Many members have been in touch with Napo over the last fortnight to express their anger and concern following comments made by employer's representatives in all staff calls held to discuss the 4% 2025/26 Probation pay offer.
Napo believe trade unions and employers have the right to communicate what each side believes to be important points on to support our respective positions.
In the case of this pay offer Napo's view is that this is an insult, representing a real-term pay cut while abjectly failing to recognise the value of our work in delivering the policies of successive governments amid a huge operational and staffing crisis in the Probation Service, caused by HMPPS's actions and inaction.
Unfortunately, some HMPPS communications on the 4% pay offer, including in the all-staff calls so far, have involved the employer engaging in speculation on what could happen if the pay offer was rejected by the members of one or more trade unions. These were never discussed with the trade unions in the pay negotiations that immediately preceded the written offer being sent to us by the employer. If they had been, the trade union negotiators would have fully explored all the questions we have about these possible scenarios before making sharing the results of this with our members to consider during this ballot period.
We believe that it's important that Napo members see the questions we've put to the employer, following the speculation they've engaged in on the possible reduction of the pay offer, and to which we believe we've yet to receive satisfactory responses:
- Was the additional Increase in Remuneration Costs (IRC) funding provided by Cabinet Office/HM Treasury as an outcome of the ‘pay flex case’, subject to any conditions imposed by Ministers or Senior Civil Servants in those Departments (for example, the acceptance of the pay offer by the trade unions)?
- If not, who would be responsible for deciding to "revert to the Civil Service Pay Remit" as stated as a possibility in all-staff calls?
- Why was the scenario that this pay offer could be withdrawn, and replaced by a lesser offer (such as reversion to the Civil Service Pay Remit), not discussed in the most recent round of pay negotiations with the trade unions, or detailed in the letter dated the 22nd of January 2026, making the employer's pay offer?
- Which Ministers or Senior Civil Servants in the Ministry of Justice/HMPPS have subsequently decided to include this potential outcome of a rejected offer in the information which has been shared with staff?
Napo’s view on what happens next
Our view remains that once the trade unions have completed their indicative ballots then they will take instructions from their respective committees. In Napo’s case that will be the Probation Negotiating Committee who will give directions to your negotiators after considering all the options available to us, including moving to a ballot on industrial action.
Speculation on matters not discussed in the most recent pay negotiations, or referred to in the written pay offer from the employer to the trade unions, have been seen by many members as an attempt to influence the outcome of our indicative ballot by coercion. While this is denied by the employer it has, nevertheless, caused a significant amount of anger and resentment amongst our members about the attitude and behaviour of HMPPS towards Probation staff.
Your decision
Napo has focused on the facts as we see them and will continue to do so. As we have consistently said, we respect the capacity of our members to decide on the merits of the pay offer. Whatever your view, we are urging all members to exercise their vote in this indicative ballot.