, it is a fundamental tool in delivering the service, and that will be gone. 

Suki Binning: To echo some of what David said, when the decision was made to unify case management I and my staff understood the rationale behind that, particularly in light of the inspection reports that we had seen. We had also seen some very positive comments about the innovation in the CRCs in relation to behavioural change programmes. Yes, there is acknowledgment that the CRCs did not necessarily do as well on public protection, but certainly when it came to community payback programmes, my staff particularly were really enthusiastic about the probation delivery partners and the role that a mixed economy could take in probation. That was something that staff were really looking forward to. It was a significant disappointment that there was a U-turn on the probation delivery partners. 

In Wales, where we only deliver those services now, we did a poll survey the following day; 78% of staff said that they were really disappointed at the news. 

Trevor Shortt: I echo what has already been said. We were both surprised and disappointed by the decision, particularly coming just 12 months after the decision not to re-let the CRCs. Like Suki, we understood some of the backcloth to the initial decision, but our view on this was that it was a fairly uncontroversial outsourcing of some particular pieces of probation work that we had had, as CRCs, some direct experience of delivering over the past five years. 

On the second point, I echo what David said. It is ensuring that we do not lose some of the really good work that has been done over the past five years. We have somehow failed to grasp the breadth of that, particularly around the grassroots work that has been done in multidisciplinary and multi-agency ways at local level across the country. 

Q34 Chair: Mr Hart, what about you? 

Adam Hart: Incredibly disappointed is the best description, not least of all because I felt it very much played to the strengths that the CRCs have demonstrated, and indeed what the HMIP had called out as being in good shape for the most part across CRCs, or indeed excellent in some. I felt that that was the sweet spot; the PDP and the separation of case management was really playing to everybody’s strengths. We had invested a lot of time, energy and effort. Our staff are incredibly disappointed. Yes, we are incredibly disappointed with the outcome. 

Q35 Chair: What was the level of consultation you had? 

Adam Hart: I suggest that we had engagement as opposed to consultation. I think we were engaged pretty late down the line. Indeed, we were still very much turning up and participating in active procurement meetings the week before the announcements were set to be made. The disappointment came a little bit from that, but was also in terms of the engagement. It was not the very detailed suite of engagements that one might have expected would lead into consultation. It was very much an opportunity, almost singular in nature perhaps, to voice our thoughts around that eventuality, should it happen. Subsequently, it has happened. 

Q36 Chair: Are there any other views, or is it a similar picture for everybody? When the Secretary of State made the announcement, he appeared to be framing it quite substantially in terms of the disruption caused by Covid19 making delivery of the plans more complex, so they needed flexibility to deliver a national response. To what extent do you think that Covid-19 was a driver, or did it go deeper? 

Suki Binning: That is a question I am regularly asked by my staff: “Suki, can you explain how the decision was made?” I struggle to give a narrative to staff around the role that Covid played. What we would have thought would be ideal would be a period of stability, where those who are providing services at the moment—particularly around unpaid work programmes—continue to do that. We are now under huge pressure to deliver a transition plan with the backdrop of a pandemic. That is quite difficult for us.

David Hood: I echo Suki’s point. It is a question that often gets asked. I would have thought, and many of the people who work with me think, that the best situation in the Covid environment—probably emphasised by today’s announcements—is to try to keep things in all other respects as consistent as possible. If we accept the principle that the service moves back, let’s give ourselves enough time to make sure that that is done safely. 

Q37 Andy Slaughter: Could I pursue that point? You have been very frank, both in the comments that your companies made when the announcement was made and indeed in your comments to the Chair just now, which is refreshing. On the Covid point, the logic, if the Secretary of State were right, and the reason you have been excised from the services is that you could not cope effectively with a crisis, that would not say very much about your competence generally. If you disagree with that reason given for the change of service, why do you think the change has been made? 

David Hood: Probably the simple answer is that I am not sure. At the time the announcement was made, that was the explanation given. We have not been given any other explanation. At the time the announcement was made—this was partly reflected in some of Justin Russell’s comments—we were working exceptionally well with the Department to deal with the Covid circumstances. 

In very rapid time, we had deployed a new operating model. That was done with exceptional collaboration across the system and with the Department. We have continued to be flexible in meeting the needs and the demands of the current environment and the customer, the Ministry of Justice, as we have gone on. I am not sure why they would have thought that we could not deal with the Covid circumstances because, demonstrably, we were dealing with the Covid circumstances. 

Q38 Andy Slaughter: Could I ask the others to comment as well, because it is a crucial point? Either the Secretary of State is right and you were not up to coping with running the service during a time of crisis, or he is wrong, in which case there must be another reason. Which is it, and what is the answer? It cannot be that you do not know. 

Adam Hart: The first three months of the Covid crisis were very telling, in the fact that I think we rose to the challenge incredibly well. We spun on a sixpence in terms of the continuity arrangements that we had ready to go. I think the data bears out the performance across the CRCs, which was just slightly ahead of the NPS’s own performance when it came to the offender management contacts that we were able to continue with. I think in Mr Russell’s statements he was giving figures of 75% and 80% of contacts being retained, which is a pretty high figure in the very early period. 

I can only say that I think it is a question for the Secretary of State, but from my vantage point, running a couple of the CRCs in the system, we responded incredibly well in a very collaborative space. HMPPS and NPS were incredibly collaborative in those first few months as well. I believe it worked very well. I cite it as a very good example of co-operation and good working practice. 

Trevor Shortt: I won’t repeat what has already been said; I agree with both the previous witnesses. The only other comment I would make is that there is some rationale in the decision around the issue of volumes playing into the future competition. Our view as an organisation is that those volumes could have been dealt with commercially, but it was a risk in relation to Covid. That was something new and needed to be factored into the competition. 

Q39 Andy Slaughter: We seem to agree that Covid is an excuse perhaps for the reason for taking the services back in-house. Surely, it must be that the current Government formed the view that this was not a model that was working, which was a lot of people’s view at the time the experiment was set up. There is nothing inherently good or bad about a mixed economy model, but a lot of people had concerns that the probation service had moved over to that model. That now appears to be a concern that the current Government share. 

I can understand that you would not share that, but what do you think of the new model? What do you think is the future for any private sector role in the probation service?

Adam Hart: I do not agree with that particular side of the jigsaw. However, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the significant challenges in the first few years of the CRCs; we did not get everything right. 

The biggest frustration that we have, and my teams have, is that a lot of those things have been corrected, including by the Ministry of Justice in terms of the funding parameters. There is demonstrable improvement. Again, I cite the HMIP reports that came out over the last six months. They have seen an improving trajectory, with some CRCs moving from a lower rating to a good rating, and the overall score actually increasing. There is a little frustration that we have bedded in a system and overcome immense challenges. The MOJ recognised the structural underfunding and addressed that from December this year. We have seen improvements across CRCs. There is much more work to go, but that is what I would like to start us off with, if I may, because that is the backdrop that I see. 

In moving that forward into the future, it is important to take stock of all the challenges and innovations that have been overcome and embedded in the CRC structure and system. We are potentially in danger of losing all that good groundwork. I invite others to come in on that. 

Suki Binning: With regard to the new model, we have spoken about the strengths of the mixed market in terms of unpaid work. The other issue we had was that the first set of reforms, which I was party to, having worked in the public sector for two decades, was rushed. It again appears that we are rushing into another set of reforms without taking the time to look at alternative models. 

We had a moment in time when, as a system, we could have looked at alternative models that were best for those serving custodial sentences and community orders, and linking into local governance such as PCCs. I think that was a missed opportunity. I do not think we took the time to look at alternative models. We reacted to the issues with the current contracts and put in a solution too quickly. 

Q40 Andy Slaughter: For those of you who came from a public sector background—I suspect many of the Members here have had dealings with their local probation services over many years—there was no real demand, I felt, coming from within the probation service that the solution was to externalise, privatise or introduce a mixed economy. Do you think with hindsight that that was done in the wrong way or too hastily? Again, a number of us have had involvement with your private organisations in other roles, which have not been entirely successful. What would you say was wrong about that, and what would you do differently? 

Suki Binning: On the original reforms, we have rehearsed that the issues were around funding and volumes. Justin mentioned that as well. 

Q41 Andy Slaughter: But, to interrupt, you knew about the funding situation. It is all right with hindsight to say that it was because the funding was wrong, but you knew about that at the time. 

Suki Binning: But having been in the public sector for 20 years, what we thought worked really well was the mixed economy and having an approach that brought in innovation. Certainly, I saw investment from my parent company in terms of IT, estates strategy and the ability to respond very quickly to local needs. For instance, when my local criminal justice board and my police forces started to see a rise in stalking offences, we put in place a programme, which was the first of its kind in the UK, to deal with stalking. We were able to do that because we were fleet of foot. For me, those were some of the advantages of moving from the public sector to the mixed economy sector. 

Q42 Richard Burgon: I have two questions. First of all, I want to turn to some comments made by the former chief inspector of probation, who concluded in 2019 that the model for the part-privatisation of probation was, in her words, “irredeemably flawed”. She also identified, crucially, that it was not possible to reduce probation work to a series of contractual requirements. 

I would like to ask each member of the panel whether you agree with this assessment or do you think that the previous chief inspector got it wrong?

David Hood: On the first point, the point that Justin Russell made in his evidence is important: the expectation around the level of investment available through the period of the contracts was significantly greater than turned out to be the case. If the expectation had been met, I think we would have seen very different outcomes from the model. As we got towards the back end of the contracts, the improvements as things became more stable reflect that fact. We cannot underplay the significance of the commercial and funding environment. 

On whether you can reduce these types of services to contracts, I would accept that there are challenges around that. You need to work hard at it, but it is possible. In London, for example, we came to arrangements with the Department around delivering our services according to a series of quality metrics that were not reflected in the original contract. That was in the end us taking a position that said the Department was going to have to make some inevitably subjective judgments around what quality meant. We were prepared to accept that, because we all felt that in the end we could get to the same place on what good looked like. I accept that it is difficult, but I do not accept that it is impossible. 

Adam Hart: I will not repeat what David said, but I echo it. There was the benefit of knowing the levels of improvement within the CRCs, as indicated from subsequent HMIP reports, and the addressing of the funding model and indeed the additional funding that has gone into enhanced through-the-gate services, among other services. I am not sure all of that was prevalent at the time the report was written, so with the benefit of hindsight perhaps some of those factors would be included in the report. 

In terms of the contracts, measurement of a real-life situation is always difficult to contractualise. I and others have seen successful implementations of that pan-Government, in many of the Government Departments that have managed to do something not too dissimilar. It takes a great deal of trust and flexibility on both the commissioner and the provider parts to come up with the right types of measures, especially around quality, to be able to suggest that it can be measured, and that outcomes can equally be measured, as well as quality. 

I think it is possible to place relevant measures in a contractual setting that works and gives the public the protection requirement, first and foremost. It requires an amount of energy and an amount of rehabilitative activity towards an individual. I believe that both can be achieved through a contract. 

Q43 Richard Burgon: Secondly, I obviously understand that people from CRCs are going to defend their organisations. It is part of their remit as part of those organisations. We need to be clear that the Government were forced into the embarrassing U-turn to bring probation back into public hands after the part-privatisation was found to have left the public less safe. It also racked up hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of public money in bail-outs to the outsourced companies. What are you doing to ensure that the public are not further ripped off or endangered before this part-privatisation, which has been a disaster, is finally brought to an end? 

Chair: Who wants to respond to that? You do not have to agree with all the propositions. 

Suki Binning: When the south-west and Wales CRCs went into administration, the Department undertook a process to look at what would be the best way to ensure that services did not fall down. I understand that proposals were put in by the public sector and by us as a current provider. The decision was made for us as an organisation to step into those areas and provide a service. 

We have stabilised the service in Wales and the south-west. I have spoken with the staff who have gone through that process and can now start to see that we are protecting the public. We have invested resources to bring the organisation back to a steady state. We have definitely played our part in protecting the public and giving taxpayers value for money. 

David Hood: On the second point, we are committed to make sure that services are transferred back in a safe way. In the meantime, we will continue to ensure that they are delivered as best they can be. 

On the first point, it is not quite right to characterise what the Department did as in all respects a bail-out. What I am talking about is separate from the Working Links situation. What the Department did over recent years was to make sensible adjustments to the contract and in doing so was able to return some of the expected funding back to the service. That is part of the reason why, as we move towards the end of the contracts, the environment has been more stable; there has been an ability for us to plan financially year on year in a way that we had not been able to do previously. 

Q44 Chair: Mr Hart, do you want to add anything? 

Adam Hart: It is very much akin to what David Hood was saying. The proof of the pudding is in the fact that there was a very substantial underspend when it came to the services that were originally procured for the CRCs. That would intimate to me that there has not been a mass bailout. I do not recognise bail-out, so I would like to say for the record that I do not believe we have received any bail-out. We have managed to adjust to a system that now has the potential to work. The previous system did not in terms of its funding mechanisms. 

Trevor Shortt: I echo what the others have said. The structural underfunding at the beginning was a critical factor in where we got to mid-term. It is worth saying that the cost of a CRC place is significantly less than a place in the NPS. As we look to the future, that will be levelled up. 

The issue now, as David said, is that as we look to the future we can ensure that our services are handed across in a way that ensures the confidence of the public on the one hand, critically, but also that we do not lose some of the really good work that has been going on, in the rapid transition that we are now facing against the context of the uncertainty of Covid.

To be continued