It's what they don't tell you

Out on the stump

I have always thought that the best part of the job as an employee of a trade union is being able to get out and engage with members who pay your wages and are having to face the harsh realities of life at the front face. In all my long years in the trade union world I have never shirked that challenge and will stand my and Napo’s corner anywhere and anytime. I look forward to visiting Lancaster tomorrow for the inaugural Cumbria/ Lancashire AGM to add to my recent visits to members from London and Kent/Surrey/Sussex.

My philosophy is pretty simple: we, and that means The General Secretary, Napo Officers and Napo Officials are rightly accountable to our members, but I know that we would like to see as many of you as possible attending Branch meetings so that we can speak with you face to face, openly and honestly, listen to your concerns and let you know what we have been and are doing on your behalf. Please consider attending your Napo branch meetings, even in the world of e- communication and social media, they remain a major cornerstone of what Napo is about.  

The questions that we are asking

Below is a summary of a number of questions that we have sent across to Noms/Moj  which Napo will be raising at tomorrow’s meeting of the TR Consultative Forum. They were pulled together by Mike McClelland following feedback from the Regions at this week’s Napo Officers and Officials meeting. I have reproduced them to show yet again that your issues and concerns are regularly being tabled at the highest levels:

Dear……

Napo requests the following issues for inclusion in Thursdays agenda:

1. Workloads - kind of covered by the item on Workload Prioritisation etc - nevertheless, rapidly becoming a No.1 concern for our members.

2. Training - another No.1 concern. We would like an update on the current state of play re PQF. Moreover, since the current contract is due for renewal in 2016 (when in 2016 please?) and the procurement process is likely to take the best part of a year, we would like the Review to start now and we, the unions would wish to be a part of that review as key stakeholders.

3. Update required on procurement process - dates for ITT etc

4. We believe Sentinel are prime bidders in at least 3 CRCs. This would be the same Sentinel who have set up Offender Funded Probation Services in at least 3 US states - Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia and who have been the subject of a Human Rights Watch report? We would seek your absolute assurance, in writing, that Offender funded probation Services will NEVER be allowed to operate in England and Wales.

5. Communicating with members in the NPS - Group emails - possible? Also communicating with CEOs and D/Ds - see recent email correspondence.

6. HMIP have recently provided a Ministerial briefing on workloads. We would like to request a copy. Anticipating that you will say that Ministerial briefings are not released, we would ask why that would be in this instance and we would ask you to consider this as an FOI request if needs be.

7. Official travel in the NPS - (small but important) it has been brought to our attention that, presumably using Redfearn On-line, staff have to use their own credit card details to access the service. Is this correct? If so, it is unacceptable practice. Early experience of the service is very poor.

8. Mainstreaming consultation - can we have a discussion about when and what elements of our consultation should now be mainstreamed and to where? PCF?

9. NPS Secondments & Shared Services (again hopefully small but important) - it has been brought to our attention that some seconded staff have not been initiated into the finer points of Shared Services - probably because they don't have Probation email addresses. I hope they're all going to get paid at the end of the month. Is a reminder to local management an idea?

10. Length of service not showing on Phoenix - again small but important to staff. Why is this seemingly not possible.

11.Clinical supervision - I raised this some weeks ago with Jac Broughton. Now she is leaving, she is referring me on to Christine Straw. What are her contact details and can we discuss in TRCF anyway?

12. Archive material - not offender records but 'stuff' held by trusts up to 31 May. Can we have a discussion about its future. We would be concerned if we thought Probation's heritage was destined for a skip.

And finally: We have posited this (not really for discussion but to express our concern and disappointment)  as we receive emails like this every day from members:
 

(Anonymised)
"... The TR changes have returned me to the anxious and depressed state you may recall I was in 2010 after .......

I have worked for xx Trust  for yy years which I believe makes me the longest serving officer in the county. However, I have never been closer to resigning than I am now. 

In terms of compulsory changes to our unit, the Crown Court Probation Officers are being asked to take on 2 PSRs each and every day (an increase of 70%) in addition to trying to provide court cover to support our two PSO colleagues who will otherwise be covering 10 courts over three sites on their own (xxx  ). On our busiest days (Thursdays and Fridays) we have previously needed six staff members to cover the court workload alone so the new arrangements of 2 PSOs entails a staff decrease of more than 50% which, on busy days, will make their tasks impossible. There is, as yet, no provision for sickness or leave cover. There is no allowance for the quality of reports expected by the Judiciary, nor the fact that Crown Court reports are often of greater complexity and seriousness than lower court ones and that report preparation now involves additional assessments for allocation purposes. My real concern is that the 2.5 hours allocated for Crown Court PSRs will result in abbreviated assessments and corner-cutting in terms of other checks and interagency liaison.  The lack of court duty staff risks jury verdicts, PSR requests and other sentences being missed or incorrectly gathered with knock on consequences for offender managers, the smooth running of the courts and the excellent reputation this team has worked so hard to establish.

Our Admin team has recently been cut with the termination of two temporary contracts leaving our administrator alone to do all the traditional Admin tasks as well as new ones.  The team has faced most if not all of these changes and challenges, unsupported by management following Anons  departure not long into the New Year.  We are being told to do things differently but have so far received little guidance on how to facilitate changes. There has been no formal liaison with the judiciary to provide information on TR and how it will impact on the probation team. All of our health is suffering and I have recently had to admit defeat and take anti-depressant medication in the hope it gives me the mental attitude to survive in the job which I have loved for so many years but no longer recognise. I know others are experiencing similar difficulties but thought it would be worth sending you a perspective from the Crown Court. "

(We added:  Standard PSRs (as should be provided in Crown Court in most cases) were timed at 6hours 40 mins under SBC if memory serves.

Helluva way to treat staff

Helluva way to run a public service

Helluva way to dispense justice

The answers we still don’t get

On 16^th May I wrote to the Secretary of State about the lack of information on ‘Testgates’ 1,2 and 3. Here is the predictable (let’s stall for more time and hope they go away) reply from the usual source:

Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr Lawrence,

Thank you for your letter of 16 May, in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

Napo would like to request full details of the results of Test Gates 1-3 insofar as they provide:-

       - an assessment of the Trusts' implementation of the new operational processes;

       - identification of any areas where action or contingency plans are needed;

       - an in-depth understanding of the risk profile for the Department; and

       - an assessment of business readiness for 1 June 2014

We are particularly interested in the level of preparedness of multi-trust areas, ICT issues and pay, allowances and other HR data for those transferring to the NPS. Finally we are interested in information relating to staff allocation against predicted caseloads/workloads

Additionally, we request a copy of the terms of contracts upon which expressions of interest have been requested of bidders for each of the CRCs.

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I can confirm that the department holds the information you have asked for, and it may be subject to a qualified exemption.

In this case, the information you are seeking is exempt under Section 36(2)(b)(i), Section 36(2)(b)(ii) and Section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as it relates to the free and frank provision of advice; free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and the prejudice, or potential prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs.

In line with the terms of this exemption in the Freedom of Information Act, we have to consider whether it would be in the public interest for us to provide you with the information requested despite the exemption being applicable. However, we have not yet reached a decision on the balance of the public interest in this case.

Under Section 10(3) of the Act, we are able to extend the statutory time limit of 20 working days where the information held is exempt under a qualified exemption, and we require more time to consider the balance of the public interest when deciding whether to disclose the information or not.

I consider that it will take an additional 20 working days in order to reach a decision on where the balance of the public interest lies and we plan to provide you with a response by 11 July.

You can find out more about Section 10(3) by reading the extract from the Act and some guidance points we consider when applying this exemption, attached at the end of this letter.

You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act (available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/10) and further guidance http://www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/foi-guidance-for-practitioners/exemptions-guidance/foi-exemptions-public-interest. 

You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details of how you can do so are set out below.

Yours sincerely etc

It beggars belief (yet again) again, and I wait with baited breath as to what will emerge in 20 day’s time. We will be in touch with our contacts on the PAC and Justice Committee. 

Justice Unions and Parliamentary Friends

On my way to Brighton shortly to speak at the Unison 2014 Conference Fringe: ‘Public Services not  Private Profit’, but just time to quickly report that that we had a really positive meeting of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group this morning which was also attended by Labour Shadow Minister Jenny Chapman, who, alongside our friends and stalwarts such as John McDonnell and Elfyn Llwyd, have promised to do all that they can to help us keep up the pressure on the Government and Senior Civil Servants about the TR disaster.

Another Early Day Motion has been submitted this week and we have agreed a number of steps that we hope will help to secure a backbench debate before the summer recess and we will be providing another comprehensive briefing for the Justice Committee. This will include the empirical evidence that you are continuing to send us via the campaigns@napo.org.uk inbox. Keep it coming and make sure your MP understands what is happening out there.

Judicial Review

Another pre-protocol letter has been submitted to the Secretary of State and we will be reporting the outcomes from the reply to the NEC and Members as soon as we are able to. As the NEC appreciated at its last meeting, and I have ciontinually reported to members, this is a complicated and high risk route, but one that we intend to exhaust if it becomes clear that the chances of succeeding with a legal intervention are favourable.We will also be speaking with the other unions to see if they will join the party if this turns out to be the case. 

That’s another decision for another day but I wanted to let you know that the issue is still ‘live’.

More next week.