Message from Pat Waterman Chair of Napo Greater London Branch TO:NAPO MEMBERS Further to my e-mail to all members yesterday entitled: Everything is just fine (so I am told) I received a response to my original letter from our Chief Executive Heather Munro which I reproduce in its entirety below. Members may wish to reflect if this parting missive from her is an accurate reflection of their current reality. Dear Pat I am in receipt of your letter of 22nd May, copies of which you claim to have copied to all the Members of Parliament within the Greater London area and to the Permanent Secretary. The letter carries little weight as it is written on the basis of factually inaccurate information and is misleading. I believe that by doing so you may have brought the service into disrepute and raised anxiety among your members unnecessarily. It is recognised that as with any major change programme, the Transforming Rehabilitation programme carries risks. In carrying out the instructions of the Ministry of Justice, the Trust has done what it can to minimise these for the benefit of staff and the public. As Chief Executive I have taken my responsibilities very seriously and ensured that the Board and staff have been kept informed of progress. Staff have given positive feedback on the openness of the Trust’s communications. Indeed we have had weekly meetings with the Trade Unions and shared information with you willingly. You are incorrect in your belief that LPT is significantly behind other trusts. The LPT project team has met all the MoJ timescales and has been rated green in relation to these for each month since the project’s inception. You have raised staffing as an issue and in particular Probation Officer grades in the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC). Overall the total number of vacancies is the same as we have experienced in London Probation Trust over the last 12 months and there has been no increase arising from Transforming Rehabilitation. Vacancies mainly sit with the CRC because of the rules that were applied to staff sifting, giving the opportunity to express a preference as a key factor. The Trust has continued to fill these vacancies with agency Probation Officers and many of these are now applying for permanent positions in the CRC. In order to meet staff preferences for organisation and location, where appropriate, movement between CRC and NPS has been allowed. Furthermore, several staff members have taken the opportunity for career advancement and gained promotion as a result of the changes, which has also increased the need for staff movement. These moves will be limited after 31st May 2014. The case transfer process has been a challenging part of this programme and the Trust has worked hard to minimise the risks. We have worked closely with the Metropolitan Police and other partners, have liaised with staff of all grades to get the best process possible and have briefed staff about what will be involved. The case transfer process is largely on track. It was not expected that all offenders would have been transferred by the 31st May, as those cases identified as critical have a longer time period and it is not expected that these to be transferred until the end of June. Concerns about ICT have been raised with the MoJ who have been working closely with all Trusts to manage a very complex change. The Trust is awaiting clarification from MoJ in relation to a number of workarounds in Delius. Most of the concerns you have raised at our weekly meetings have already been logged by the Trust with the MoJ. There has been no rise in sickness absence rates and although you indicate the figures are not accurate, the Trust has put in place measures to ensure they are accurate, including a requirement that Assistant Chiefs personally sign off each month the figures for their staff group. I am therefore confident that there has been no increase in the rates. The equalities data you refer to is a helpful analysis of what has happened to the staffing profiles as a result of the staff split. On some aspects, either one of the new organisations better reflects the demographics of the communities they will serve. The analysis provides a guide to the new organisations in understanding what issues they may need to focus on and address. The MoJ has conducted system readiness tests on all Trusts and London has been visited and documentation provided. There has been no indication from the MoJ that they are concerned about the progress made in London and indeed, we have been praised for the work we have done to minimise risk. Clearly you have significant concerns about the aims, purpose and cost of the programme, but as a public sector body it is the Trust’s responsibility to deliver the programme as designed. Where possible, as I have already indicated, the Trust has taken steps to minimise the risks to staff and the public. I note the reference to the Risk Register. Your written request was specifically made for LPTs Staff Transfer Risk Register and in response you were advised you that there is no register or document of this description. However, in order to meet your request, information about concerns that had been identified as part of the staff transfer process as at the end of March 2014 were given to you. I have been disappointed with the level of engagement from NAPO locally, which I believe could have been achieved despite the NAPO stance on the overall programme. I do not believe you have served your members well and your personal agenda has got in the way of your duty to staff. Please confirm with me that you will send a copy of this letter to your members in order that they may be aware of the facts. I am sending a copy to the MoJ for it to be available to any London MPs who may have concerns arising from your own letter. Yours sincerely Heather Munro Chief Executive
Posted on: Fri, 30 May 2014 14:44:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015