November 23, 2006: Probation Could Be Dismantled, Says Union

The new Offender Management Bill could lead to the abolition of the National Probation Service, according to probation union Napo. Commenting on Bill's publication today, Napo's  Assistant General Secretary Harry Fletcher stated:

“This Bill will, if implemented, lead to the abolition of the National Probation Service and its replacement with a competitive market. Local accountability would be lost, information sharing between agencies will be diminished by competition, and public protection compromised. The Bill is not about improving standards, it is about privatisation, yet to date no business case has been produced by the Government to show how the replacement of Probation by a market will actually work and improve the delivery of service. Whole probation Areas could be sold off under the arrangements, including the supervision of high risk offenders."

"The experience of privatisation in probation work so far has been a disaster. The management of property and hostel facilities such as cooking and cleaning were privatised three years ago and resulted in a 30% hike in prices and a dramatic fall in standards. Indeed, the contracts are currently being renegotiated.”

Mr Fletcher continued:

“The sale of the Probation Service was first justified by Ministers on the grounds that it was failing. Yet, this experiment comes at a time when Probation is performing better than ever. Ministers then said that reconviction rates were too high. In reality the rates are significantly lower than those for prison. Adjusted figures show that during the two-year period after completion of probation between 41% and 46% are involved in a further offence compared to 67% from custody. Statements by Ministers that the re-offending rates are the same are totally inaccurate. The Probation Service is an agent of justice and the courts and must not become an agent of commerce and profit."

"The way forward is through partnership with the voluntary and private sector not competition. The Government should look to arrangements in Scotland for offender management where there is a statutory duty on agencies to cooperate with each other to reduce re-offending.Napo will be urging MPs of all Parties to vote against the relevant clauses which remove the power from local Areas to commission and give them to the Secretary of State, and therefore pave the way for privatisation. A lobby of Parliament has been organised for 29th November and a meeting will be held in Committee Room 14 addressed by MPs who share Napo’s concern.”

Napo's General Secretary Judy McKnight notes that Home Secretary John Reid has circulated a Napo Briefing to his colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party. Dr Reid, it appears, does not endorse Napo's concerns about the Offender Management Bill, which he trailed earlier this month. Napo has published its 10 key reasons for opposing the forthcoming Bill:

1. If the Bill becomes law probation work, particularly interventions, including unpaid work and many accredited programmes, will immediately be the subject of competition with voluntary and private sector providers.
2. Core probation work, and probation staff, will be transferred to the private or voluntary sector by dictat, not on the basis of which provider is the most effective or which provider offers the best ‘value for money’.
3. Duties in relation to victims, crime and disorder partnerships, and multi agency public protection arrangements will also be the subject of contracts, so the provider will not necessarily be the Probation Service.
4. If a Probation Board is deemed to be ‘underachieving’ it would be contracted out and excluded from putting in a bid for its own work. The Boards would disappear leaving no local public provider to bid in future when contracts come up for renewal.
5. The introduction of competition will lead to less communication and cooperation between agencies as has happened in the Prison Service. It will undermine the stated aim of NOMS; to introduce better end-to-end management of offenders, reduce re-offending and increase public protection.
6. The public service ethos, local accountability and links with sentencers will be lost. The Trusts will be business-like bodies with members drawn from the world of business and human resources rather than the local community. There will also no longer be the requirement for magistrates, judges or local councillors to sit on the new Trusts.
7. Probation services will be controlled regionally or nationally rather than at local level and the ability to respond to local crime and local needs will be undermined.
8. There is no evidence to support the Government’s contention that competition drives up standards, and no business case has ever been produced to demonstrate how it would.
9. The dismantling of the national Service means the end of the Probation profession and national collective bargaining. It thereby threatens the performance of the Service and the terms and conditions of staff. The future of staff training is in doubt and the fragmentation of the Service threatens to reduce opportunities for career development.
10. There is no support for the proposals. When they went out for consultation at the end of
    2005 the overwhelming majority of the responses (788 out of 798) were opposed. Opposition came not only from practitioners and probation employers, but also from sentencers, academics, local authorities, the police and the voluntary sector. Home Office figures show that Probation performance is better than at any time in its history to date. Napo believes that the objectives of reducing re-offending will best be served by building on the principles of partnership rather than competition, and on the strengths of a coordinated public National Probation Service rather than a fragmented mish-mash of providers.