It is well known that the wheels of power often move very slowly, but it was encouraging to see a response to a submission that Napo made to Margaret Hodge, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee last year.
Margaret's reply is available here. It seems that the excellent analysis by our old friend and world's leading expert on the effects of tagging, Professor Mike Nellis, and our concerns around cost and an overreliance on it by the MoJ (as opposed to traditional methods of supervision for probation clients) have struck a chord. We are told that the central cost estimates for these contracts has drastically reduced from the early forecasts and that (here's the rub) the scheme is really a pilot which will be measured against effectiveness. Shame that such an altruistic approach wasn't adopted by the MoJ prior to the imposition of TR.
As you might expect, we will be comparing notes with the learned Professor to see where we might go from here.
Exclusion on Personnel on Grounds of Misconduct (PI 60/14)
A bit of a spat going on behind the scenes with NOMS and ourselves over this pretty important instruction which we contend has failed to go through the proper vetting process. This is supreme irony in action as PI 60/14 is all about what happens to practitioners who fall foul of said process.
Mike McClelland is leading the charge here for us and a summarised version of our principle objections is broadly as follows.
It would appear that the PI has been before the high level OPG and has been authorised for issue, despite the fact that established process (including consultation) has not been followed. Napo have queried how this came to pass and up to now no satisfactory response has been received. It is now unclear as to whether it remains extant as a PI or whether it has been withdrawn - since it has been removed from the MoJ website. It therefore remains unclear as to the point of this consultation - will account be taken of comments made here or not?
The PI is based on previously extant PSIs (more regurgitated prison centric material) which have been transposed in a very confusing way. The front sheet, in summary, says it applies only to NDE (non directly employed ) staff. Originally for use in prisons, it is now extended to NPS HQ and Divisional offices – whatever they are. In the body of the document, it spends a lot of time talking not only about NDE staff but also about public sector employees and CRC staff.
One other suggestion we have made (in addition to the one that says it is a 'dogs breakfast' and ought to be withdrawn asap) is that the PI and the PSI should be split and issued separately. It is accepted that this might create some new difficulties whilst at the same time solving much of the confusion. We have highlighted over 50 specific points of uncertainty and confusion and remain concerned that unless this PI is thoroughly overhauled, it will place unnecessary burdens on those seeking to implement it.
Someone high up the food chain needs to get a grip on this abject chaos before innocent people suffer.
Cafcass an important sentinel against Child Abuse
It was good to see a blog posting in the Cafcass Newsletter last week where Chief Executive Anthony Douglas succinctly spelt out the advantages of earlier intervention and liaison between the public agencies in the prevention of child abuse, especially in the wake of the Rotherham enquiry.
Perhaps we have all too easily become conditioned to seeing the impact of the austerity agenda in terms of peoples’ wages, the failure of so many small businesses, and the constant mantra from the Tories that they are merely putting the economy right because Labour 'blew it' last time out. This conveniently omits the fact that it was Gordon Brown who engineered a rescue for the UK fiscal system prior to the last election in what was the biggest global recession since the 1920's.
Austerity means reductions in the provision of, and closures to, local community centres. Austerity means large numbers of bored young people, hanging around parks, malls and with easy access to cheap booze. It means exposure to those predatory adults who indulge in abuse. Even if that’s part of a wider circle as happened in Rotherham and is undoubtedly happening in a town or a home somewhere near you, then the 'offer', as Anthony points out, is still more attractive than the protections which the state might be able to provide.
Click here for Cafcass website blog link
So who should really go to jail?
Claiming an uplift in the economy is one thing, but neglecting the real social issues of the day including child abuse is nothing short of criminal. While this week the Prime Minister and other grandees were threatening to jail teachers and social work practitioners for negligence on this issue, politicians responsible for the draconian cuts in provision that weaken the defences against child abuse will walk around with impunity. It's pathetic; it really is.
Workforce stats from the MOJ
Hardly a day goes by without the release of some statistics by the Government Information Office and in the last seven days we have had a plethora of them. Perhaps there is a general election in the offing?
Anyway, here are the latest figures for workforce numbers within the Community Rehabilitation Companies and NOMS which you may not have seen unless you are subscribed to the email alert system. In the case of the CRC data this will be the last that is centrally produced as it will be the responsibility of the CRCs to collate and distribute their information.
Enjoy.
Workforce stats 1 - click here
Workforce stats 2 - click here
Problems over LGPS contributions from the employer
Probation unions were alerted to some difficulties here a few weeks back relating to the incorrect recording of actual hours worked by employees by the Greater Manchester LGPS. Here is a stock reply that I have been copied into showing the solution that is going to be adopted by the employers. Members are asked to keep your reps and link Officials and Officers posted if there are recurring difficulties here.
'Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Following receipt of your email I asked HR and Finance colleagues to look into this, and I can assure you that employer contributions have continued to be paid on pensionable pay rather than hours, so there is not a concern in terms of reduced contributions. Nevertheless quite rightly we would want hours to be recorded correctly and will be happy to work with GMPF to resolve this for any staff members who have a concern and need action to be taken to address any discrepancies.
It has come to our attention that some concerns raised may be as a result of the example contained within the pension booklet which is based on part time hours and is not as clearly marked as it might be as an example only. To address this for all staff members we will be issuing a note to provide the above assurance, and to invite contact from anyone who may believe their hours are recorded incorrectly. It would be good to work together to resolve any anxieties and for the note shared to also be sent out at a local level by your representative.'
- ilawrence@napo.org.uk's blog
- Log in or register to post comments