Judy McKnight's Napolog

Web log of Napo's general secretary

May 15, 2007

Dialogue

Mike, Harry and I met with Lord Falconer this afternoon and were impressed with the fact that we had a genuine dialogue on the issues that concern members about the future of the Service.

We were given a full opportunity to explain our concerns about the OM Bill and what it means for the Service.

We said that we welcomed the fact that he seemed to recognise the need to address low morale in the Service. We now wanted the new “mood music” that he was responsible for, to be converted into action. We suggested that this could be done by the Government accepting some, if not all, of the amendments that Napo was supporting in the Lords’ Committee stage of the OM Bill that started tomorrow.

We stressed:
- the importance of Probation and the Probation Service, as a profession and as a concept, not disappearing, as threatened by the contestability process;
- the dangers of contestability for the fragmentation of the Service both for its future as well as for its professional training base;
- the need for successful change management to be underpinned by a vision that staff could sign up to – something singularly absent in the case of NOMS;
- the need for the Service to be adequately resourced and the need for workload prioritisation if there was more work than resources.

We pointed out:
- that nearly a year after we had been told that Cohort 10 of TPOs would be the last, we were still awaiting proposals on what training would be put in its place;
- that we were still awaiting proposals for a national training strategy for PSOs.

We pointed out that three and a half years after the Carter Report, “they”- (and we’re not sure who “they” are any more) - are still making it up on the back of an envelope.

In this context “it” includes:
- NOMS structures;
- the future of the Probation Service;
- whether or not there will always be a national voice, such as a national director for Probation,as there is for the Prison Service, and if so, their role in the NOMS’ hierarchy;
- what is meant by “best value” and its relation to the 10% target for sub-contracting out;
- the criteria for determining how a Board becomes a Trust;
- the future of national collective bargaining;
- how probation training and workforce planning will be secured and undertaken in a fragmented market;

etc, etc.

Lord Falconer was well briefed and showed an understanding of our concerns.

His approach was “solution focused”, seeking to identify what united rather than divided us. An approach diametrically opposed to the “in your face” style, which is the only way I could describe John Reid.

Time will tell of course, and tomorrow the House of Lords will start debating the OM Bill in Committee Stage.

Posted by jmcknight at May 15, 2007 08:31 PM