Probation Service

George Mudie Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have secured this debate, but I am more delighted to have the opportunity to introduce it under your distinguished chairmanship, Mr Crausby. You have already informally warned me to behave, and I promise that I will.

This is an important debate that will be of vital interest to Members, whatever their constituency. I intend to direct my remarks to the consultation paper, “Transforming Rehabilitation,” which the Government see as a revolution in the way we manage offenders, with particular emphasis on the problem of reoffending.

Before I go into detail, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the probation service’s extremely professional, dedicated and hard-working staff. Those words exactly describe the staff in West Yorkshire. I find the Leeds staff to be first class, and they do a first-class job. I am sure Members echo my comments for the staff in their areas. It is difficult to reconcile the proposal to transfer some 70% of the probation service’s work load to other providers with the quality of its present endeavours. In 2011, the probation service met or exceeded all the Ministry of Justice targets. In October 2011, the service won the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence, which is given to an organisation in recognition of its

“continued commitment to sustained excellence over a number of years.”

The award came with a commendation:

“The Probation Service comprises 35 independent probation trusts annually supervising a caseload of some 247,000 offenders. The successful pursuit of continuous improvement has confirmed that they are on the right path to achieving and sustaining excellence and essentially to being the best providers of these essential services.”

The award was noted by the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who said:

“This prestigious award recognises the professionalism of probation staff and the excellence of their work. This very public recognition of not just what they do but, perhaps more importantly, how well they do it, will be a source of pride for probation staff.”

Members might be even more impressed when they learn that all that excellent work was carried out against a background of falling staff numbers. In 2011-12, there was a fall of just under 7%. A total of 1,313 full- time equivalent staff were cut from the service, and there was a 10%, or £80 million, cut in resources over a slightly longer period from, I think, 2009.

I will address the Government’s proposals against that background of a dedicated, professional service. The proposals include privatising some 70% of probation service work; introducing, for the first time in the field of criminal justice, a payment-by-results scheme for private companies that receive the new contracts; and abolishing the 35 probation trusts and replacing them, initially, with 16 geographic units. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head. It is rumoured that the figure is now down as low as six or eight.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I shook my head because, as he will know from his close reading of the consultation document, the 16 contract package areas are a starting point, and not necessarily a finishing point. We will listen carefully to what people say to us during the consultation.

[Mr Mudie]

I will touch on that later in my speech, but I am interested in the Minister’s comments.

It is interesting that the private sector will be commissioned, not locally by the individual probation trusts, but from Whitehall. The Government justify decimating this 105-year-old, well regarded service—which has received all the commendations I have read out—at considerable risk to public safety, on the specific grounds of reducing reoffending rates.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate.

Humberside probation trust has a gold award, too. The current level of trust and information exchange between prisons, probation staff, police and others involved in the management of risk has taken a long time to establish, and they fear that that might be compromised if medium-risk and low-risk offenders are managed outside the public sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that such fragmentation of risk management is a real difficulty for the future?

[Mr Mudie]

My hon. Friend has taken a page out of my speech, to the great relief of everyone present. Levels of trust and information exchange are key, and they have grown bit by bit as the relationships, and the benefits of those relationships, have grown. That is now to be swept aside, with private sector firms being forced on the trusts.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I hear what he has to say, but does he not recognise that reoffending rates are far too high and that, as a result, we need to consider the structural reasons why that is happening? We must consider how to bring about change and innovation in the way the probation service functions.

[Mr Mudie]

The hon. Lady anticipates page 2, which I am just about to start.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the previous intervention, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the premise on which the Government are making their judgments? On 9 January 2013, The Guardian reported that the Secretary of State for Justice had said that

“a radical overhaul is needed to tackle the high reoffending rates with 58% of short-sentenced prisoners reoffending within a year and half a million crimes committed each year by released prisoners.”

The actual reoffending rate of those subject to state supervision—they are not short-term prisoners but those sentenced to more than 12 months—has dropped by 1.55 percentage points to below 10%. Does that not underline the wrongness of the Government’s approach?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mudie]

My hon. Friend has taken the second part of page 2 by making an important point that I was just about to address.

It is no secret, and it is accepted, that reoffending rates are high. The figures for the period between April 2010 and March 2011 show that more than one in four criminals reoffended within a year, which is a reoffending rate of 26.8%, marginally up from 26.3% in the previous year. Over the 10 years in which records have been kept, the reoffending rate has gone down.

It is sad but interesting that the Secretary of State used a higher figure when making his statement to the House. He said that, in 2010, “nearly half” of those leaving prison reoffended. He was correct—the reoffending rate for those leaving prison is around 47%— but that suggests the overall reoffending rate is double what it actually is. It would have been more straightforward had he used the 26.8% figure to justify the programme.

It is interesting that the Ministry of Justice’s annual figures break down those figures. Some 26,000 of the 56,000 people who left prison reoffended, but 18,000 of those 26,000 were not covered by the probation service because they were serving sentences of less than 12 months, which is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) made. If the aim is to eliminate or reduce reoffending, why must the Secretary of State use a figure attractive to him rather than giving a true reflection of the situation?

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I apologise to him, to Members and to you, Mr Crausby, for not being able to stay all the way through. Does my hon. Friend think that that is why the Treasury is so worried about the proposal? Would it not have been more logical to have tested and piloted the proposal for offenders serving less than 12 months with the probation service, given its growing expertise in working with the social enterprise and voluntary sector, in defined areas that coincide with police areas, so that people could work together? Instead we have prime contracts, detached from the community and the problem, with Serco and G4S taking over virtually all public services.

[Mr Mudie]

My right hon. Friend raises a number of points that I hope I will have time to touch on. They are all valid, not because they are in my speech but because they are important points about the attack on the probation service.

Any real scrutiny of the Ministry of Justice figures demonstrates that the reasons for our disappointing reoffending rates are complicated and numerous, but it is wrong and unfair to place them at the door of the probation service. As I have said, a major proportion of reoffending is outside the statutory remit of the probation service. I pay tribute to the proposal in the White Paper to bring it within the probation service’s responsibilities for the first time. It is one thing that I straightforwardly applaud.

Although I wish for improvement, due to those facts, and because of the quality and professionalism of the probation service, I am not convinced that there is a pressing need for the upheaval suggested in the consultation document, or for the pace and scale of change. I want to make it absolutely clear that reoffending figures should unarguably be improved, and that the proposals to address short-sentence prisoners are long overdue and welcome. I have no dogmatic opposition to the use of the private and voluntary sector in rehabilitation. My concerns are overwhelmingly about public safety, protecting the existing good work of the probation service, questioning the suggested and untested payment-by-results methods that will be introduced to the private sector, ensuring that management and structure changes are sensibly modified to suit the proposals and, importantly in this age of austerity, ensuring that the costs are acceptable. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the costs are starting to worry the Treasury.

Against that backdrop, it is critical that these large-scale reforms of our rehabilitation and probation policy are well thought through, investigated from all angles and brought together on a basis that puts evidence first. What is before us is none of those things. It is hasty, ill thought through, dogmatic, cobbled together and risky. I have indicated my concerns, and I will expand on them.

First, the Secretary of State describes the approach as revolutionary, but there is a clear need to demonstrate that the policy changes are evidence-based. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), started a number of pilot schemes in that area of work, which were abandoned within days after the present Secretary of State took office. When questioned by the Select Committee on Justice, the present Secretary of State admitted that he was unable to provide MPs with any evidence to support his change in policy. He excused his peremptory ending of the pilot schemes by stating that it

“will take us much of the rest of this decade to see through to a conclusion, evaluating the data and coming up with an analysis. We are talking about the core principle of trusting the professionals and making them take a bit of the risk themselves”.

We are less worried about the professionals than about the public taking the risk of the proposals.

When pressed by the shadow Secretary of State to produce evidence to justify, for example, the controversial payment-by-results proposal, the Secretary of State derided what he termed the Opposition’s obsession with pilots, saying revealingly:

“Sometimes those in government just have to believe in something and do it”.—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 318.]

That warms the heart, but it worries us to death.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is especially concerning that the Justice Secretary has decided to proceed without gathering the evidence, given that perhaps the best example of a similar programme under this Government—the Work programme—seems to be performing spectacularly badly?

[Mr Mudie]

I agree with my hon. Friend; this is a bad example of a politician and a Department feeling right in proceeding on such a sensitive matter involving so much public risk. If the Minister feels that I am being unfair, the Select Committee and I would welcome it if he produced the evidence to justify the risks inherent in the policy changes.

The more the proposals are scrutinised, the more apparent it becomes that giving the majority of work to the private sector is the major objective. To my mind, it is also a major cause of the opposition to the proposals and of some of the difficulties in the consultation paper. I said earlier that I saw nothing amiss in involving the private and voluntary sector—it is, of course, already involved, and such arrangements have grown and are appreciated—but the scale and spread proposed are entirely different. The proposal to hand over 70% of the work load of existing probation officers so quickly to firms untrained in and unused to the work raises obvious questions.

The division of the work distribution—low and medium-risk to the private sector, high-risk to the probation service—looks clear on paper but ignores what professionals in the service say happens in real life. Medium-risk individuals can move dangerously quickly to being high risk. If the signs are not spotted immediately, high risk may escalate into dangerous behaviour with harm to individual and general public safety. That is a reality that experienced probation officers live with every working hour, and it is a tribute to their skill and dedication that it does not happen on a wider scale.

It would be wiser to introduce the private sector, if it must be introduced on this scale, to deal initially with the low-risk group alone. Even if that were seen as weakening the proposals’ profitability for the private sector, it would have the opportunity to take on the new work load of prisoners serving less than 12-month sentences. That would create a clear division and stop the overlap, which will certainly cause a problem. It could also help with the vagueness of the relationships and objectives of the differing cultures.

The private sector has the responsibility to ensure that court or licence agreements are adhered to. Obvious situations arise when individuals are in breach, and they are processed by the probation officer, but in areas of work where trust and relationships are all-important, the probation officer will have to accept the judgment of private sector personnel and haul the offender back to court. On the one hand, we have a public servant—a professional—who has no monetary motivation and whose only objectives are public safety and working with integrity with the person on probation. On the other hand, under the proposals, we will end up with large private companies tied to a scheme of payment that will pay largely on results.

Is it impossible that, to protect or maximise payment, the person on probation who could be a difficulty and a danger to that payment might necessarily be passed back to the probation officer? The probation officer would then have to pick up the relationship and process the matter through court.

If the Minister does not accept that argument, he should at least consider the divisions of the responsibilities proposed. A more distinct role for the private sector is needed, but one that allows distinct accountability, which is paramount in this sector. Every day, there is the possibility of something going wrong, and any ambiguity in responsibility is unwelcome.

Another reason to suggest that privatisation is uppermost in the Secretary of State’s mind is the winding up of the 35 trusts. Why are they being wound up? They have just been praised as excellent; they have been doing the job for 10 years; they have built themselves into the area and built up their relationships; but now they are being converted into 16 or perhaps six geographical areas, with all the dangers to the relationships that lie with that. Can the Minister spell out the reasons for cutting the trusts and the agreed criteria for the number of replacements?

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend touched on the benefits of having longevity in a service, so that the contacts are built up over time. Longevity should never be unchallenged by those of us who are public scrutineers, but it builds up valuable expertise, as his own service has shown. One of my concerns is that the reducing offending and supervision hubs—in the emerging jargon, ROSHs—could be open to competition every three or five years. Surely, different organisations will therefore run the hubs every few years and the connections locally will be broken when they have to start again. Is that a good thing for local public safety?

[Mr Mudie]

It is a very harmful thing. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point and allows me to take further chunks out of my speech. I will not go further into the relationships, but I worry about how the contracts will be procured and the effect on the existing small companies and voluntary organisations that work with the probation service. I warn them that small companies and voluntary organisations often cry out for privatisation or for procurement or break-up of public services, in the belief that they will get the work, but they are dreaming. The Minister has provided some arrangements and money to assist small companies to bid, but the reality is that the big international and national companies will get the contracts, while small companies will be pressed to the margin.

[Nic Dakin]

I underline that point. I have observed probation working locally in the Scunthorpe area, and it is doing so effectively with voluntary initiatives such as MPower—small activities, voluntary organisations and private companies that are locally based. That local anchorage is crucial in dealing with the work and in keeping our communities safe. I share my hon. Friend’s concern, which he is right to express.

[Mr Mudie]

My hon. Friend makes another page of my speech unnecessary, which is a blessing.

One of the main things that we want the Minister to consider is the question of commissioning from Whitehall. The urge to privatise and to bring in the big companies is distorting the remaining parts of the service and causing real questions to be asked, one of which is about procurement. Why are the contracts being specified from Whitehall? We would welcome an answer. Why are the existing public trusts not able to set up the contracts? Whitehall setting up contracts for probation trusts’ computers fills them with some worry, given its record on computers.

A real problem is the business of payment by results, which is allied to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). Payment by results has not been a feature of the culture or practice of the Ministry of Justice, and the general feeling was in favour of pilots if it were to be done; the Secretary of State, however, cancelled the pilots. The Minister would do everyone a favour if he indicated why that was so, apart from the mystical belief that the Secretary of State knows best. The introduction of payment by results in so sensitive an area is extremely worrying. The pilot schemes wisely set up by the previous Secretary of State to test that out have now been scrapped, and it would be good to know on what basis other than that mystical belief.

I am sorry, Mr Crausby, that I have overrun my time, although I have taken a few interventions. My last point, however, is on costs, which I make not so much to the Minister but to the Treasury. It has been confirmed that the Treasury is looking at costs. I understand that, and as a member of the Treasury Committee, I hope that that is a good look. When the Ministry of Justice budget is under severe threat, however, the Secretary of State is suggesting the pulling in of the 30,000 people who leave prison after small sentences; he is also suggesting doing that rapidly. That 25% increase in work load will involve a fair cost, especially as he is talking about individual mentors and so on. Can the Minister tell us whether that policy has been agreed with the Chancellor? Is the money available? It will be surprising if it is; it will also be surprising, because the Treasury has publicly voiced worries about whether the rest of the business has been tested and costed. Untested payment by results could cause not only operational but financial problems, yet the Secretary of State has committed himself.

I welcome the fact that people on 12-month sentences will be included and looked at for the first time. That will have a good effect on lowering the reoffending rate, but I find little to enthuse about in the rest of the proposals, other than recognising that they are another dash for privatisation and an attack on public services and public service finances.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the first of the two Front Benchers at 15.40. I think that five Members have indicated that they wish to speak, so if they could keep their contributions reasonably short, I hope to get everyone in.