We are still here

TV and media appearances are part and parcel of a General Secretary's job spec. Departing at 6:00am on a freezing snow bound Sunday morning from Kent to Broadcasting House for my appointment with Breakfast TV, a round trip of nearly three hours (courtesy of the BBC), leaves a good deal of time for reflection.

The commencement of the Offender Rehabilitation Act featured prominently in the BBC schedules yesterday morning as well as some of the quality press, following some great work from Tania Bassett. Listening to the Radio Five live broadcast on the way home made the journey a bit more interesting than usual. Contributions from Chris ('they only get £46 pounds in their pocket') Grayling and Yvonne Thomas of Interserve, gave no acknowledgement whatsoever of the inadequate preparation and training provision for staff and the judiciary who are expected to implement the new ORA regime. The best contribution by far came from Raymond, a former probation client who asked some timely and testing questions about why anyone should expect the private sector to perform any better than they did during the Workplan programme, given their overriding priority to turn around a profit. I gather that a number of other useful and supportive  contributions which matched Napo’s perspective on Graylings ‘Rehab Revolution’ were made over the course of the day by Frances Crook from the Howard League and Juliet Lyon from the Prison Reform Trust as well as various academics.

The TR programme may be a reality at least on paper, but it's becoming harder by the day for anyone to believe (unless that is you are inside the Ministerial coterie or a very senior MoJ and Noms manager) to believe that it will be fit for purpose this side of a general election.

We are not going away

It's clear from the almost daily postings by the MoJ Spin Doctors that our campaign and refusal to be silent on this shambles, has kind of irritated a few people. Nevertheless, it's not just about calling Grayling to account but calling in some promises as well. That's why the three Probation unions have written to The Shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan in the following terms:

JTU 03-15
Via email:           

Rt. Hon Sadiq Khan MP
Shadow Secretary for Justice

29 January 2015

Dear Sadiq,

Managing the Community Rehabilitation Companies under a Labour Government

As the three recognised probation trade unions we wanted to take this opportunity to write you in advance of the general election campaign to raise some key issues for Labour in relation to how it would manage the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) in the event that there is a change of government in May. We also add a point regarding the abolition of the Cabinet Office Guidelines on Trade Union Facility Time in respect of our work in the National Probation Service.

Our members have welcomed the commitments you have already made to seek to reverse as much of the probation privatisation as possible if you are in power later this year. In this letter we set out just a few of the areas in which you would be able take effective action to limit the damage which privatisation might otherwise cause to our service:

1.    Rights of the Secretary of  State as CRC Special Shareholder
As you will be aware, the Secretary of State retains what is known as a ‘special share’ in each of the CRCs.  The Secretary of State, through the special share, has rights of consent and control over each CRC. This allows the Secretary of State to ensure that certain actions on the part of the CRC can only take place with his/her express agreement. In particular, the CRC cannot reorganise or change the nature or scope of the company’s activities in a way that is inconsistent with the management of offender services in the community pursuant to the services agreement.
We are aware that a number of the new CRC owners are planning to make radical changes to the estate, workforce and delivery of services as soon as possible following the share sale. We believe that these changes would be detrimental to the safe delivery of probation services in the areas concerned, and would fragment and weaken community safety.

These changes would, we assume, require the permission of the Secretary of State as special shareholder. Given the approach of the election and the start of purdah on 13 March, we believe that it would not be legitimate for special shareholder permission to be given for any radical changes in the nature, or scope, of CRC activities this side of 7 May.

Were you in a position to exercise the powers of consent of the special shareholder following the election, you would be in a position to prevent the fragmentation and break up of a number of key CRCs, as is currently proposed by their new owners.

2.    Maintenance of National Collective Bargaining
In the Offender Management Act 2007 (Probation Services) Staff Transfer Scheme 2014, the future of national collective bargaining for both the National Probation Service and the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies is protected as follows:

9. Collective Agreements

(2) ‘Existing national collective bargaining arrangements with recognised Trade Unions and the relevant Probation Trusts will apply to either NPS or the CRCs whichever is appropriate in relation to respective transfers.’

(3) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph 2 above the NNC and SCCOG negotiating machinery will transfer on the transfer date and will apply as it had applied previously.

NOMS is currently trying to dismantle the NNC and SCCOG national negotiating machinery in order to create NPS and CRC specific negotiating bodies. The three probation unions are fundamentally opposed to this and wish to retain the single table bargaining arrangements across the NPS and CRCs. We are relying on the statutory Transfer Order to protect single table national collective bargaining. In deed we believe that a breach of the Order would amount to a breach of statutory duty.

Retaining this machinery will prevent the NPS and CRCs departing from each other in relation to pay and conditions and we would like your support for maintaining this position going forward following the next election. The new CRC owners were well aware of the requirement of the Transfer Order for the single table machinery to continue, but are likely to want to weaken this unless we have a Secretary of State who makes it clear that the terms of the Order must prevail.

The current Secretary of State, as you will not be surprised to hear, is very keen to break up the single table bargaining machinery as soon as is possible!

3.     Cabinet Office Guidelines on Trade Union Facility Time
As you will be aware, the present Government has introduced a set of arbitrary limits on the amount of facility time which trade unions organising in the civil service can access from their employer. We are currently in discussion with NOMS regarding how these arbitrary limits are going to apply in the National Probation Service.

The Cabinet Office Guidelines are preventing the probation unions from effectively representing their members in NPS, particularly in a time of great change and uncertainty for probation staff.

We would be grateful if you could confirm that the Guidelines would be withdrawn under a Labour Government and that we would be able to work in a more positive and partnership based way with NOMS going forward from May 2015.

We look forward to meeting up shortly to discuss these and other issues relating to the TR process.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Lawrence       Ben Priestley                                David Walton
                   
General Secretary   National Officer            National Secretary
Napo                            UNISON                           GMB/SCOOP

Cc           Jenny Chapman MP, Shadow Prison and Probation Minister

Grayling announces departure of HM Inspector for Probation Paul McDowell

House of Commons: Written Statement (HCWS243)
Ministry of Justice

Written Statement made by: The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for
Justice (Chris Grayling) on 02 Feb 2015.
Prob ation

I wish to inform the House that Mr Paul McDowell has tendered his resignation from his post as
Chief Inspector of Probation.

As I discussed with the Justice Select Committee on 2nd December and covered in subsequent
correspondence with the Committee Chair, an issue arose about a potential perceived conflict of
interest for Mr McDowell given his wife’s employment with Sodexo, and their role as a provider of
probation services. I have considered carefully all of the potential mechanisms and systems that
could be introduced and used to manage any actual or perceived conflict of interest. However Mr
McDowell has decided that, in the circumstances, he will resign.

Throughout this process Mr McDowell has acted with utter transparency and professionalism.
Indeed I must acknowledge Mr McDowell’s assured leadership and the grounded independence
of his findings in relation to the Inspectorate and the work he has done since his appointment.
I regret that circumstances have changed and are now such that we have reached this position.

At time of his appointment Mr McDowell’s position was fully reasonable and the appropriate preappointment processes in place at that time were properly followed. The Justice Select Committee will be involved in the appointment of a permanent successor in the usual way.