noms
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) & the Carter Report
CARTER AND NOMS - THE ENEMY AT THE DOOR
I will show that the 100-yard sprint to restructure the criminal justice system is ill thought out and subliminally perverse. It is my view that to engage in a reorganisation agenda with this haste must be viewed with some scepticism, as it can be a way to avoid a problem or achieve a pre-agreed goal rather than take on an agenda positively. A reorganisation document of this magnitude, which does not even think to mention diversity or any equal opportunities issues in any form could and should be construed as predetermined as a step by step approach to a change agenda could not miss such important challenges.
THE CHRONOLOGY
On the 8th January 2004 the Government’s latest strategy entitled “reduce crime and change lives” was published some two days after a report the Government had some time previously commissioned to review correctional services in England and Wales was published. Patrick Carter was tasked to carry out the correctional services review, which commenced in March 2003 and the completed report was submitted to the Home Secretary for his views on the 11th December 2003. The report was then published nationally on the 6th January 2004. The speed that these two reports were submitted completed and published is astonishing especially with a Christmas recess in the middle, and possibly the quickest acceptance of a major commissioned report by any incumbent government in modern history. This was possibly a cynical attempt to incorporate and progress the recommendations before any serious challenges from parliament and other concerned parties could be fully initiated and tested. Or it could purely be because the government were always going to accept the recommendations, as they knew exactly what they would be.
The Carter report has been accepted almost in its entirety by the government and the introduction of the report has been commenced. We have to put into context that Patrick Carter the reports author is by no means a stranger to writing radical right wing reports for the government recommending change in the public sector penal system. We could go as far to say that his economic principals lie cleanly within the free market economy and the monetarist ideology. The Observer article (1) looked at the first Carter report and made the point that Carter’s “untried formula will waste money and drive down prison workforce pay and conditions”. The article also argued that the government’s love affair with “big business” and its mistrust of the public sector would inevitably lead to mass privatisation.
The implementation of the report does not need any legislative changes and as such no parliamentary scrutiny. The only consultation the report has thus far received in parliament is a one and a half hour backbench sponsored motion and there still remain approximately 150 unanswered parliamentary questions. This is a deliberate and manipulated position that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Parliament should and has to be allowed to give views and influence what is a change that if not thought out and implemented responsibly will have serious implications to public safety.
The question has to be asked why another report and why Patrick Carter? The original report of 2001 recommended a semi-privatised system akin to that planned by the treasury for the London Underground. This was an unworkable white elephant, and the public relations difficulties that caused for the Government at the time would not want to be replicated. The author is simply untried and untested in what would and would not work for the Prison and Probation Service and I would say for the public sector in general.
I can only draw one conclusion as to why someone as ignorant in the criminal justice system as Patrick Carter, would be chosen by the government for this task and that is simply, he will do as he is told and believes the private sector should be allowed to profit from public services and money. This view has definitely been given some credence since Mr Carter suddenly became Lord Carter shortly after completing this cynical report for the government.
We must consider the considerable power the private sector multinational companies hold and the influence they have on Government policy. This is considerable and a view we can justify by the Government’s own admission that Private sector companies sponsor academics and researchers to help formulate government penal and criminal policy. In addition to this Group 4 has held high profile policy making conferences and has contributed £25,000 to help fund research by the Institute for Public Policy Research which is at the centre of the Government’s strategic thinking on criminal justice issues. It can also be said that a system being introduced to strengthen the private sectors role in the criminal justice system was being looked at by the current government, and this second report is merely another attempt to achieve mass privatisation of our prisons and criminal justice system.
A firm view must also be taken on the news that Securicor and Group 4 are to merge and operate under the new name of Global Solutions. It would appear that today it is the criminal justice system and tomorrow it is the world. This is also at a time when Securicor has announced record six monthly profits of 39 million pounds, which are up in excess of 20%. It is physically impossible to look deeply inside these companies, as they are commercially paranoid and legislatively able to be secretive. It is not socially acceptable not to have total accountability for public services and that is what the private sector naturally brings.
This does lead to the conclusion that the input and influence the private sector hold on the criminal justice system is unhealthy to say the least and there to ensure share holders interest come first. We can also say that there is strength in depth within a commercial setting where a larger market share is strategically important. Therefore practically it is not in the interests of the private sector companies for prison numbers to decrease. Larger prison numbers naturally mean larger economic returns and a larger share of the virtual market. Multi-National companies do not and will not invest vast amounts of money into research that will potentially adversely affect the capital growth of the company. I do not believe that any government should place itself in a position where it can be accused of manipulating public policy to favour the private sector. I believe that to use that same argument in the criminal justice system where people’s lives are at stake is morally wrong and even perverse.
Justice must not be allowed to be achieved on the cheap, which is exactly what in essence the private sector offer. New employees statistically tend not to have any access to pension provisions and their basic wages are inferior to those in the public sector. This is in stark contrast to senior managers whose pay has on average increased by 24% under the provisions of privatisation. The overall costs tend not to lower in fact the evidence shows the reverse as refinancing deals are formulated and implemented to help increase the revenue for the company and its shareholders.
The arguments I have laid out I believe justifies the POA’s position that we have maintained for many years that to profit from people’s incarceration is unacceptable and an abuse of public money. The criminal justice system is an inherent part of our society that is there for society. It is about time the prison system is stopped being used as a political and commercial football and treated with the respect and admiration it justly deserves. As far as the Carter report is concerned I do not believe that the report is there to benefit the criminal justice system but merely to achieve certain business objectives set by the government and certain civil service mandarins for self-benefit.
We must also briefly address the current level of private sector involvement in the criminal justice system and the worry of a monopsony occurring in connection with the mergers and sell off’s of certain private sector companies. How can we have a virtual open market as is planned with the possibility of only two viable companies having a stake as a comparator or competitor? In reality we cannot but the current manipulation of the market by the private sector can be viewed as a restructuring operation in readiness for the future business opportunities that have possibly already been offered to these companies.
The current proposals to create a National Offender Management Service at an initial cost estimated at approximately £90 million is not the best way to progress the work of the probation and Prison Service as outlined in the report. This begins by the reasoning given in the Government paper Reducing Crime, Changing Lives (2) The title states that the paper is directly concerned with reducing crime and the Home Secretary in the introduction states “we now have a once in a life time opportunity to reduce crime”, and yet there is absolutely no mention of any police involvement in the initiative. I cannot see how any government can even pretend to tackle an issue such as crime reduction but omit any mention of the police force. This is simply because the initiative is not primarily concerned with reducing crime or prison numbers and that is not the intention of it and by having a pre-ordained outcome essential and important research that could have benefited the criminal justice system has not been commenced or completed.
The reality of the creation of the NOMS super state is a highly costly and centralised bureaucracy run by a powerful tsar with total and utter operational fragmentation. This will ultimately increase the number of employers and commercially pit them against each other under the umbrella of the profit motive. The introduction of the “customer” does not in my view sit easy inside the public sector as to be a customer by virtue of the name you need money or the ability to purchase. This again leads to the manipulation of the virtual market within the monetarist economic concept and a charge towards a massive administrative blunder on the recommendations of what is in essence a study by a management consultant.
If we look at the Guardian article (3) Martin Narey the Chief executive of the newly formed NOMS visited America to “speak to two viable US private providers that are not yet operating in England and Wales”, this was with the intention to see if they would be interested in bidding for future work. This was at a time when the Prison Service was told that market testing was finished and Performance Testing was the future. It is not coincidence that the now head of NOMS was initiating the Carter proposals before Carter had apparently written them. It is also disgraceful to place prison service staff through the stress and bullying of the performance testing process when in the long term the process is not worth the paper it is written on and the government where fully aware of the fact.
The report that Carter submitted to the Home Secretary recommended some far reaching alterations to both the Prison Service and the Probation Service. This drew on a number of hypotheses that are not justified or researched in any way that is made clear or referenced in the report. I would suggest that the Carter report reads more like a business proposition than an academically commissioned researched report. I cannot find any mention of any terms of reference that the government gave to Carter although the CBI report (9) appears to read very similar, when initiating the report or any mention by Carter as to what his boundaries and guidance were when conducting his review. I can state that at no time were the POA or NAPO ever consulted regarding this report or its research. I can go even further and say that even up to the Government’s publication of the two documents we were still not consulted.
Another glaring omission in the carter report is the blatant lack of comment on the remand population that we hold. I would ague that it is not possible to address the issues of prison numbers or recidivist rates unless a close and detailed account of remand prisoners is completed. I do not contend to be an expert in the field of remand prisoners but I do know that there are approximately 14,000 remand prisoners in the system at any one time and on average only 40% of them will be found guilty and sent to prison. Surely even someone as intent on privatisation as Patrick Carter should at least have paid lip service to this area before deciding, “privatisation is best”. We have to accept that whatever the social and economic consequences of privatisation government arrogance will attempt to push this policy forward with as much might as it can muster.
There is a view that the fragmentation of services within the criminal justice system will in essence make the Prison Service a hotel provider. It is possible that two extreme outcomes may occur and the first one is that all we will provide as a service is the accommodation and discipline. The second outcome could be that we keep a lot or all of the services we provide and become the monopoly or leaders in the sector.
The first outcome would simply mean that the outsourcing and competitive nature of the work driven through and policed by the regional offender managers, will not given to the prison service. It will be outsourced to a private sector provider or the voluntary sector via services contracts. This will limit radically the quality work that the prison service produces and corral the work into a very tight defined sphere.
We describe some of this work as ring fenced as it is resourced and staffed technically outside the profiled work of establishments. The practicalities of removing this work from an establishment is not theoretically difficult, although it does bring a certain amount of practical issues that would have to be overcome. The second type of work that could technically be removed could be described as some of the flexible work that we place within profiles such as ECO or bail.
I believe that the removal of the work above would seriously damage the quality of the throughput and partnership work that the criminal justice system produces. It will in essence enforce on the Country a Prison Service that is no more than a meat market who contain and discipline prisoners.
The second possible outcome would be that the Prison Service would become the majority provider in all services provider in the criminal justice system. This is possible if the regional offender managers place all or the majority of the services contracts with the Prison Service. This may sound a positive step and one we should strive for but it is my view that this in itself moves away from what we as a service have been striving for many years.
Joined up justice and a seamless approach to the forwarding of prisoners journey through the system is in my view the best way to progress. This is simply because all the stakeholders and partners have their own expertise that they bring to the process. We are not probation officers and probation officers are not prison officers. The divisive nature of the NOMS proposals is vast within this respect and I realise that the version I have cited is purely hypothetical but the word hotel is widely being used when looking at the effects of NOMS.
An integral part of the criminal justice system is the valuable input that the voluntary sector contributes to many facets of our job. NOMS has the potential to destroy that contribution and turn the voluntary sector into some kind of sudo-commercial venture with a perverse ability to bid for services within the criminal justice system. I believe this concept can have catastrophic consequences on what could be described as a delicate and finely balanced ecological system, and one that has worked exceedingly well for many years.
Do we really want to see large corporate style voluntary organisations evolving and subsuming smaller more delicate groups? The voluntary sector should not be made to compete and tender and bid, they should be able to perform their functions within the criminal justice system as they effectively do now.
I fear that many of the organisations we have a working relationship will become extinct due to the considerable burden that the new process will bring. The voluntary aspect to the incarceration and rehabilitation of prisoners is inherently important and NOMS should not be allowed to destroy that in the name of profit and power.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
What will it mean to you at a practical level? The simple answer is nobody actually knows and the speed with which the Government have leapt on this report and started initiated the recommendations, has never been seen before. Eithne Wallis who has been appointed as the NOMS change director, cannot give precise answers to the many questions ourselves and the other effected trade unions have asked. The right honourable Paul Goggins in the House of Commons (7) could not confirm when the national rehabilitation action plan would be published which must run hand in hand with any fundamental changes to our service. All I can do is give you a considered opinion on what the changes will mean and how it will affect you based on the limited available documentation and research that has been conducted.
It is no secret that the criminal justice system has been advocating a joined up justice approach to prisoner’s and prison sentences where seamless sentencing and collaboration between all partners is seen as an essential part of the entire process. This we have never disagreed with and I know at all levels the main stakeholders have been forging better working partnerships and relationships to attempt to modernise the criminal justice system. The POA has played its part in that process and we have been working closely with NAPO and other interested parties to improve our performance on a number of key issues.
We believed that process would continue in light of the great gains both the Prison Service and the Probation Service have made regarding the service we provide. If we look at a few of the outputs the Government have praised us for then we see the excellent work that our service is producing: -
The list is endless but it has all been achieved with a Prison Service and Probation Service that has less operational officers than it did eight years ago and a population that breaks new records each week. We have produced tangible results consistently whenever asked and we have jumped through all the hoops that been placed in our path. In all the papers that have been written in relation to Carter and NOMS I cannot find one criticism of front line operational staff, so how can privatising you or threatening to privatise you gain more from you or the service? Colleagues as the wise man once said, “you, cant get blood out of a stone”.
The criminal justice system is the conscience of the public service and must remain accountable. If we look at the proposed structure then all we can see is a dual none accountable managerial chain of command being driven by commercial inspirations with the current director general of the Prison Service in effect becoming a mere hotel manager. It is essential that the prison service only concentrate on the service they should provide. The service should prioritise and concentrate on agendas such as sentencing policy, which includes the new custody plus and minus initiative but this does not need the administrative changes that are being introduced and in fact the new proposals may administratively hinder the application of the policy.
The changes as I see it will substantially effect the service that you are currently apart of, Esmie Wallis has gone on record and said there is no intention to alter terms and conditions of staff. That statement simply means not at this precise time, which means in my opinion it, is has been considered. It has been my view from my first reading of the Carter report that one of the underlying reasons for introducing the changes is to weaken prison service staff terms and conditions in readiness for reviews. The answer given by Esmie Wallis in my view confirms the intention is definitely there.
I will attempt to give you some general step-by-step comments on the Carter Report, which will hopefully aid in your own digestion of the changes and the future as it could be.
INVESTMENT AND CONTESTIBILITY
Carter opens with the statement “additional investment in prison and probation since 1998 has improved delivery”, now like most of Carter’s statements within his report it is an unjustified value statement but in this case it is also a deliberate manipulation of the factual position. In real terms there has been no investment to improve the service, all that has happened is money has been used to keep up with demand and even that has not been enough. All staff at establishment level will have had to make sacrifices to keep up with the population increases. The right honourable Cheryl Gillan stated in Parliament (10) that 64% of prisons are so overcrowded that they are over the limit for keeping prisoners in decent conditions and 15 are over the danger line. We could at a push say the quantum system was investment, but has that improved in the delivery of our agenda? The position you will understand and have experience of is one of efficiency savings and ring fenced funding, not investment.
We have to examine the “benefits of competition” view that Carter holds, which I can see no evidence to justify. The only tenuous link to any form of justification that is contained within the report is the mythical belief that it has been an incentive for improvements in the public sector. I am fortunate to visit a substantial number of establishments as part of my working day and I would say that the particular hammer used by management of “improve or else” that the statement must refer has possibly had the opposite effect. Morale and recruitment and retention problems are nearing epidemic levels. Violent offences are increasing and control is not as it should be.
In order to initiate the new approach a new all singing and dancing tire of bureaucracy will be introduced in the name of NOMS, with this expensive cumbersome layer that has massive cost implications but none that have been itemised, being there ironically to take money off the front line of the public sector and give it to the private sector while doing so itself just by its own existence. The criminal justice system needs more front line staff but in reality over the previous three financial years 3,647 prison officers left the prison service and 2,245 joined. This is in the climate of massive increases in the prison population. The agenda the government are pushing at the moment are more front line staff and fewer bureaucrats, except where we are concerned where the reverse appears to be applicable.
Part of our aim under NOMS will be to prevent offending and the comparator used to justify this is the Youth Justice Board yet I can find no evidence to justify that the cost/output ratio of the YJB is better to the grossly under funded public sector in fact some would argue that it is worse. Similarly a point, which I do have to accept, is the only genuinely referenced argument that the Carter Report uses to justify the private sector’s record, which is it improved quickly after start up. It was that bad to begin with it could not do anything else but improve, if that is the only justifiable example Carter and his team could find then the public sector are as we though exceptional value for money and a good public service.
The report attempts to argue that some form of selective sentencing should be adopted to slow the increase in prison numbers. I cannot see any evidence that this will actually work. This will centre on new sentencing guidelines and a more robust management of magistrates and judges, but if we ignore the irrelevant statistics and look at the crown court sentencing rates then I believe it justifies my scepticism. Crown courts sentence only 6% of the offenders that go before them but they account for 88% of those in prison at any one time. This accounts for 70% of our total expenditure (4). We will not make any major difference to numbers of convicted inmates in prison based on the current statistics and policy until recidivist rates are tackled.
Performance testing is referred to in the Carter report at page 24 at having helped to bring down costs (5) and reference is made to justify this position to the 2003 CBI report (9). It does not justify the performance testing process although I have to be honest and admit the report is extremely well written and indicative of the approach the CBI must take to represent private sector companies, but once again it is not an independent academic research document or a document that should be referred to in a government paper that has the ability to change criminal justice policy. I would describe it as a carefully written business case whose facts are somewhat dubious but as a tool to sell private involvement then a “nice” report. It is not an honest independent document or a research paper and factually incorrect in a number of ways. Cost per inmate places are vastly underestimated in comparison to the actual amount and value statements are widely used to advocate the benefits of private business.
The benefits of PFI are exuded with statistical evidence given to justify this view. The overriding statistics that the report ignores are the refinancing that occurs and the fact that all senior managers in the private sector have jumped ship from the public sector. This I believes substantiates the argument that it should not matter who the employer of the manager is “to manage is to manage”. In my view Carter has leaned very heavily on the report and even plagiarised the use of the word “contestability”, which flaws the government’s acceptance of the Carter report.
To say I am confused by the Carter report’s meagre mention of the rising numbers in custody and the linkage would be an understatement. I will use the following quote from his report (5).
At present the only rationale for significantly increasing the number in custody is
we arrest and convict more offenders.
The first issue of importance that needs to be addressed is the admittance that the process of the police arresting people is an inherent part of the process and yet as I have previously stated no further mentions of them are made throughout the document. Purely speculative reasoning by myself, but it would appear that the outcome for this subjective push for greater use of privatisation and contestability was not meant for the police so no further mention was made of their involvement. In reality the linkage between the simplistic statement that the only rational for greater prison numbers is we arrest and convict more is far more complex than Carter could assimilate. It is like saying “the kettle boils because I turn it on”, however true it may be it does not analyse the process and results of the initialisation of the process.
It would be impossible for us to extrapolate the true core reasoning for the increased numbers in prison without some extensive analysis but we can generally comment on some none contentious reasoning for the numbers such as recidivist rates, social change, lengths of sentences, criminal activities, drug related issues, political agendas and many other reasons. The lack of reliable and believable justification contained in the report just strengthens the view that an honest intent was not used to compile this new political agenda.
POSSIBLE CHANGES FOR STAFF
The simple truth is no one really knows the extent of changes that will occur as the NOMS program is rolled out. We can give some indications for the short term and also give a view of possible changes for the long term. If we look at the letter from Eithnie Wallis (6) her view is “terms and conditions for all NOMS staff will need to be considered” which does tend to contradict her previous statement as cited? The starting point then must be the managed change of employer as alluded to in the letter. As it appears to be hinted in the letter you will no longer be a member of the prison service but be a member of NOMS, which could have some major implications for your working lives. All the POA’s collective and workforce agreements are with the current employer and not NOMS, it is possible that an attempt may be made to reject our current agreements by our new improved employer.
Uniform, epilates, pay, general terms and conditions, disciplinary policy, sick policy, grading structure, rank structure, reporting structure and shift pattern structures may all be in the minds of our new employer to change. I do not think I need to say that if changes to any of the above were even contemplated then the POA would stand and defend those conditions with all our might, but in reality we all know that the best way to achieve structural and employment changes is via stealth and subversive threats and what better disguise for that tactic than market testing.
We can also say that training and development within the service could change and the recruitment focus of the service could alter. The structural changes such as those cited could vastly alter in comparison to those that are currently in place, and those possible changes need to be watched with great care.
If we briefly look at the historical position that has occurred in the public sector generally over the past 14 years then a pattern does emerge. The Health Service and Education have been through similar types of change agendas as we are currently under going. Seifort and Ironside (8) wrote a book examining the changes that have occurred in the education system. They explored in depth the changes to the employer status within schools and then the technological advancements and de-skilling that occurred. We can say that a weakening of the workforce’s collective strength did occur and then changes were introduced with some stealth. Local Education Authorities loosing contractual responsibilities preceded the relevant changes in line with privatisation and a form of market testing.
A similar picture is painted if we look at the Health Service with employer changes being used in line with a form of market testing. This has lead to de-skilling, privatisation, marginalisation and a large amount of bureaucracy being added. This can I believe be used as a rough parameter to judge the possible future that may face our service and more importantly what we can do to ensure that profit does not take precedence over serving society.
MARKET TESTING
Market testing is once again going to be used as the hammer to ensure change occurs. I see this method as political in concept and as far as the Government is concerned a tried and tested way to initiate change. I have been threatened, intimidated and abused by some form of market testing for more years than I care to remember. It has become a part of our service but at what cost.
To have the ability to test a prison against a competitive criteria of any description then parameters need set. In the case of market testing financial and operational outputs must be the consideration, but who decides on the balance. To be a more efficient service could mean to be more expensive so what is more important, service or cost. It is my belief that ultimately the public get what they pay for, you can’t pay for a pushbike and expect to drive around in a Rolls Royce. We understand that to comply with a test of any description then a number of hurdles need to be addressed: -
A partnership approach needs to be achieved between the unions and management
Standards need to be agreed
Budget needs to be met
Time scales adhered
Staffing levels agreed upon
Profiled work needs to be set
There are of course a lot more technical issues to be addressed but in real terms achievement in the above should ensure success, but an issue of concern must be that our employer places the criteria upon us. That does not allow you to be honest competition within this market place as the criteria are a prerequisite for the establishment. In other words the bid is fuelled by operational requirements rather than commercial requirements. This unequal competitive scenario in real terms does not make ultimate sense, so should it be the threat that we all perceive.
I do not believe that the market testing process is the main concern for our service. It is a process that we have become very competent at forwarding and being successful at. The hurdle that concerns me is the honesty of the political thinking behind the reasoning for the conversion back to a market test process. In a fair and equitable system we will be successful in any genuine market test process but if the process has been brought in to fulfil a political aim I.E. provide the private sector with a larger share of the market then how can we compete. Why discard performance testing for market testing which purport to assimilate the same outcome if there was not a reason. The only reasoning I can see is the speed at which private companies can be brought on line.
Costs that have to be factored into a bid from the private sector are staff wages including the on costs that have to give a comparable pension, profits and running costs. The on costs for transferred staff are a big burden for the private sector to afford and in my view make a viable bid extremely difficult to achieve, which can be justified by anyone trying to achieve a quote for a comparable pension outcome through a private insurance backed scheme. The cost will astound you and highlights the costs the private sector will incur. The only truly viable propositions for the private sector are a new build, a lost leader or dare I say financial incentives from the government.
Our stance should not be to sell our souls to win a bid at the cost of jeopardising safety, security or service. We should be honest with ourselves and not succumb to bullying or intimidation to achieve efficiency savings, which historically will not be directed towards front line staff.
WHAT WE AGREE WITH
It would be unfair to say that we disagree with all the changes that NOMS would introduce, and it would be untrue. As a union we have for many years campaigned for the resources to be able to tackle recidivist rates and mental health issues as they should be tackled. We have campaigned for the front line resources that will allow us to care for prisoners and not simply crisis manage them.
The idea of all the criminal justice agencies and stakeholders working as partners is a positive recommendation and one that we have been attempting to introduce ourselves with our sister unions and groups working in the prison service for some time now.
The POA does not believe that the endless increase in prison numbers is either positive or healthy. Steps do need to be taken to tackle recidivist rates, which currently stand at 57% and this needs to be done in line community and judiciary involvement. It has to be thought out properly and resourced adequately with all stakeholders fully involved.
The sentence management of prisoners also needs to be addressed so they can be adequately dealt with throughout their journey through the criminal justice system, with involvement from all agencies, but again this needs to be done sensitively and proactively.
The POA wholeheartedly agrees that the prison service should always strive to improve and innovate and will continue to push the modernising agenda forward but the employer must also be on board with that agenda and not consistently attempt to cheapen the service.
THE NEXT STEP
It is the intention to trial the managerial line of the newly formed NOMS via regional pilot schemes in the North West, Wales and the South West. Regional Offender Managers will be appointed and the management of offenders will commence with young offenders. In the North West as an example due to the technical difficulties of the probation system two areas will be chosen to manage the sentences of the young offenders. Cumbria and Cheshire have been chosen due to their low numbers of offenders within the system. I believe the system will work similar to that employed by the juvenile estate where administrative centres will be established to sentence manage the inmates within each prison.
The Regional Offender Managers will in essence begin the process of securing the services that are required over the forthcoming twelve months, which will include the offending behaviour programs that will be delivered both inside and outside the prison system. The types of inmates that will be included in the pilot will be increased as the pilot develops, and the systems can cope with the numbers.
I have a degree of scepticism that the pilot will not address the real issues that are going to be central to the new approach. These include legislation changes that will need to occur and the community infrastructure that needs to be invested in and introduced. It would appear to me that the working of the bureaucracy is more important than the management of offenders. It could also be said that the introduction of the 10 areas under the new NOMS are more formulated to aid in the introduction of a regional assembly model of government rather than to improve any service delivery.
The structure for the new pilots has now been formulated and the recruitment process is underway. There will be some resource implications for the offender management departments that will be set up in establishments but to the front line staff there will be no benefit at all in the form of resources. It could be said that it is likely that efficiency savings may have to be made to fund the progress of the NOMS initiative that once again will be made by cutting the most vital part of the criminal justice system, prison and probation staff.
There has been a NOMS committee set up whose role is to analyse the progression of the policy and forward the union’s view as instructed by the executive. I have submitted a substantial paper critiquing the proposals based on this article to every Member of Parliament asking them to support of struggle to keep the Prison Service. The response was overwhelming and better than I had ever imagined.
As a result of the response we will organise a meeting with interested members of parliament to discuss the destructive implications of the NOMS proposals. We will continue to lobby politicians and attempt to win our battle at a national level.
The Carter report is not in my opinion a new or brave attempt to improve the criminal justice system. I do not believe that it is a genuine attempt to curtail prison numbers or reform the prison or probation services. I do not believe that it is the result of a real criminal justice research document or a way to assess the current performance of the criminal justice system. To quote Mark Serwotka the General Secretary of the PCS “The current Government knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing”, this I believe places into context the ultimate motive for the change process that the introduction of NOMS will bring.
The Carter reform is simply a way to achieve media driven populist rather than popular political aspirations under a subversive cover of a research paper. The author is economically entrenched and anti-public sector, who relied heavily on a one-sided CBI report and anecdotal evidence. The report ignores relevant portions of the criminal justice system and real issues that could improve the service in which we work. We are simply the next layer of victims in the world trade war and we cannot sit back and watch the destruction of the good that is present within our criminal justice system.
This I believe gives us the ammunition and the stage to be able to fight the details of the change process that effect the prison service and also the areas that we believe will harm the criminal justice system. I was heartened by the support shown at the recent rally and lobby organised by NAPO held on the 11th May 2004. This showed the extent of the opposition to the introduction of NOMS and the like-minded people that are prepared to stand and be counted.
I think that we must continue being the voice of “no profit from the public sector”. We must not fight for any other parties that disagree with the changes within the prison service or be any ones puppet. We must stand together with our sister unions and campaign together. We can if we stand united be successful against the harm that will be done to our service if the change agenda was implemented unchallenged.
As a trade union this is an issue we must once again be united on and confront head on. We cannot allow our service to be attacked under the banner of profit and dismantled for political and economic gain. Together we can I believe ensure that the public interest is maintained in the criminal justice system and our service and the criminal justice system is treated with the respect it deserves.
We belong to a proud and successful public sector and that cannot be allowed to be destroyed.
STEVE GOUGH, M.A.
NEC
Observer article
Reducing crime-changing lives, Home Office document January 2004
Guardian article, Crime pays handsomely for Britain’s private jails, 11-3-01
Supplementary tables, Criminal statistics England and Wales 2001, Home Office
Managing Offenders, a new approach, Patrick Carter
Eithnie Wallis letter to Colin Moses 6-04-04
Home Department oral questions and answers 22-04-04
Seifort R and Ironside M (1995), Industrial Relations in Schools, Routledge London.
CBI Report 2001, Competition: A catalyst for change in the prison service?
Home Office questions 10th May 2004