RAR set to roar! Or not as the case may be

A hugely testing week for us as usual but one that has caused us to put considerable pressure on MOJ/NOMS about the introduction of the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, which is a feature of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014.

This, along with the much vaunted ‘Through the Gate’ (TTG) provision, were central tenets of Graylings TR reforms, and now that the share sale looks set to go ahead on 1^st February, everyone is expecting to see the implementation of these new sentencing options.

Err...except that not everyone has the first idea about them apparently, as we discovered at a recent meeting of the Probation Consultative Forum, the place where we look at the practical and operational aspects of the enactment of TR.

We have subsequently raised the issues contained in my letter below to Permanent Secretary Ursula Brennan, at yesterdays TR Consultative Forum, (probably the last one, but they will miss us more) to be told that it is not such a big deal.

We will see; but this development is already starting to attract interest from Parliamentarians and the media. Meanwhile, please forward any views on this through your Branch reps who should in turn send them on to the campaigns@napo.org.uk inbox.

IL/AV 03-15

Ursula Brennan

Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Justice

23rd January 2015

Dear Permanent Secretary,

REHABILITATION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENT

Last Friday, we had a meeting of the Probation Consultative Forum (NOMS/NPS and the unions). This is a regular meeting chaired by Colin Allars at which we raised the issue of the implementation of the two new significant sentencing elements, namely a new Community Order requirement known as the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement which replaces the existing Supervision Requirement. It is very different and in essence is aimed at freeing up the way the new (outsourced) CRC's provide supervision. 

The other new sentencing element is that which effectively introduces post-custody supervision for those sentenced to less than 12 months in custody. 

Both of these provisions are scheduled to come into force on the 1st February. As at last week a Commencement Order has yet to be laid and we were told that you in your role as Permanent Under-Secretary will decide, in effect, whether the Department are ready to go with this regime sometime between now and 1^st February. 

It appears to us that these provisions are not ready to run but that the MOJ are under pressure to meet this deadline because the Department have always insisted that the plan was on track; indeed the Departments own evidence to the High Court to this effect said this in support of the rebuttal of Napo’s JR application. 

Given the above we are obliged to make the following observations:

• Despite being told by Colin Allars at the PCF that training for magistrates and judges was 'under way' we are deeply sceptical of this being so. One of our members at the meeting on Friday p.m., who is also a magistrate, certainly had not received any training.

• We were assured that the IT (case management systems etc.) were ready to record these new ‘orders of the court’. Again we cannot prove that this is not so, but again we are deeply sceptical.

• These new ‘orders of the court’ also require some actual paperwork (forms) to be available in courts. Has this been implemented? 

• It is evident from preliminary discussions with some of the new CRC owners that they do not have a clue about how these new provisions will operate.

• What we are certain about is that Probation staff (both NPS & CRCs) are not ready to operate these new provisions, nor are the (NPS) ready to propose them in reports to the Court; this latter point is very important since this could all happen in courts around the country on February 2^nd – offences having been committed the day before – the first day when the new provisions would be applicable to offences committed. 

• At last Friday's PCF we were told the training guidance was still ‘being finalised’. We are aware that training is planned but there is no way that all staff around the country will be trained before February 2^nd. What we believe will happen, from the 2^nd onwards, and increasingly as that week progresses, is that perplexed sentencers and court clerks (presupposing they have had any training in the RAR) will look to Probation for advice over these provisions and Probation staff may well be unable to offer assistance. As you might have expected, we registered our concern that implementation on February 1^st of these provisions would be highly risky and likely to cause chaos. This was duly noted but we now wait to see what will happen next. we raised this issue in general terms at yesterday's meeting of the TRCF but were assured that everything was in hand.

NAPO believes that the sensible thing to do would be to delay commencement, probably until May 1^st, to co-ordinate with the CRC's contractual requirement to have started responsibility for 'Through The Gate' (TTG) provision.  Despite the assurances received we have yet to see confirmation that the necessary supportive steps (training and availability of resources) have been put in place. Strong anecdotal evidence reaching Napo contradicts the assurances given.

As always I remain available for an urgent discussion or a meeting with you to further articulate our concerns.

Yours sincerely,

IAN LAWRENCE

General Secretary

NOMS draft diversity plan - great words but it’s time to deliver

A somewhat more constructive exchange at the PCF than the one that took place on RAR came in the form of a presentation by NOMS of their draft diversity plan.

I will be asking our Equality and Diversity lead Ranjit Singh to co-ordinate our response but below is a summary of the stated aims of the plan.

‘Any new organization brings with it the potential to learn from and refresh earlier ways of working and ensure that responsibilities are discharged in the most economical yet effective way. By embedding equality into the fabric of the NPS and working alongside our custodial colleagues, we will deliver the benefits of responding to a diverse cohort of offenders engaged in change. At the same time we will foster an inclusive workforce, as part of the wider NOMS and Civil Service staff group, in which everyone can realise their potential. These are positive, realistic intentions that we look forward to working with all NPS staff, with colleagues in NOMS, and with external stakeholders, to achieve.’

Clear, concise, objective and hard to disagree with really, except that I have insisted that the Trade Unions are included as stakeholders. I am hopeful that we can offer some constructive suggestions to help make this all work but NOMS could create a more conducive background to the engagement process by thinking again about their proposals to wind up the NOMS Staff Associations and signal some early practical steps that will encourage the development of a more diverse workforce than the one that exists now.

Outsourcing of Probation Service work – gender and union effects

In BR04/15 Sarah Friday and I informed you that the Napo Officer and Officials group have agreed the go-ahead for the above project which will be led by academics from Queen Mary, University of London. It will look at the gender and union effects of the staff split, Transforming Rehabilitation and the union re-structure.

If you have not had sight of it here are the details of the project. The research will be undertaken by Professor Gill Kirton BA MA PhD, Professor of Employment Relations, Queen Mary University and her colleague, Cecille Guillaume. As many members will know, Gill has previously undertaken some excellent work with Napo on the Women in Napo (WIN) initiative.

Gill’s published work includes a focus on the roles and activities of women within trade unions; gender and race equality in employment and organisational and diversity management. Cecille Guillaume is a French researcher, currently based at Queen Mary University as a Marie Curie research fellow. For the past 15 years Cecille has worked on the issue of French trade unions and employment relations and previously worked as a union officer for a major French union. Her work in the UK includes a comparative project on women and trade unions in British and French trade unions.

The project will run for roughly a year. Napo is not funding this research, but we will seek to provide access to members and information. The first phase will be interviews with Napo Officers and Officials, gathering information, and contacting branches, initially interviewing Chairs or Convenors before doing more in depth work with those branches that can accommodate them. This would involve interviewing activists, holding roundtable discussions and if possible attending branch or workplace meetings.

The aim will be to interview at least one person in each branch but time constraints will not allow for in depth work in each branch. Later in the year, Gill and Cecille will design and carry out an online membership survey. They will also speak at the Women in Napo conference in June and will aim to have some preliminary findings (at least) by October to present to Napo at the AGM.

This is a valuable opportunity for Napo; we believe that we will be able to benefit from this research at a time when the focus is on organising Napo in both the NPS and CRC’s. The results will therefore be helpful to us in terms of our campaigns to recruit, organise and encourage activity among our members. The research will also be of interest to other trade unions that experience outsourcing and privatisation and we should be proud to be involved with something that will be as important to us as a movement.

I hope that if you are contacted you will feel able to assist with the research, by being interviewed, attending a roundtable discussion or by completing the survey.