was given leave today to
ask a Private Notice Question on the Probation
Service
(CB): To ask Her Majesty’s
Government what is their response to the report of the Chief
Inspector of Probation on the performance of the probation
service.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to delivering a probation
service that strictly enforces sentences, reduces reoffending and
protects the public. It is reassuring that the National Probation
Service, which supervises high-risk offenders, is doing a good
job overall, and we will use this incisive report to continue
improving it. We have changed community rehabilitation companies’
contracts to better reflect their costs and are clear that CRCs
must deliver a higher standard of probation services.
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. However, does he
agree that this well-researched report, which I commend to the
House as of interest to us all, presents a thoroughly dispiriting
account of just how great has been the deterioration and the
effectiveness of the probation service in the past three years?
It is now clear that the so-called innovative programme has
resulted in a disjointed and incoherent system despite the hard
work of the staff. I hope the Minister will agree that the
victims of crime, the courts of this country and local
communities deserve better, and I hope urgent action will now be
taken to recover what has been lost in these recent changes.
My Lords, we recognise the concerns identified by the
inspectorate and are working hard to address these problems. Many
of the performance issues with CRCs stem from the financial
challenges that providers are facing, which has meant that we
have addressed those contractual terms. However, I observe that
nearly two-thirds of CRCs have reduced the number of people
reoffending.
(Lab)
My Lords, this report is another legacy of the unlamented tenure
as Lord Chancellor of . The chief inspector states:
“Regrettably, none of government’s stated aspirations for
Transforming Rehabilitation have been met in any meaningful way …
I question whether the current model for probation can deliver
sufficiently well”.
She identifies a number of deep-rooted organisational and
commercial problems and says:
“We find the quality of CRC work to protect the public is
generally poor and needs to improve in many respects”.
She adds that,
“unanticipated changes in sentencing and the nature of work
coming to CRCs have seriously affected their … commercial
viability, causing them to curtail or change their transformation
plans”.
They have reduced staff numbers, some to a worrying extent. Is it
not time for the Government to review their ideological
commitment to private sector organisations playing a major role
in criminal justice, with results often as disastrous as these?
My Lords, this is not an issue of ideology. Many of the CRCs’
performance issues stem, as I say, from the financial changes
they have faced because of the limited number of referrals they
have received, and that has impacted on their performance. We
hold CRCs to account for their performance through robust
contract management. Where that performance is not good enough,
we require improvement plans to be put in place.
(LD)
My Lords, one of the important issues that the chief inspector
raises in her report is the fact that low-risk people, who are
supposed to be supervised by the probation service, can become
high-risk. She gave the example of someone convicted of driving
while disqualified, who was receiving telephone supervision—one
call every six weeks—and who eventually assaulted a previous
partner. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that a phone call
every six weeks is no way to supervise people who are supposed to
be under the supervision of the probation service?
My Lords, supervision of offenders needs to be proportionate to
the risk they present. In some cases, remote contact may be
appropriate for lower-risk offenders who are complying with their
orders. However, we recognise that best practice is for probation
officers to work with offenders face to face.
(CB)
My Lords, can the Minister please tell the House what the case
loads are for individuals in the National Probation Service and
in the community rehabilitation companies? A case load of 200 is
simply unacceptable, and it is unbelievable that anyone can
exercise any form of supervision of that number of people.
My Lords, I do not have the current figures in respect of case
loads for the service but I undertake to write to the noble Lord
and will place a copy of that letter in the Library.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has been meticulous in not thanking or
supporting the inspector for her report. I invite him to do so.
During my 12 years in government I came across Dame Glenys
Stacey, and she is one of the finest public servants I had
contact with during my time as a Minister. She deserves
incredible support and the thanks of the House for the report,
and I should like to hear it from the Minister.
My Lords, I am perfectly happy to endorse the observations made
by the noble Lord. Had I been asked about that point earlier, I
would have responded in the same way.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the spouse of the founding
director-general of the National Probation Service. This is a
devastating report and the Minister will find some of the
statistics that he is unaware of in it. These reforms were ill
framed and speedily and poorly implemented. Does the Minister
accept that it is time to go back to the drawing board?
We do not accept that it is necessary to go back to the drawing
board. It is, however, necessary to address the shortcomings in
the delivery by CRCs. That is what we are in the course of doing.
(Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the CRCs are properly
breaching people, given that they are not fulfilling the
requirement of their orders? Does he accept that it is extremely
important that the judiciary and the magistracy retain their
faith in community sentences? If the orders are not properly
administered and people are not properly breached, it will
undermine faith in those sentences.
My Lords, I endorse entirely the observations made by the noble
Lord. It is for the courts to impose programme requirements as
part of the community or suspended sentences orders that they
make. Clearly, we have to ensure that they continue to have faith
in the system when they are making those orders.
(LD)
My Lords, surely the case is overwhelming for a careful review of
what the Government were warned about by the House of Commons
Justice Committee and others: not providing the resources for
Through the Gate supervision of prisoners, which was the purpose
of the reform, would ensure that it would fail. Given that the
structure has not worked either because, as the Minister has
indicated, far more people have been referred to the National
Probation Service because of the level of their offence, it is
surely time to review the operation of the scheme.
My Lords, we do not consider that a root-and-branch analysis or
going back to the drawing board is required at this time.
However, we are taking active steps to address the very point
that the noble Lord raises. Indeed, we are paying CRCs
significantly more in the way of funding to ensure that they can
deliver the services required, including, critically, Through the
Gate services.
(Con)
My Lords, if the whole purpose of prison and the probation
service is rehabilitation, which it must be, is it not essential
that whether you live in Lincoln or Bootle or Bognor or Bath, you
get the same service? Will my noble friend reflect on that and on
the wisdom, or lack of it, in farming out responsibilities of the
state to private concerns?
My Lords, responsibilities have not been farmed out. Contracts
have been entered into and they are properly supervised.
(CB)
Is the noble and learned Lord really saying that the Government
are satisfied with a telephone form of probation, because I do
not believe anybody in this House is?
My Lords, we are not satisfied with the telephone form of
probation but, as I said, contact with offenders has to be
proportionate to the risk they present.
(LD)
My Lords, I assure the Minister that when these proposals were
put through by the coalition Government they were ideologically
driven, and some of the flaws that have emerged reveal the kind
of compromises that were created in the probation service. Before
these reforms, the probation service had an excellent report; we
now have this disastrous report. If the Minister is approaching
this ideologically, I put it to him that there is now a strong
case for handing probation over wholly to the National Probation
Service.
My Lords, I am not approaching this matter as an ideologue. I am
approaching it as a Minister with responsibility for the
implementation of the existing system of probation, in which we
continue to have faith.
