Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to paragraphs 68 and 69 of the National Framework on Staff Transfer and Protections - Staff Assignment Process - Guidance on the Application of the Sifting Criteria published in November 2013 for the Transforming Rehabilitation programme referring to the random assignment of staff, how many probation trusts used a random assignment method; which methods of random assignment were used; and how many staff were affected in each of the trusts using a random assignment method.

The probation workforce was allocated to the new organisations in line with capacity needs. This was calculated on the basis of the existing staffing requirements for the different operational functions. We worked closely with the Probation Association (representing Probation Trusts as employers) and the Probation Trades Unions on the staff allocations process, setting out a robust approach based primarily on an objective assessment of existing workloads plus expressions of interest. This was then implemented carefully and transparently by individual Trusts, in consultation with their staff and the Unions locally.

The Probation Association prepared guidance for its members on how Trusts should allocate their staff to the new organisations. This recommended that an automatic assignment process should be applied in the first instance, and where this was not possible then local evidence-based assignment criteria should be used. In those few situations where neither process led to allocation, and only in the case of administrative support staff, then the guidance allowed for agreement on transfer to be reached on the basis of a random assignment process. This was designed to ensure that staff in similar circumstances had an equal opportunity to be assigned to either of the new organisations. The process was managed by Trusts in agreement with the Unions locally, and we do not hold figures relating to the number of Trusts which made use of a random assignment method or how many staff were affected.

Probation staff were assigned to posts in the new organisations in the first part of the year. Where they were dissatisfied with the outcome of the process, they had a right of appeal. 4% of staff exercised that right, and 0.9% of appeals were upheld.