JTU51-2023
Francis Stuart
Head of Employee Relations
HMPPS
By Email only
4th October 2023
Dear Francis,
Formal registering of an NNC Dispute – One HMPPS
As was discussed in the informal urgent meeting between yourself and lead Full-Time Officials from the Probation unions last week, we are now able to submit a formal letter of dispute in respect of the above.
Firstly, we wish to make it clear that notwithstanding us having decided to invoke the NNC dispute resolution process, the unions will maintain dialogue and engage with the One HMPPS Annex A process as we have been doing, but that we believe a combination of developments have forced us into a position where we must now enter a dispute.
After the exchange of letters on the pre-dispute notification between the three trade unions and yourself more than a fortnight ago there have been several further meetings where the unions have made clear to various senior managers/leaders in HMPPS – including the Senior Responsible Officer – our position that the employer continues to behave in a manner that would lead us to enter a formal dispute. We also believe that the principles of the Professional Protocol are being undermined as a result.
Essentially, there are a number of aspects which form part of the dispute, and these are set out as follows:
Consultation
At last Thursday’s engagement meeting with HMPPS management, the Probation trade unions announced that having reflected carefully on the disappointing outcomes and a lack of transparency on a number of occasions during the consultative process, we had no option than to move from our pre-dispute position to a formal NNC dispute. We were particularly disappointed to see that the Autonomy Model which reached us just ahead of that meeting was in fact a later iteration of a policy that could and should have been made transparent to us some time ago. Indeed, we asked for and have yet to receive that earlier version.
We also have difficulty understanding the role of the One HMPPS Design Board which, from the quality of some of the Annex A’s that have been produced, seems to be lacking in their understanding of the role of Probation.
In our pre-dispute letter we raised our serious concerns over the fact that the Probation Job Evaluation Scheme is a nationally agreed document between the Probation Service and the Probation Trade Unions. With the freedoms that are proposed under the One HMPPS programme for the Area Executive Directors in terms of recruitment and grading of their support staff, we believe that this has the potential to undermine or circumvent this long-established national agreement. For example, we need to know how many new jobs are being created in the AED Offices, Executive Directorates and at what Band, and under which terms and conditions.
Failure to offer a One HMPPS Implementation Agreement
The unions have repeatedly asked for an Implementation Agreement to ensure the protection of our members terms and conditions and assurances on our specific collective bargaining arrangements within One HMPPS. Having heard directly from Amy Rees at the last meeting of the JNC who essentially told us that that while she did not really believe there are changes to Probation, her straightforward proposal was for the unions to be bold about what they want in an implementation agreement, Amy added that she did not think this was difficult to do.
Unfortunately, while this was welcomed at the time as a positive move, subsequently HMPPS has insisted on the document (attached with our comments and questions in response) as being a ‘Transition approach’.
This is hugely disappointing; and we do not understand what the problem is? It is one of the reasons why the trade unions have not felt able to respond to this document up to now. However, our comments on this and our narrative below, provide further context as to why we have entered a dispute.
Failure to agree a pause in the One HMPPS programme
In light of our need to fully explore those proposals which emerged from the JNC, and which we hoped would form the basis of further dialogue towards an Implementation Agreement, we have sought a pause in the intended enactment date of One HMPPS. We have noted the launch of the new Area Model but until we can get a better understanding of how the creation of another tier of senior management in the form of Area Executive Directors will in any way alleviate the enormous workload and staffing pressures being faced by our respective members, it is hardly surprising that we see this development as something of a sideshow to the real problems confronting the service.
Threat to the integrity of the Probation Profession
Feedback from our members suggests that to many of them, One HMPPS looks increasingly like a plan to subsume Probation so far into the Prison/MoJ-centric HMPPS, that it is unique identity will be lost forever. Our fears are being substantiated by the trend which illustrates how Custody and Licence work is becoming the sole preserve of the Prison Service with Probation involvement being increasingly limited to supervision work within the community and decreasing involvement with the overall client journey through the justice system. Under these circumstances it is very difficult for us to accept that One HMPPS is about Prison and Probation working together more effectively.
We have long been of the view that ‘One HMPPS’ represents a clear barrier to the trades unions joint campaign to see the Probation Service eventually moved out of HMPPS and restored to our communities. Many reports already issued by the outgoing Inspector of Probation Justin Russell, have referenced the egregious damage suffered by the service as a result of the disastrous Transforming Rehabilitation programme. Moreover, in the most recent Annual Report we have seen a damning conclusion about the time being taken for the service to fully embrace the many opportunities that should have flowed from its reunification in 2021.
The trade unions last week held a major discussion following the ground-breaking announcement by the Chief Inspector for an independent enquiry into the state of the Probation service, the need for Probation to have the space to stabilise and recover post-reunification, and tellingly, the doubts that were expressed in his report about the need for the One HMPPS.
Under these circumstances, the trade unions believe that we are obliged to formally oppose the One HMPPS programme at the same time as seeking to protect our members interests, and continuing our campaigns to see the service restored to a community based organisation with the requisite resources and authority to engage with partner stakeholders and providers to make a lasting impact in reducing reoffending, as opposed to Probation being treated as an adjunct to Prisons.
While we accept that the above is not going to occur this side of the next General Election, we cannot in all honesty stand back and remain silent while the implementation of One HMPPS represents such an obvious impediment to that scenario coming to pass, should a new Government decide to take that route.
Other factors to the dispute
The following represents a list of hitherto unanswered questions on which we seek further discussion as part of this dispute.
What will the AED’s actually be doing? Particularly as we were informed the status quo would be maintained for one or perhaps two years. The unseemly haste to create these roles while we have yet to receive assurances about the employment status of our members within the new Area Models and our ability to collectively bargain on their behalf is unsatisfactory to say the least.
We still await confirmation as to how AED’s will impact on the Probation Services responsibilities under Health and Safety legislation and regulation and the required involvement of recognised trade unions.
Of concern is that the commitment made by the One HMPPS team to facilitate the Area Autonomy Framework by the 28/09/23 from an outstanding action from March 2023 is a clear lack of commitment and transparency which could be perceived as undermining the Professional Protocol that the employer and Trade Unions have asserted to be committed too.
We await a detailed explanation of the costings to support these 7 AED posts which we assume are being funded out of job losses in HQ?
Who is going to do all the work which is presently carried out by the HQ staff whose jobs were previously factored around the Probation Service and on what terms and conditions?
Where are we with the OMIC review that Amy promised us as we have subsequently heard that such a review is already underway. If so, who by and why have we not been involved? We are also confused by a statement from the SRO that this review is to be looked at by the Director of Reducing Reoffending.
How will One HMPPS and the new AED structure solve the immediate problem of staff vacancies in Probation which, even at the current rate of recruitment, won’t get Probation to target staffing levels for several years unless existing staff can be motivated to stay longer?
Collective Bargaining – Probation Unions must have concrete assurances to follow their members who transfer into a Probation linked appointment in HMPPS and who must retain their Probation Terms and conditions. These jobs must be backfilled with ‘like for like’ replacements from Probation staff to maintain some semblance of a career structure.
What staff will fill support roles under the AED structure and how will these staff be appointed? What equality proofing will take place on this process?
What work will these staff do?
When will see the Leadership Pack to be issued to AED’s to further reassure us that there will be no impact on Probation staff?
Next steps
We believe that we have complied with the necessary protocols in advance of lodging this dispute. We are content for this letter and the ‘without prejudice document’ that we have commented upon to form the basis of further negotiation at a suitably high level as part of the dispute process.
We look forward to your acknowledgement of same and your proposals in respect of the next steps. As you know, the unions will wish to advise our members that we are in this situation as One HMPPS is bound to arise as a major issue at the upcoming UNISON and Napo conferences.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Lawrence Ben Priestley George Georgiou
General Secretary National Officer National Officer
Napo UNISON GMB/SCOOOP