HearFromYourMP

Previous message | Messages for this constituency | Next message

Short sighted plans for the probation service

Posted by Kate Green, MP for Stretford and Urmston, at 15:25, Fri 1 November 2013:

I was very sorry to miss an important debate in parliament on the future of probation this week.

The probation service is one of our oldest public services. It manages offenders in the community, and in recent years it has been performing very well.

Greater Manchester Probation Service has been particularly innovative. I've had the privilege of visiting a number of the programmes they run, and I've been really impressed with the knowledge and expertise of the staff, and their commitment to their work.

Whether it is designing projects to help young offenders get their first job, or running specialist programmes and support for women offenders, or dealing with those with longstanding histories of offending behaviour, GMPS has always been willing to try new approaches, often with impressive results.

That's true of many probation services around the country. Independent inspections again and again show probation services working well to help bring down offending.

Of course, it's right to be concerned by continuing high levels of reoffending. But reoffending rates among those supervised by probation in the community are lower than for those receiving short prison sentences.

Nonetheless, the government is right to concentrate on one particular group of offenders who are falling down the cracks.

While those who serve longer custodial sentences will continue to be supervised by probation when they are released from prison, those who receive prison sentences of under a year are released without any ongoing supervision whatsoever.

They won't have had time to undertake useful rehabilitative programmes while they've been in prison either.

It's the worst of both worlds.

So I support the government's plans to introduce new post-release supervision for those who've served short custodial sentences.

But that doesn't excuse the wholesale destruction of the probation service.

Yet that's exactly what ministers are setting about.

If ministers get their way, probation will be broken up. Responsibility for supervising lower and medium risk offenders will be handed lock, stock and barrel to the private or non-profit sector.

The public probation service will deal only with the most serious offenders.

But this makes no sense at all.

For a start, offender risk profiles don't stay static. A low risk offender can be badly knocked off course by changes in personal circumstances - loss of a job, a bereavement or relationship breakdown.

Suddenly they're a high risk offender, angry, sometimes violent, volatile.

And in future that could happen while they're being supervised by organisations, including charities, who have no experience of managing those who present a danger to the public.

That's a real risk to public safety.

Then there is the financial argument. The government says by contracting the service out to private and voluntary providers it will be able to "pay by results".

But this is simply not the case. It seems that 90% of the payment will be handed over whether reoffending rates fall or not.

And you can be sure who will be hoovering up these contracts. It will be the multinationals who already control so many of our public service contracts, like Serco and G4S.

Companies which are already being investigated for the way they've managed electronic tagging.

Companies that already manage prisons, prison vans, employment programmes.

There are huge potential conflicts of interest here. How many times over will they be paid for the same work with the same offender?

What's more, the evidence from other contracts they hold is pretty plain: they won't be interested in the most complex, and costly, offenders.

Women offenders, for example, have very particular needs, which mean programmes to address their offending behaviour need to be tailor-made.

They're more expensive to run.

You need special expertise.

And because there are far fewer women than men in the criminal justice system, the unit costs are much higher than for men.

I can't see that being attractive to profit making companies. I've asked ministers repeatedly how the payment by results model will work for women.

I haven't had a sensible answer.

So I am really concerned about the consequences of what is being planned. It will mean more rip-off contracts for big business. It will put the public at greater risk.

No one is saying there is no place for a mix of provision, but in my view, responsibility for the supervision of offenders should remain with the state.

No perverse incentives, no dodging accountability, no leaving it to organisations whose ethos is driven first and foremost by profit, rather than protecting the public and managing risk.

These plans are more about ministers' virulent anti-public sector mindset than about reducing offending and protecting the public.

I'm hugely angry at what is happening. The consequences are really alarming.

But it seems that nothing will stop the government rushing the plans through.

Best Wishes,

Kate Green Labour Member of Parliament for Stretford and Urmston