On 19th July, the Government went public with an announcement about 10 emergency courts to be opened across England and Wales, in order to deal with the backlog of 480,000 cases facing Magistrates’ courts due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Emergency courts will be opened in Telford, Stevenage, Swansea, Leeds, Middlesbrough, Chichester, Peterborough, Fleetwood (Lancs) and two in London. This was announced scant days after PCS indicated to members that no details or proposals were available yet, showing the contempt the employer has for the union.
The government has emphasised that the emergency venues – and there may yet be more to come – will only deal with civil, family, tribunal and non-custodial criminal cases, but it is not clear what measures will be in place to protect staff and the public.
Covid-19 and protecting members
Protecting staff and the users of the justice system from violence and aggression of any kind as well as from Covid-19 must be the top priority. In addition to proper security measures, this means social distancing, adequate protective equipment and full risk assessments of buildings by union-appointed Health and Safety reps.
Given that the government wanted these venues to begin hearing cases from this week, it is far from clear that any of this has been done, and, unfortunately the lack of leadership from the union to local union reps and members will likely discourage members from fully pressing the case to keep themselves protected.
There will also be questions from staff about longer travelling time, more expensive journeys, new costs such as car parking in areas which do not have this and other mundane but important aspects of changes like this. At the end of the day, changes made by employers should not come with a cost dumped on to staff.
The silence on the PCS website is deafening. The union’s website is a major public resource that can be accessed by members to find out what is happening, and by non-members to find out why they should join the union, and there’s nothing on there to explain how the union is ensuring the employer looks after staff.
It could be that this complete absence of a campaigning approach is why the employer didn’t feel the need to properly consult the union before announcing the new courts. The
current state of negotiation and consultation remains unclear.
Wider reform agenda continues despite crisis
At the end of June, the government announced an additional £142 million to refurbish courts across England and Wales, which is welcome, but this is happening parallel with a steady retreat from local court services; 77 are still liable to close as the Ministry of Justice follows DWP and HMRC in shutting local offices.
Outrageously, one is in the process of closing even as the government is looking for emergency accommodation for courts elsewhere. Consultation on the closure of Medway County and Family Court was announced on 14th July, with an early announcement to staff slipped on to the staff intranet on 10th July without any consultation with the union.
In HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), the employer continues to roll out its pet project, the Reform Programme. Having learned nothing from the disastrous roll out of Digital Mark Up (DMU), the employer is repeating the exercise on the Common Platform. These new procedures will pile a great deal of stress on staff, especially Legal Advisers, at a time when members are already at breaking point. New programmes that will put strain on members must be halted during the crisis and subject to an independent evaluation of their impact. The union must mobilise to demand this.
Pay 2020
Meanwhile staff are still waiting to find out just how badly they are to be let down on pay this year; if the 14p offered to MOJ cleaners is anything to go by, it’ll be pretty bad. Here too, however, there’s little move towards a campaign in the different component parts of the PCS Justice Sector, which includes MOJ proper, HM Prisons and Probation Service, HMCTS, the Crown Prosecution Service and other areas.
In one sense this is understandable; the national union has already publicly announced there will be no pay campaign this year, aside from the pay petition that launched (and launched late, it should be pointed out) on 20th July.
Broad Left Network supporters are hard at work encouraging members to sign the petition – because several hundred thousand signatures on a petition and the debate in Parliament that this will trigger is better than nothing. But we are under no illusions; this will not deliver a pay rise and it will serve to do precisely zero when it comes to organising and mobilising the union. Yet this is the strategy of the Left Unity/Democrat leadership of the union.
Despite this abdication of leadership, the different employer groups within the union still have a responsibility to fight on pay. The national demand, agreed by Conference, of 10%, must be put to employers and groups should consider balloting for rejection of derisory offers – and especially on any offers tied to changes of terms and conditions, or even consider an indicative ballot for action on pay to mobilise members and provide a concrete test of the mood on pay.