NAPO The Anti Privatisation Fight Continues

The Ministry of Justice is pushing through its Transforming Rehabilitation plans to outsource 70% of the Probation Service's work by the end of 2014. Napo believes that the true motivation behind this is to drive down costs and an ideological commitment on the part of the government to the private sector being the preferred bidder as opposed to state run services.

If these plans proceed it will lead to fragmentation of the service, staff cuts (that is how the government will make its savings and the companies their profit) and will severely compromise public protection.

Napo is campaigning vigorously to defend the Probation Service from this threat.

NAPO Union Leader Ian Lawrence Reports.

"There are now rumours that Chris Grayling may sign pre-election contracts with CRC privateers for later delivery.  If so it's typically despicable.

Anything  is possible within corrupt process but Napo won't stand by and say nothing trust me!"

NAPO Anti Privatisation Campaign Latest

Letter From Tom Rendon. 

Dear All

The MoJ has a relentless PR strategy which exists to pretend everything is on time, on budget, and that all staff resistance is futile. It’s a load of nonsense but, understandably, it does sometimes get under your skin. Here’s a few myth busters that will should raise morale:

Slippage to timetable
The MoJ is contorting itself to pretend this is not a delay. Remember when the staff split would be done and dusted in August 2013, the shares sold in April 2014? Now it looks like a struggle to get this done by the end of the year. There is still no credible person out there who believes the government can privatise before the next election. A civil servant recently said the “extension” in the timetable was in recognition of the fabulous work the Trusts were doing. I nearly burst out laughing.

Grievances and Appeals
The MoJ is publicly saying that the unions have agreed to the staff split process. This is categorically untrue. It is still the subject of a dispute and such a dogs dinner that post-split, some Trusts have found they have left either the CRC or the NPS without enough staff. Branch Chairs have been given a questionnaire to fill in about the whole process which will provide us with essential evidence of where things have gone wrong. If you’re unhappy with how you have been treated, you must register a grievance to protect yourself. Put in your appeal. Branches who have been denied the information on which to base an appeal have registered disputes. We should not be expected to help smooth over such a chaotic and discriminatory process. Feedback from members is that equality issues are causing a panic- as well they should because there was no proper impact assessment. My grievance hearing is on the 11th Feb 2014.

The Probation Institute
The MoJ has given £90,000 to help the start-up of the Institute and that is the beginning and end of their involvement. The money was very welcome but I am increasingly frustrated when they say they are “working closely” on the development of it. That is not true because the first principle and practice of the Institute is that it is independent. The Minister understands this but those directly below him wheel out the Institute as a defence against criticisms of privatisation which irritatingly conflates the two. Subject to ongoing support from our National Executive Committee, Napo has been involved in developing the Institute with Unison, the Probation Association and the Probation Chiefs Association. It has the involvement of academics with a strong commitment to Probation. Look out for the next edition of Napo News.

The CRCs will be hotbeds of creativity and innovation
Seriously? The splitting of the service is creating a mushrooming bureaucracy that will eat into the budgets of the CRC and NPS. Medium risk cases often dip in and out of high risk situations and in reality will sit in between the two new organisations. At the moment you can manage those situations without the case being a fully blown high risk one. It’s fairly normal practice. After the split, you will have to fill out a lengthy referral form, get your line manager to countersign it, hand it over to your colleague in the NPS, they review it, get their line manager to sign it and then they might advise you do an RMP within 15 days or offer a new appointment. This is absurd and we calculate it will take about 3 hours of form filling- more so if the clients, practitioners, administrators and managers are locked in an endless cycle of referral and re-referral. When challenged, the Minister was visibly spooked by it and the director of one of the prime bidders we spoke to turned grey.

You’re safe in the NPS
The Minister has described the NPS as having the “top offender managers”. Aside from the shocking crassness of this statement the intent is clear: to divide and rule the staff. If we let this happen then we let each other down. The NPS looks like no walk in the park. The amount of pre-court administrative work is bizarre as the allocation tool to assign cases to NPS or CRC will take 45 mins alone. Professional freedoms don’t really exist in the Civil Service in the way they do in the current Probation Service. We ask constantly about conflicts of interest but the MoJ simply glazes over. It is difficult to imagine a practitioner acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The MoJ is putting a tremendous amount of effort into pretending that everything is going swimmingly. It isn’t. Of course, while we will always do the best for our clients we don’t have to accept what’s happening. Keep raising issues where they occur and make sure you use formal processes if they apply to you. We do not accept the staff split and we are continuing to pressure the government to have a proper pilot of the new structure within the public sector. If that means that they can’t flog it off then so be it. The politically motivated timetable for privatisation is a disgrace and, for public safety and the decent treatment of staff and clients, it can and should be slowed down. Check out Ian’s blog on the Napo website and the Campaign Bulletins for more information and how you can contribute to the campaign.

Best wishes and don’t lose hope,

Tom

Message From Chair Pat Waterman sent to Greater London Napo members:-

TO NAPO MEMBERS

Wishing and Hoping

I was advised earlier in the week that your employers hoped to complete the sifting process by the end of this month. So I am guessing that by now most of you will have been informed as to whether you have been allocated to the NPS or the CRC.
Here are some things I would like you all to remember:

• The staff transfer process was never agreed with the trade unions. It was devised by the MOJ and LPT made the decision to implement it.
• The MOJ devised the criteria by which your assignment was determined. LPT only adapted it in certain cases to meet local circumstances e.g. where there were roles that did not fit into the MOJ’s blueprint.
• Assignments have been done on an “objective” basis. Beware of thinking that they have been done on the basis of an assessment of the work you have done over the course of your career.
• The MOJ previously claimed that the NPS would be staffed by “top” offender managers. I wrote and told them how disrespectful this was.
• Beware of thinking that the NPS is “better” (whatever that means) than the CRC. There are pros and cons to both organisations. An assignment to the NPS is not a “golden ticket”.
• CRC’s will stay in public ownership until they are sold. See below for what you can do to try and ensure that never happens. I also advise you to look at the list of potential bidders now that SERCO and G4S are out of the bidding. It does not look to me like there are that many buyers interested in London. That is a good thing.

NAPO is against the service being split

So how does it feel to be “sifted and sorted” and got ready FOR SALE? Are your feelings and concerns for the future allayed by the reassurances of your Chief Executive in her latest blog that the organisation now has more time to get everything in order?

If not, here is what you can do:

• Register a grievance against your employers for doing this to you.

There is still time.

I have only just done mine and I attach it for your information and (hopefully) inspiration.

For those of you who wonder what is the point of registering a grievance here is the answer:

• Any potential buyers will be provided with information about grievances to help them decide if they want to submit a bid. By registering a grievance, and showing that the workers are disgruntled, you could be helping to make us a less attractive proposition to any future buyers. That would be a good thing.

So please keep those grievances coming. We will do all we can to help you with them

Continue with the industrial action. Work only your contracted hours. 

This will become especially important as you are asked to do additional tasks to test out new ways of working while still being asked to conduct “business as usual”.

Pat Waterman
Chair
Greater London Branch

We will not co-operate with Goverment plans to destroy Probation.  

My feeling is that I want this ridiculess idea of transforming probation to stop NOW. Yesterday a colleague joking said that the Transforming Rehabilitation fright had been won - that headline nearly caused me to lose my tea! That joke got me good style, and a least I know the feeling that for which I'm aiming!!!

Overcrowded Prisons And An Evidenced Based Way Of Dealing With Crime.

This morning I was struck by this presentation by Anne Milgram. When she became the attorney general of New Jersey in 2007, Anne Milgram quickly discovered a few startling facts: not only did her team not really know who they were putting in jail, but they had no way of understanding if their decisions were actually making the public safer. And so began her ongoing, inspirational quest to bring data analytics and statistical analysis to the US criminal justice system.

Anne Milgram is committed to using an evidence based way of data and analytics to fight crime, making sure the right people are in prison.

We Have Overcrowded Prisons Today!

The Howard League for penal reform says about the prison population,

"This week there are 84,633 people in prisons and young offender institutions in England and Wales. The male prison population is 80,741 and the female prison population is 3,892.

There are 110 more people in prison than a week ago. There are 796 more people in prison than a year ago.

The child custody population for September 2013 was 1,250. The number of children in custody has fallen by 60 per cent in the last five years.

There are 68 girls in custody and 58 children aged 10-14.

The current Certified Normal Accommodation level is 75,907 meaning that 8,726 men and women are being held above this level. (The Certified Normal Accommodation is the prison service’s own measure of how many prisoners can be held in decent and safe accommodation).

The CEO for the Howard League of penal reform said today, "About 400 people at my talk to Keele World Affairs seemed to agree that dismantling probation is wrong and too many people are in prison.

The economist and author Vicky Pryce, who as the spent nine weeks in prison for accepting points on her driving licence for her husband, says in The Independant:

"It has been estimated that only some 3 per cent of women prisoners are a threat to society and alternatives to prison, such as community service, are much less costly and tend to reduce re-offending".

The Impact of Transforming Rehabilitation

Writer, researcher and expert in criminology, Russell Webster, writes of how the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation could have a profound impact on the prison population.

He says, "Many expert witnesses who contributed to the recent House of Commons Justice Select Committee report expressed their concerns that TR would increase prison numbers through two main causes:

Firstly, magistrates would be reassured that all short-term prisoners would now receive supervision and support on release and would therefore make more custodial sentences as a way of both imposing punishment and affording the opportunity for rehabilitation.

Secondly, a proportion of those short-term prisoners receiving new mandatory supervision would not comply with their requirements and would therefore be recalled to prison.

Of course, the purpose of TR is to reduce reoffending and the MoJ is confident that the new probation system will have a substantial impact on reducing reoffending in the medium to long-term."

But there are there are still concerns about the impact the Governments plans to dismantle Probation could have on our prison populations.

It's interesting that earlier today the Probation Chief's Association reported that:

"The Government’s statistics show that reoffending for those given community orders who have recieved probation supervision is 34.0%, a drop of 0.2 percentage points compared to the previous 12 months and down 3.9 percentage points since 2000.

This is testament to the high performance of professional staff working in Probation Trusts across the country, achieving year on year reductions in the levels of reoffending to help protect the public.

Evidence Based Way Of Dealing With Crime

Looked at how the Prisons in the USA had a huge proportion of non violent offenders serving sentences, or waiting more over six month just for their trials. Also there were high risk violent criminals who were in the community, who should have been in custody.

While the public and sentencers agreed that prison should be a place for violent and dangerous criminals.

She describes how a gut reaction and intuition is not enough in dealing with offenders and that it should be evidence based.

So she organised a team to design a Risk Assessment Tool which was used in a high crime area, which had dramatic results in reducing crime, protecting the public and saving money from the public purse, by putting violent offenders in prison, and dealing with non violent ones in the community.

Eventually this Risk Assessment tool was rolled out with in the State, and there is now work going on to move it nationwide so that police, courts, etc can use it. Anne Milgram also points out that the risk Assessment tool does not do away with intuition in dealing with people who have offended, but rather compliments it.

There are many case in the UK where non-violent criminal are put into prison at huge cost to the public, when in my opinion there could be more community sentences that involve people who have offended paying back the community in some way, rather than the extremely high cost of keeping them in prison. 

Now I understand that the Government have got a terrible track record with IT - Delius, CNomis - but it seems that there might be a right way, and a wrong way. For me, I found Anne Milgram's presentation to be very thought provoking.

CRC Letter

Well the "Unwelcome Choice" has finally resulted in my Probation Trust having now allocated me to a Community Rehabilitation Company. I received the letter this morning at work, but the outcome was not a surprise as I am a Probation Service Officer who did not make an expression of interest for either the New Probation Service or a Community Rehabilitation Company.

Even though I knew where I was going, today was just the most awful day I have ever experienced in Probation land. You could see hurt and pain in colleagues faces and when some people started crying I was ready for the door. It was just awful, and I only made it till the end of the day because I was on duty, and didn't want to leave work for colleagues who had enough on their plates. Not that I did a lot of work, as it was just impossible to focus on work for long.

Anyway, I've had my tea and just opened one of only two bottles of beer, and I suppose I should be thankful that I haven't got any more bottles as I would probably have an exceedingly rough day tomorrow too! 

Too try to put it into context, I've almost had better days appearing before Crown Court and getting custodial sentences, then today's day at in my Probation Office. But then again, public service workers haven't been treated much differently to people in a dock - punished and put down - but at least in a dock they know what they are being punished and put down for!

A memorable day I'm sure, but an awful day - an "Unwelcome Choice" made for us by an Unwelcome Government. Roll on the next election! 

Update From MactailGunner

Notice has been given to trusts terminating their contracts for the provision of Probation services but, as the Report on January 13 hinted, this is now with a termination date at the end of May rather than the end of March.

1. National Agreement on Staff Transfers & Protections:
This is due to be tabled at the National Negotiating Council (NNC) tomorrow for ratification. It no longer contains the Staff Assignment process which was imposed last November. The dates in the Agreement are having to be amended to reflect the move back from April 1st to June 1st.

2. Future Negotiating & Consultation Structures:
As Trusts disappear, so the Employers side of the NNC will need to be re-constituted as a very minimum. NOMS have now sent the unions a new draft Constitution to consider – essentially just changing the Employers side to reflect the existence of the NPS and the CRCs. But consideration will also need to be given as to whether to have just one negotiating body for both the NPS and the CRCs, or one for each. There are pros and cons with either model. The relative numbers of seats on the union side may change if there were two bodies - depending on membership numbers - Napo/UNISON. Two separate negotiating bodies might seem more likely for two reasons.

Firstly, much of what will become established terms and conditions in the NPS will not be applicable to the CRCs (see below under Measures). There will need to be harmonisation of many policies with the Civil Service and it will not be possible or appropriate to apply these to the CRCs. There will also be other considerations such as the public sector pay policy which again will not be extended to cover CRCs.
Secondly, it may be dangerous to seek to tie CRCs in with negotiations over pay and conditions where their control was limited. A recent case (Alemo-Herron- v- Parkwood) in the Court of Justice of the EU highlighted the dangers of such a scenario. In that case a transfer to the private sector from a local authority had been conducted under TUPE Regs but the current situation in Probation is thought to be the same. In essence, the CRCs may call foul if they were tied to public sector negotiations in which they had limited say.

However, it must be remembered that all staff will transfer over to the NPS and the CRCs on existing terms and conditions. So even if there were two negotiating bodies at a national level, the starting point for any negotiations would be what was carried over. At least initially, pay for example, would be as is.

A national negotiating body for the NPS would be just that. There will be no local or regional equivalent because it is a national service. In the case of the CRCs, whatever the national negotiating body looks like, there will also need to be JNCs established with each new employer – much as there are now with the Trusts. So in due course new JNC constitutions (probably modelled on what exists now) will need to be agreed and signed. But to do this will require two ‘sides’ , Employers and Staffside and as yet neither exists. On the employers side, there are only CEOs, not yet actually in post. On the union side, the existence of a recognisable Staffside depends on two factors. Firstly whether a CRC is being created out of one or more Trusts. If the former, then there will be the existing JNC Staffside within the Trust which may be a basis. But then, the second critical factor is the split between NPS and CRC, and where the existing union officials at local level end up – which side of the fence. So it's a bit premature to start establishing these negotiating (and consulting) bodies, though it seems prudent to set up some sort of shadow bodies before June 1st - which should be possible in a while.

3.Recognition Agreements:
Linked to the above, new union recognition agreements with the NPS nationally and with CRCs locally will need to be formalised. There is no evidence that the continued recognition of Napo, UNISON and SCOOP/GMB is in any way under threat but nevertheless, this formalisation process will be required. NOMS has provided a draft agreement for the NPS which the unions will need to study. As with the above, signing off these agreements for CRCs, is rather dependant on the two "Sides' of a CRC existing and so this piece of work is unlikely to be possible for some little while yet.

4. Facility Time & also Transitional Arrangements:
The unions have received a draft facilities agreement from NOMS. This will be a matter to be reviewed and revised both nationally and locally. Inevitably it will have to pay at least lip-service (and probably much more) to the Cabinet Office guidelines. But it seems likely that MoJ/NOMS will need to be rather more accommodating than the Guidelines strictly allow in order to achieve their own ends - i.e. the TR Programme. It is to be hoped that there will also be a transitional arrangement to be negotiated with NOMS, since it will be in everyones best interests to have a degree of continuity as Trusts and their staff are split up. It would also seem sensible that, at least whilst CRCs remain in the public sector, there will be some flexibility about member representation as between the NPS and CRCs. This may in part be dependant on the players involved - how amenable the newly appointed CEOs of CRCs and Deputies within NPS are. Any transitional arrangement will need to be negotiated nationally in the first instance - and this discussion hasn't started yet.

5. Staff Commission:
The National Framework on Staff Transfer and Protections commits all parties to "Establishing a Staff Commission to consider issues arising as a direct consequence of the transfer of staff from Probation Trusts to either a CRC or to the NPS" The unions have just received a draft paper from NOMS regarding this. It now has to be discussed and hopefully agreed by the end of March.
Salient features (subject to agreement) :
Participation is voluntary and the Commission will hear appeals only where both parties locally are content to participate.
It is an independent body established to provide a route for dispute resolution
It will not hear appeals against the Staff Assignment Process itself nor appeals against actual assignment
It may hear issues connected with redundancy, alleged detrimental changes, and discrimination to terms and conditions
One main reason for setting it up is to avoid issues arising from the transfer escalating to the level of an Employment Tribunal.
It's likely to have three members - an independent chair, a member nominated by the TU Side and a member with an employer background nominated by NOMS.
The process is likely to follow ACAS guidelines.
It will decide whether HR procedures were fairly carried through by the employer on the basis of agreed criteria
The Commission's decision will be binding on all parties and any outcomes would be expected to be implemented swiftly

6.Interchange Agreement:
As reported on January 13, another commitment achieved through the National Agreement on Staff Transfer is to the development of an Interchange Agreement. Splitting the workforce and having two entirely separate sets of employers can cause havoc in terms of training opportunities, professional development and career advancement. The split may also place staff in roles which are very stressful (probably in the NPS in particular) with increasingly limited opportunities for 'light relief'. These risks to the maintenance of a healthy, efficient and well-trained workforce are recognised by NOMS and this Interchange Agreement is their attempt at moderating these risks. Again, the unions have only just received the first draft to consider. Essentially this looks like a formal secondment system with associated protocols for operation. Further details will be reported in due course.

7. Measures:
Appendix A of the National Agreement on Staff Transfers and Protections is the starting point for considering what Measures will need to be consulted upon both nationally and locally. The introduction explains that consultation must take place (under COSOP). As the new organisations (NPS & CRCs) begin to take shape, these consultations will develop as both consultation and in some instances, negotiation are required with a view to establishing and/or harmonising terms and conditions and policies. Within the NPS there will need to be harmonisation of 35 sets of Trust policies and terms and conditions with those of the Civil Service. Where CRCs are being created out of two, three or four Trusts, there will need to be a harmonisation of two, three or four sets of local policies and terms and conditions. In CRCs being formed effectively out of only one Probation Trust, this exercise will be much more straightforward since no harmonisation exercise will be required.

This second stage of consultations and negotiations relies upon the necessary negotiating and consultation structures being in place (see above). So for CRCs, no actual negotiation on these matters will be possible before June 1st. Some consultation and preparatory work for negotiations may be possible within shadow structures.

At national level, discussions regarding harmonisation with Civil Service policies and terms and conditions have already begun. NOMS have high hopes of having everything in place ready for 1st June where possible, with early negotiation/ratification wherever necessary soon after June 1st. These are likely to prove unrealistic expectations. Some Civil Service policies to which NOMS are seeking alignment are themselves out of date and in need of review/revision. This adds another dimension to the exercise and will involve the Probation unions in a further set of discussions with the other unions operating within NOMS, e.g. PCS and the POA.

However, as policies are reviewed, they are likely to be forwarded to Trusts for information. Some of this work will be of benefit to union members. So, for example, with the Grievance Procedure. The Civil Service procedure in use already in NOMS is similar to those that most union members will recognise in Probation - except it is better in that unions have a seat on the Appeals Panels. Next to be considered is Discipline and Poor Performance (Capability). This is likely to be far more complex and time consuming. It is too early to say if this will be an improvement of general benefit to staff.

A paper entitled 'Being a Civil Servant' has been developed by NOMS with assistance from the PA and the unions. Not everything you need to know on joining the Civil Service but it should answer a lot of queries. It is currently being finalised by NOMS and should be available to those staff assigned to the NPS very soon.

8. From now until May 31st:
Now that the timetable has been adjusted back to June 1st for the creation of the NPS and the CRCs, more is likely to be done by existing employers (the Trusts). For example, the re-allocation of cases and, from April 1st, the allocation of new cases in a different way using the, as yet incomplete, Risk of Serious Recidivism (RSR) tool. It is possible also that some staff will need to be moved around to accommodate these changes. All of this is properly within the operational remit of employers but any such changes should be consulted upon in advance of implementation and they should also be risk assessed under Health & Safety legislation - Management of Health & Safety at Work Regs.

9. Train the Trainers - or - Training Trusts in TR (TTT):
A series of events is being held around the country for volunteers who will then return to Trusts to cascade this training down to all staff. This will be done through a series of training and briefing events. The aim is to prepare all staff for the new ways of working and the new organisations themselves. Amongst other things, this will include a whole raft of new operating procedures post-split - case-allocation, risk escalation, breach, parole reports, recall, revocation etc. These have been issued but bear all the hallmarks of hurried preparation. The starting point obviously isn't a good one i.e a large gap between two organisations, which everybody recognises will create additional problems. The new procedures, as solutions, are less than perfect. This is recognised by NOMS and they are subject to change - which is not entirely helpful when the local training is due to start quite shortly.

10. A word on Continuity of Service:

This concept is covered in Part A (A1) of the NNC Handbook.

Continuous Service is relevant in respect of annual leave, sickness payments, maternity leave and the calculation of entitlement to redundancy compensation and the calculation of notice periods.

The last paragraph in this section sums the position up as follows:
"9.​For the purpose of assessing continuing service, all previous continuous service with any probation board or predecessor committee or any employer where the probation board exercises its discretion shall be aggregated."

This continuity carries across to new employment under COSOP.

The situation becomes a little complicated where staff subsequently change jobs.
The National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections protects this position for a period of seven years, post share sale, for anyone who moves jobs between CRCs or from the NPS to a CRC. It is protected for all staff moving between organisations, in either direction, up to the point of share sale.

The one exception to this protection is in respect of staff changing jobs and moving from a CRC to the NPS, post share sale. Here, protection cannot be extended because the Ministry of Justice is bound, as all Government Departments are, by additional requirements such as the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act which deals with the recruitment of Civil Servants (e.g. Recruitment Principles regarding Fair and Open Competition) and the MoJ's power are limited to those delegated to it under the Civil Service Management Code. Those powers do not extend to recognising new recruits' continuity of employment with previous, non-Civil Service Bodies. This is a disappointing fact of life but, on the other hand, some of the Civil Service policies, e.g. over maternity leave, are more generous and this will have a compensatory effect under such circumstances. The position in respect of redundancy is unclear since the NPS will need to develop a new policy for Probation staff joining the NPS from Trusts. This should afford the opportunity to establish an improved position.

Glossary:
COSOP - Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector

Mactailgunner

 

Posts: 51

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:20 am

Top

Privatisation: Social Contracts Not Tory Contracts

I was struck by the words of Elizabeth Warren because what's relevant for the other side of the pond, is surely relevant for the UK too. 

Our Government have been very forthcoming about it's plans to award millions of pounds of tax payers money to private companies. 

In regards to the privatisation and dismantling of the Probation Service, the Commons Justice Committee report says, "When it comes to providing information about the likely costs of its rehabilitation revolution......the Ministry has been less than forthcoming".

Now, this Government has shown that is more than able to award contacts to corporations as it privatises public services. But is has shown itself to be less able at managing those contracts properly. 

For me any awarded contracts need to be, in Elizabeth Warren's words, "part of the underlying social contract".

In other words, awarding contracts worth millions of pounds of tax payers money should have a level of social responsibility.

And of course this is very relevant today because as The Telegraph points out Atos and G4S paid no corporation tax last year despite carrying out £2billion of taxpayer-funded work. 

Should Contracts Be Awarded to Companies That Don't Pay The Right Tax?

Now you think it strange that the question even has to be asked. But for the government things are not a clear,  and it seems to me that people are becoming more aware that contacts are being used to generate popularity, donors, and extra wealth.

Tax on Corporation earnings need to come back to the public purse and not stay in the pockets of the super rich.

It seems that the UK is a paradise for Corporations that avoid paying tax though avoidance schemes, illegal tax dodging and mistaken underpayments, and the Government treats this with scant regard, rather than as a serious, preventable crime.

The Independant writer, Owen Jones writes that we need, "An all-out campaign to recoup the £25bn worth of tax avoided by the wealthiest each year, clamping down on all possible loopholes with a General Anti-Tax Avoidance Bill, as well as booting out the accountancy firms from the Treasury who help draw up tax laws, then advise their clients on how to get around them.

Should Contracts Be Awarded To Companies That Don't Pay A Living Wage?

The Public don't want the the people at the top getting huge benefits, at the expense of workers who don't get a living wage.

The Public needs those contracts to deliver to as many people as possible and not to just the privileged few.

Happen the Government should ask themselves the question as to whether Corporations & Business' should be in business if they can't afford to pay at least a Living Wage?

A living wage isn’t just something corporations owe their workers, it’s something corporations owe the nation, because if corporations aren't forced to pay a living wage, the taxpayers will only have to pick up the slack.

Personally, I think that the selling of public assets is a disaster waiting to happen. But neither am I in favour of Tory contracts being awarded to the lowest bidder that will exploit it's workers by putting profits before people. 

With an estimated 13 million people in poverty in this nation, most of them working, this generation, and the next one ("the next kid who will come along"), need some social responsibility in the affairs of corporations and their government.

I've started with Elizabeth Warren, and so I close:

Gambling with public safety: privatising probation by Mike Guilfoyle

Gambling with public safety: privatising probation  by Mike Guilfoyle.

Mike Guilfoyle worked as a Probation Officer in London from 1990 to 2010 and is an Associate Member of Napo. He is a member of Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. His monthly blog appears on CCJS's 'Works for Freedom'.

A Timeline of Probation - 2014 Fight or Flight to Transforming Rehabilitation?

As Jim Brown says in his On Probation Blog "A Celebration of Acheivement" it's quite a story, and 2014 is still waiting to be written - will it be Fight or Flight before Transforming Rehabilitation? 

It logically follows on that if the Probation Chiefs Association believe that in celebrating the spirit and acheivements of the Probation Service, then surely it's worth fighting for, and taking a stand against Transforming Rehabilitation. 

Now I must confess I dont know a lot about Fredrick Rainer but I know enought to be betting and assuming that he was a fighter and a mover for what what he believed in. 

Napo leader Ian Lawrence said less than 2 weeks ago, " The Commons vote was totally expected. It still needs the Lords but with/without OR Bill it's now about stopping the sell off; always was".

Probation Privatisation Means Less For The Public

Probation Privatisation involves handing over control of public welfare to private companies. 

Probation Privatisation and contracting out involve giving up control of public welfare we all rely on to private companies. 

Once a public service or asset is privatised, we, the public, lose the ability to have a voice in decisions affecting that service or asset. 

We also lose the ability to request and view important information related to the privatized function. Without proper information and a forum in which to voice opinions, the public is effectively shut out of the decision-making process.

These services and structures are no longer controlled by a government accountable to the public, but instead beholden to companies who may have entirely different goals and priorities.

The Criminal Justice workers need to unite because Privatisation means:

1. Less Protection for the Public.

Privatisation mean Court cases being abandoned and criminals walking free due to cutbacks

Privatisation means Prisons being under staffed and prisoners coming out worse then they went in.

Privatisation means Probation Trusts are being sold off even though they have served this country well. Even though their record is first class in regards to public protection. Even though the experts have advised the Government against this.

Now the Daily Mirror reports, "Plans to sell off the Probation Service will put the public at “very high risk” of harm, a secret official report reveals.

The findings – leaked to the Sunday Mirror – say more criminals will reoffend if private firms and charities are put in charge of their rehabilitation.

The Probation Association report claims Justice Minister Chris Grayling’s privatisation, being rushed through before 2015, will result in “poorer outcomes for victims, communities and offenders” and an overall “higher risk to the public”.

Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/probation-service-sell-off-plans-danger-2928397#ixzz2nV8iMVIr 

2. Less Money for the Public.

Privatisation means more Fats Cats and they don't come cheap with their wage rises, bonuses and greed is good mantra!

Privatisation means Corporation overcharging the Public Purse by over £24 million, and now the Serious Fraud Office are in investigating this loss.

Privatisation means Corporations being able to evade tax on their earnings with more loss from the public purse.

Privatisation has meant gas, water, electricity and rail has prices have continued to rise and Government seems powerless to act.

The Coalition Government seeks to fix budget woes by saving the government money. But numerous examples in a variety of sectors show that projected savings don't always materialise. Cost overruns combined with hidden and indirect costs, such as contract monitoring and administration, can make privatisation more expensive than in-house services.

3. Less Democracy for the Public.

Privatisation means Companies being Accountable to Shareholders rather than the general public.

We are all aware of the saying, “The tail wagging the dog” and I think that we are becoming more and more aware that the big Corporations are now wagging this Government.

Privatisation is moving away from the Government being run by the people, for the people.

Privatisation means that the Public has less voice, less input  and less democracy.  

Privatisation means selling out to global companies and we are becoming like tenants in our own country.

4. Less Workers for our Communites.

The Government has recently spoken about Probation’s privatisation as being a Evolution, which has been worked on for a long time.

But make no mistake it’s a Revolution to British workers, who have give good service to this country, who are being undermined, or dispensed with.

Jane Street and associate director in the NHS says that “Privatisation means the same staff do the same job for less money, through an expensive process. Wasteful and unnecessary”

All this will simply allow for the Rich to get Richer and the Government to get more donations from grateful corporations who receive contracts!

Some weeks ago Barrister Sam Parham said, "Probation Officers, Court Staff, Solicitors & Barristers must unite to stop Tories flogging off Criminal Justice - together we're strong"

Please sign this New Petition. As the Barrister says lets Unite, be strong, and stop this Government from selling off any more Public Services.

A Celebration of Achievement & A Reason To Fight.

Please Click Image To Read

A Celebration of Achievement.

While Transforming Rehabilitation is not a reason to celebrate, in my opinion,  the history of the excellent Probation Service, which has served this nation well, is something to celebrate and cherish.

And A Reason To Fight.

Probation Chiefs your publication, "A Celebration of Achievement" is also "A Reason To Fight? 

A logical consequence which follows on from the Probation Chiefs Association publication, is that if The Probation Service Is Worth Celebrating - It is surely worth fighting the threat of Transforming Rehabilitation!

Did you know that there is a New Petition: "The Great British Justice System is being threatened; along with you and your loved ones.

There are numerous threats posed to our Justice system currently (including the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda and the changes in Legal Aid) and we need your assistance to protect it, and in turn yourselves.

With the upcoming threat of privatisation to The Probation Service, the risk to the public and victims is likely to increase as will the wallets of private company fatcats. Millions of pounds will line the pockets as a result of victim's pain and suffering.

The current Conservative Secretary of State, Chris Grayling, is determined for private companies to be 'paid by results'. Whilst, in theory, this may sound good in terms of public money being saved, the problem is that offenders and their crimes are not as transparent as 'piece work', hence if left up to private companies (who depend on profit, not loss) disclosure of any reoffending will result in no income! Thus private companies are unlikely to follow usual protocol in terms of sharing this information with agencies such as Police and Social Services; resulting in offender risk levels being distorted, crimes going unreported, and the likelihood for collusion between offender and their privately employed rehabilitation supervisor.

Examples of private company debacles include:-

● G4S failing to provide adequate security for the London 2012 Olympic as well as overcharging the taxpayer £24million in the tagging scandal.

● Atos assessing clearly unwell individuals as fit for work and stopping their benefit payments before appeals are heard.

● Sodexo (a french catering company) running English prisons; their annual UK turnover, alone, being £1billion.

● Serco overcharging the British taxpayer £68.5million for tagging anomalies including tagging the deceased.

● Riots, rooftop protests and staff assaults at G4S operated HM Prison Oakwood; once described as Chris Grayling's "flagship" Prison.

● Capita failing to provide an interpreter at a quadruple Murder trial as it "would not be worthwhile as they would not make enough money".

● Capita approving an interpreter job application from Jajo the rabbit.

Your safety is in the hands of this ConDem government and if up to Chris Grayling, will soon be in the hands of private companies.

Please help us to stop this short-sighted and potentially catastrophic plan by signing and sharing this petition to show the government that the Probation service should remain a public entity.

We call for immediate stoppage of the "Transforming Rehabilitation" process to allow for proper scrutiny and review."  Please click to sign the New Petition.

Once a Thief, Always a Thief?

I must admit I struggled with this message of Baillie Aaron at TED. I blogged it and then drafted it again, and then blogged it once more. 

Why did I struggle with it because,  as I know that I like it?

Happen, the struggle is because I still think of myself as an ex-prisoner after over thirty years, and I cannot blame society for that, after working within the criminal justice system for near on a decade and a half.

Happen, labelling doesnt help, but I seem to recall the saying, "It's easier to take the person out of prison, than it is to take the prison out of the person".

I'm a person, and a far better person than I was, with numberous positive labels, of which I'm proud, but having said that, ex-prisoner, ex-thief and ex- offender are labels that are never far from my own self identity. 

Furthermore, I don't feel that I can blame society for those negative lablels, which I struggle to let go of. 

In life I sometimes see good people who end up being corrupted, and then again other people who started of badly who have made good. In other word, "One a good person, [sometimes means] not always a good person". People can change for the better, and for the worse.

I'm glad that for me as a person, I followed through on a choice over thirty years ago, and can say, "Once a Thief, is not Alway's a Thief".

I like the following which I read on Adam Mac: Blogging Behind Bars. It was written by a samurai in Japan in the 1700s and it could well be entitled, "Once a Thief, is not Alway's a Thief".

“There was once a council considering the promotion of a certain man. The council members were at the point of deciding that promotion was useless because of the fact that the man had previously been involved in a drunken brawl. But someone said ‘If we were to cast aside every man who had made a mistake once, useful men could probably not be come by. A man who makes a mistake once will learn from it and be considerably more careful not to repeat it because of his repentance. I feel that he should be promoted.’
“Someone else then asked, ‘Will you guarantee him?’
“The man replied, ‘Of course I will’.
“The others then asked, ‘By what will you guarantee him?’
“And he replied, ‘I can guarantee him by the fact that he is a man who has erred once. A man who has never once erred has never once learnt, and is dangerous.’
“This said, the man was promoted.”

From ‘Hagakure’ by Yamamoto Tsunetomo

Letter From MP Clive Betts

Dear David Hurst,

Thank you for your email regarding the offender rehabilitation bill.

I and my Labour party colleagues have previously attempted to amend this bill to ensure that the quality of the current probation service was not compromised by this radical and under-thought bill. Unfortunately we have been unsuccessful in either improving upon the bill or voting it down however; I can assure that we will continue to work against it through the rest of its parliamentary journey. The Bill unfortunately passed through third reading in the Commons on the 14th of January and is currently working through the Lords.

I share your fears that the changes put forward by the bill would result in severe damage to the probation service and a loss of vital expertise. As such these measures could result in both a failure to rehabilitate offenders with most potential and could put the public at risk.

I hope that this email has addressed some of your concerns.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns regarding this or any issue.

Yours Sincerely,

Clive Betts MP
Sheffield South East constituency

On Probation Blog: TR Holed Below Waterline!

On Probation Blog: TR Holed Below Waterline!: There always was a bit of suspicion concerning the timing of Chris Grayling's announcement last week that the TR timetable had slipped. ...

Work, Rest And Play

A Bit Of Relaxation After A Six Mile Swim

If the occupants in the hot tub look a bit red faced, happen that is because someone forgot to turn the heat off while I was swimming for hours beforehand, and although you can't see the steam, it was there! But after a six-mile swim in the County of Devon I was ready for the hot tub and a bit of relaxation. For me this swim was my playtime, but I am very conscious that it would not have been completed without rest and hard work.

I put in for the six-mile swim at a time when I was a bit frustrated with a fell-running injury. I just came across the web page for the Outdoor Swimming Society and registered and paid for the swim the same day.

Unfortunately, I was not a strong swimmer but I remembered that I had once managed to complete 30 lengths of the 25 metre pool in a sponsored swim, even though I had only been known to complete my first gasping, fighting for life, thrashed out length of the pool shortly before. This event proved to be expensive for my father, and others, who collected my sponsorship! And besides swimming across a river to get away from the authorities as a youth I hadn't done much swimming since.

But anyway, somewhere along the way I have picked up the idea that common sense should prevail so after registering and paying for the six mile swim, I registered and paid for swimming lessons at Pond's Forge International Pool in order to get a half decent stroke in the water.

Then there was lots of hard work before I stepped into that hot tub. At my place of  employment running up and down the stairs all day at Sheffield Magistrates Court, sometimes like a headless chicken, followed by as many lengths as I could do in the 50 metre swimming pool until time ran out or cramp set in. Although in time I learned to swim past the cramps and to really enjoy the rhythm of a swimming routine.

But anyway, the picture above reminds me of Work, Rest and Play. Enjoyable play, lovely rest, and the work, without which I would not have been able to do it.

I can remember a time in my teens into my twenties when I openly and unashamedly mocked at the idea of work. I claimed benefits when I was in the community, but most of the time I was in custody. At this period in my life I was into play and rest, which was usually drug and alcohol induced, and funded by crime, but definitely not work!

Anyway, my thinking was changed during my stay at Cardigan House Probation Hostel and I eventually applied to go to college, where I was told by the Principal that I would need to get some o'levels and save up money for my first year at college. Those were both challenges in themselves, and required some work, more so the English o'level, as I had very basic literacy skills at the time. I remember a certain gentleman gave me a basic English book when I was 22 years of age, and I was a bit put out, as it was aimed at 10 years olds! I failed my first English o'level twice, but succeeded with saving the money for my first year in college, and was enrolled, although literacy skills still gave me many setbacks, even after finally getting my english o'level.

I first enjoyed the rhythm and routine of work while I was at college, where I was padded up, and home became, once again a one-man cell. I rose early, went to college, and then did practical work to pay my way. This went on for 4 years until the hot tub of graduation, when I had the satisfaction of the task having being completed. Looking back, I realise the importand lesson learn by me revolved around "the enjoyable rhythm and routine of hard work" which held me in good stead for over thirty years, but it did not prepare me for the shambles of Transforming Rehabilitation! Somewhere alone the way in my Probation world I seem to have lost my rhythm and routine of work and am struggling to work, rest and play.

Now, it’s one thing privatising the Probation Trusts, but I think the way colleagues have been treated is just another thing altogether - the words unbelievable, shocking and appalling come to mind.

How do we feel - we feel demeaned, distressed, scared, de-motivated, demoralised, angry, and guilt for feeling those things!

At work today I briefly scanned a survey conducted by south yorkshire probation regarding the health a wellbeing of the workforce, and it was concluded that there was concerns about staff. No big surprises there then!

The impact of Transforming Rehabilitation on the workforce has resulted in sick days, sleepless nights, worry, emotional upset, an overwhelming sense of disorientation while trying to keeping focussed on duties (when all we can think of is the Transforming Rehabilitation).

For sure, we know that this Government, cares very much to privatise the probation service, but in my opinion there is no way they have cared for public servants in the work-place. Things could have been thought through, less rushed, given more care to detail, more compassionate and done with some humanity.

I’ve not lost confidence in the Government for its privatisation plans, although I don’t agree with them, I’ve lost confidence in Government because of the way that it treats people who are in the way of its ideology and power.

I only have to look around the workplace, or on blogs, or on Facebook, or on twitter to see the signs of stress and pain in the lives of probation workers who are known to have excelled themselves as public servants.

The stress of transforming rehabilitation makes our work less effective, spoils our play and robs us of rest. But still I see colleagues struggling to undertake their work, struggling with business as usual, even though in my opinion the wheels are now in danger of falling off the wagon!

I came across the following Government page on the internet, an initiative for co-ordinating Health, Work and Wellbeing in the workplace which aims to:

• "improve the general health and wellbeing of the working-age population 
• support more people with health conditions to stay in work or enter employment 
• create healthier workplaces 
• improve occupational health services and rehabilitation support". 

As I read it I wondered how many points out of ten the Government has scored in regards this initiative and Transforming Rehabilitation, or what percentage of one.

But I suppose it must be tough at the top too.

• It must be hard for the Government, waiting for the trickle down effect of economics from corporations and  people like the 85 people who have wealth that equals half of the wealth of the poorest half of the population. 
• It must be hard trying to shake off that image of being the government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. 
• It must be hard knowing that for every one campainer today, there are going to be many more come the soon to be General Election!
• It must me hard knowing that places like our prisons are understaffed and in danger of exploding, when there are so many people unemployed just waiting for a job. 

Some weeks ago, the words of a Barrister called Sam Parham struck a chord in me, when he said, "I am dreaming of day when we won't be in constant battle with MoJ..., and we can focus on" - the rhythm and routine of work in criminal justice - Like Sam, I'm dreaming too of going back to the normality of Work, Rest, and Play.