« INCREMENTS - EMPLOYERS RENEGE | Main | INCREMENTS - OUR CONTRACTUAL RIGHT »
February 16, 2008
PROBATION TRUSTS
We are going to hear a lot about probation trusts. The word ‘trust’ has become common in recent years: think of NHS trusts and primary care trusts. In all the talk about the failed Noms (and Noms has failed disastrously and expensively – failed in its mission and its vision, but it was a nice little earner for a while) there was the idea of probation trusts. The reason why probation boards must mutate is because the environment has changed. The public environment has been marketised, not quite a Macdonaldisation, but an environment in which the buzz words are choice and competition. And the language is the language of business, not the language of public service, public good. As we have tired of hearing: private is better than public – it delivers, it’s more efficient, it gives value for money. This, of course, is more to do with assertion than evidence. We all know that saying private is better than public is an ideological statement. Northern Rock being bailed out by the taxpayer is one part of the reality, which stacks up against other failures, such as Railtrack. And, of course – the 1.5 billion wasted on Noms!
The fact is the public services have been ‘infected’ with the dogmas of the market – that’s the reality. You may believe that private companies deliver better service and value than public services, but anyone who has had recent experiences of dealing with the private utilities may differ. The truth is NHS trust hospitals have not transformed the health service – the standards have not changed that much and it remains risky going to hospital for fear of MRSA, etc, or being held for hours in an ambulance outside an hospital because A&E won't let you in until they are sure they can meet their 4-hour target. So much for choice! There is no choice in a system that is operating at full capacity and there is no role for real commissioning when, as in the prison and probation systems, demand outstrips supply.
There are some voices, and they have been heard in probation, that rhapsodise about cutting costs, getting the service cheaper (value for money?), working the staff harder. And the premise is: if we don’t do it someone will come along and do it cheaper. There you have the justification for the sweatshop! Competition can make us all more brutal. At least in this country we have the minimum wage, which is something the private sector never wanted. The minimum wage is about values, ethics and fairness. The terms and conditions of employment of probation staff were not God given, but achieved by your predecessors – hard fought for and we should fight hard in their defence when they are being attacked. ECU is a case in point; and the line the employers are taking in relation to the payments of increments in April is cynical. The paymaster can always withhold pay. The worker can always withhold labour. This is the essential nature of the relationship, unfortunately, in the current climate.
Now probation faces it next ‘great leap forward’ into trusts. We may be punch drunk from hearing about Noms and being told how essential C-Nomis is, but all that’s history. The show must go on, you must be enthusiastic about probation trusts – it’s the only show in town. And if you are not with us on this, then you are against us, against delivering a better probation service. Well, let’s hope there is a mature discussion about what becoming a probation trust is going to mean in real terms and why it matters.
We will hear much more about trust status in the months ahead. There are documents attached to this note that detail the ‘freedoms’ that will be given to 1st wave trusts, and they don’t amount to that much at this stage and as you can see in the other document there is a wish list for trust freedoms – and among them is a wish to see an end to national collective bargaining on pay.
HPA has not engaged in any formal discussion with Napo on their application for trust status, which is disappointing. We trust they will sooner rather than later, as we have several curiosities’. We would like to hear about the advantages and disadvantages of becoming a trust; we would like to know what is meant exactly by 'business-focused/oriented trust’(see the download on 'managerialism'); we would like to know whether it will affect pay structures, we would like to know how much will be spent on ‘becoming a trust’, on the rebranding of Hampshire Area; we would like to know, in the event of trust status, who will be in charge. At a time when members are seeing their allowances eroded because HPA must make ‘saving’ by cutting allowances, then in the interests of transparency, we should know how much is all this going to cost.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with public sector reform or change. But what does the probation service really need? The National Audit Commission was closer to the truth than any rhetoric about trusts is likely to be. It noted:
“The commitment of Probation Staff to their challenging and important jobs was clear in all the local Probation Areas we visited, but high case loads impact negatively on the motivation of Probation staff and may undermine the quality of offender supervision’
And this is all about resources. In all the talk of high ideals and trusty ambitions you are not likely to hear much about resources. No, you will just be told to work harder and perform better. The truth is we are underfunded and overworked, but that’s like saying the emperor has no clothes on.
Posted by Hampshire at February 16, 2008 10:07 PM