Wheels Coming Off

It will be interesting to see how long it is before Chris Grayling announces he has full confidence in Paul McDowell, HM Chief Inspector of Probation, now that we all know that his 'close relationship' with Sodexo is through marriage. Alan Travis of the Guardian last night outlined the whole astonishing situation:-   

Probation inspector at centre of row over wife’s job at outsourcing firm

The future of the chief of the probation watchdog has been put into question as a fresh conflict of interest row hit Whitehall. Paul McDowell, the chief inspector of probation, is at the centre of a row following the disclosure that his wife is the deputy managing director of a private justice company that this week won the largest number of contracts to run probation services in England and Wales.

The disclosure came shortly after Fiona Woolf stepped down as the head of an inquiry into historical child sex abuse after a conflict of interest row. McDowell was appointed by the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, to the crucial watchdog role last November. He is also a former chief executive of the crime reduction charity Nacro, which, in partnership with his wife Janine’s outsourcing company, Sodexo Justice Services, won six of the 21 regional probation contracts to supervise more than 200,000 offenders each year.

The Sodexo-Nacro partnership was named as preferred bidder to supervise tens of thousands of low- to medium-risk offenders in six parts of England, including in South Yorkshire, Essex, Northumbria, Cumbria and Lancashire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire as part of a £450m-a-year privatisation of 70% of the work of the probation service.

On Friday McDowell said he would not resign, saying that he had declared the conflict of interest when he applied for the £135,000-a-year job and that it could be “managed appropriately” by delegating inspections of the work of his wife’s company and his former charity. “My wife and I do not discuss issues which it is inappropriate for us to discuss. We are very aware of what is appropriate and what is not,” he interrupted his holiday to tell the Guardian. “We have acted with absolute integrity and professionalism … I will not be got at by anybody.”

But Sir Alan Beith, the chairman of the justice select committee, and the shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, said the disclosure raised serious questions about McDowell’s independence. Beith is particularly concerned that his committee was not told of Janine McDowell’s leading role in Sodexo when they endorsed her husband as Grayling’s preferred candidate at a special pre-appointment hearing for the job last autumn. He said: “If the secretary of state was notified at the time of Mr McDowell’s appointment of the close family member, the justice committee should have been told. That interest has now become more significant now that Sodexo, as a preferred bidder, is likely to be directly involved in the provision of probation services with Nacro in six community rehabilitation company areas.”

Beith said that McDowell’s background had meant he was well suited to be a fully independent chief inspector. “The secretary of state and the committee will now need to consider the implications of the interest issue having become much more significant.” The conflict of interest was not disclosed in either the evidence submitted in a letter by Grayling to the committee, nor in a lengthy CV or in oral evidence. McDowell told the Guardian he could not remember the issue being raised in the hearing and he didn’t think it had been. The committee confirmed on Friday that it had not been disclosed.

Khan said that so far McDowell had been “all but silent” on reports of chaos in the probation service caused by the government’s privatisation programme. “With this information coming to light, some will question whether this silence is because of his links with a company and a charity that has hoovered up big chunks of the privatised probation system.”

On Thursday the justice minister, Simon Hughes, highlighted McDowell’s key role in monitoring Grayling’s shakeup. Hughes denied claims of daily chaos, telling the BBC Today programme: “The independent inspector of probation has alerted us to no concerns that the system isn’t moving across.”

When he appointed McDowell, Grayling said: “We are making radical changes to the rehabilitation of offenders, and we expect HMI Probation to play a vital role in maintaining high standards and shining a light across the new system, helping us to get the best from our crucial reforms.”

Khan said that during a critical period for the probation service it was crucial the chief inspector did his job without fear or favour and independent of government, political parties or big corporate interests.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The chief inspector of probation did not have any involvement in the procurement of probation services. The terms of his appointment include a commercial confidentiality clause. This includes members of his family.” Justice ministry sources said McDowell had always been upfront about the professional role of his wife. They also pointed to the legislation on potential or actual conflicts of interest involving chief inspectors which allows them to delegate all their duties, including signing off the report and leading on their media coverage.

Both the MoJ and McDowell believe the issue could be “worked out over the next week or so”. An MoJ spokesperson said: “Preferred bidders have only just been announced and as with any contract the department will, of course, ensure that any potential conflicts are fully evaluated and appropriate arrangements put in place as necessary.” 

McDowell said his role as a watchdog or in producing thematic reports would not be compromised by his withdrawal from inspecting the work done by Sodexo-Nacro. He said he would still be inspecting the work of the remaining 15 community rehabilitation companies, 150 youth offending teams and the rump national probation service. He insisted that inability to comment on the national probation situation or produce thematic reports would not be compromised as they did not involve assessing the work of an individual supplier. 

He said while he was chief executive of Nacro before he became chief inspector in January he had withdrawn from all discussions about a possible partnership with Sodexo and the negotiations had all been conducted by his chairman.The McDowells met while both were in the prison service. Paul was at one point governor of the public-sector Brixton prison, while Janine, was the director of the Sodexo-run Bronzefield women’s prison in west London.

Even if he doesn't know it yet, Mr McDowell will shortly be learning the harsh lessons of political reality as Grayling seeks to look after his own interests. But the chickens keep coming home to roost at the beleagured MoJ as the judiciary continue to turn on the Lord Chancellor. On Friday a very senior judge in the family division threw down the gauntlet and clearly intends to defy the ministry, as reported here in the Guardian:-  

Government ‘washing its hands’ of legal aid problem for vulnerable parents

A senior judge has accused the government of washing its hands of the problem it has created by failing to provide legal aid for vulnerable parents in child custody cases. In what amounts to a confrontation between the judiciary and the executive over who controls spending in the courts, Sir James Munby, president of the family division, has handed down a judgment saying “some state agency” should pay the costs of legal representation in a case. 

Munby’s judgment, delivered in stark terms, is one of the most direct challenges over legal aid funding thrown down by a judge. It is the second time that Munby has threatened to order the courts service to pay for legal representation that parliament has explicitly withdrawn. In August, he warned the Ministry of Justice in the parental access case of Q v Q that costs would have to be borne by Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) if a father’s right to a fair trial were to be upheld.

The language in the latest judgment, known simply as “In the Matter of D (A Child)”, goes even further. It relates to the removal of a child by Swindon borough council from his parents, both of whom have learning difficulties.
Munby explained: “What I have to grapple with is the profoundly disturbing fact that the parents do not qualify for legal aid but lack the financial resources to pay for legal representation in circumstances where, to speak plainly, it is unthinkable that they should have to face the local authority’s application without proper representation.”

Munby explained: “What I have to grapple with is the profoundly disturbing fact that the parents do not qualify for legal aid but lack the financial resources to pay for legal representation in circumstances where, to speak plainly, it is unthinkable that they should have to face the local authority’s application without proper representation.”

What could be worse for a parent, Munby asked, than having their child permanently taken away from them? The parents of child D are unable, because of their own problems, to represent themselves in court. Munby continued: “In these circumstances it is unthinkable that the parents should have to face the local authority’s application without proper representation. To require them to do so would be unconscionable; it would be unjust; it would involve a breach of their rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the [European convention on human rights]; it would be a denial of justice. The child is also entitled to a fair trial.”

Munby then went on: “Thus far the state has simply washed its hands of the problem, leaving the solution to the problem which the state itself has created – for the state has brought the proceedings but declined all responsibility for ensuring that the parents are able to participate effectively in the proceedings it has brought – to the goodwill, the charity, of the legal profession.

Actually this is as good a time as any to mention a few other chickens coming home at the MoJ and that got over-looked as we concentrated on TR. There's Graylings plans for a massive prison for child offenders and the mounting opposition discussed here on politics.co.uk:- 

Critics frozen out of MoJ as Grayling pushes ahead with child warehouse plan

If you want to get Chris Grayling's attention, you need to appear in the Daily Telegraph. That's what he reads with his breakfast cereal. Apparently it's the only newspaper he cares about. Campaign groups took note of that as they tried to halt the creation of massive child prisons ahead of today's debate in the House of Lords. Their letter to the newspaper won the attention of Grayling's colleagues, Andrew Selous and Simon Hughes, who wrote to them to invite them in for a meeting.

But they didn’t invite all of them. The Howard League, of course, was rejected, along with a few others. The Howard League is persona non grata at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Grayling thinks they’re some sort of left-wing pressure group, rather than a critical voice from civil society. He imagines himself in a manner which is not dissimilar to a Chinese bureaucrat, conspired against by imaginary enemies.

We don’t know which other signatories were rejected, because the MoJ won't say. It could be Liberty, or the Prison Reform Trust, or Action for Children, or the Royal College of Psychiatrists, or any of the other groups who are intensely uncomfortable with the proposals.

"Thank you for your email," the MoJ reply said. "A selection of organisations working in the youth justice field were invited by Andrew Selous and Simon Hughes to discuss the secure college. In particular, ministers are keen to hear from those whose views have not perhaps been a matter of public record or as well-known, and/or who might not have had a chance to discuss matters with ministers previously. Therefore, we are keeping the cast list for the meeting to those who have received an invitation." All the classic MoJ traits are here: secrecy, an aversion to criticism, pushing on regardless of the evidence.

One might ask why the MoJ invited critics to discuss it at all, but when it comes to the child prison proposal critics are all you're likely to find. The plans go against everything we know about what works: small, family-style residences with a focus on rehabilitation.

Instead, we are building warehouses, dubbed 'secure colleges', to house 320 people, far away from home, at a cost of £85 million. Use of force will be a central part of the regime, even though the court of appeal found it to be unlawful in 2008. Chris Grayling's draconian approach to penal policy means violence is making a come-back. Restraint will be allowed "to maintain good order and discipline where a young person poses a risk to maintaining a safe and stable environment" – a definition so broad as to be applicable for the most minor of indiscretions.

Then there's this from the Law Society Gazette about possible claims:-

Compensation warning on parole delays

The Parole Board could face more compensation claims as it grapples with a growing backlog of cases requiring oral hearings, public spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) has warned. The board has estimated that the number of oral hearings each year could increase from 4,500 to more than 14,000 after the Supreme Court ruled last year that prisoners are entitled to an oral hearing more frequently than before.

In its report on the Ministry of Justice for 2013/14, the NAO notes that the board received additional funding to meet this challenge and was undergoing significant change as it developed a new operating model. The backlog of cases due to receive an oral hearing increased from 1,245 in September 2013 to 2,087 in March 2014.

‘The growing backlog of cases at the Parole Board will lead to further delays in releasing prisoners, making the Parole Board liable to more compensation claims and increasing the costs incurred by the prison system by extending the time prisoners are held,’ the NAO said. ‘It may also increase the number of prisoners held in crowded prisons.’

The 2013-14 National Offender Management Service annual report and accounts noted that 22.9% of prisoners were held in crowded prisons, where the occupancy exceeded the Certified Normal Accommodation in that unit. The average annual direct cost per prisoner was £26,000 in 2012/13.

Finally, a reminder that the MoJ is not very good at spending our money wisely, as reported here:-

MoJ launches “lessons learned exercise” after writing off £45m on abandoned court projects

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has promised to launch a “formal lessons learned exercise” after writing off £45.8m on abandoned building projects for new courts. The figure was contained in a National Audit Office (NAO) report ahead of a hearing this week of the justice select committee into the MoJ’s operations.

Sir Alan Beith, chairman of the committee, asked MoJ officials about the money which the department “seemed to have lost” at a hearing yesterday morning. Craig Watkins, director of finance and planning at the MoJ, said the projects were initiated “many years ago” prior to the creation of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and the MoJ.

“They were initiated at a time when the financial context was very different and also the operational needs of the courts’ service at that point was different from what we now think it will be going forward,” Mr Watkins said.

Stop Press 

Grayling is a slippery character alright and with his PR background knows how to massage the media. He's come up with a brand new wheeze to grab public attention ahead of the General Election by just making an announcement regarding police cautions, as reported here by the BBC. I fail to see how it will be 'less bureaucratic'.

Police cautions 'to be scrapped' in England and Wales

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said victims should not feel that criminals are "walking away scot-free". Under the new system, offenders would make good damage they have done or pay compensation for less serious crimes. Those who commit more serious offences would face court if they fail to comply with conditions set out by police.

The system is to be trialled for a year in the Staffordshire, West Yorkshire and Leicestershire police force areas. If successful it will be introduced across England and Wales. The government says the new scheme - which will also give victims a say in how the offender is dealt with - will be both tougher and more simple.

Mr Grayling said: "It isn't right that criminals who commit lower-level crime can be dealt with by little more than a warning. "It's time we put an end to this country's cautions culture. I think every crime should have a consequence, and this change will deliver that. "Under the new system we are introducing, offenders will face prosecution if they fail to comply with the conditions set by the police, so that no one is allowed to get away with the soft option." 

The overhaul of out-of-court disposals would see conditional cautions, simple cautions, penalty notices for disorder, cannabis and khat warnings and community resolutions replaced by the new two-tier framework. First-time offenders committing minor crimes would face a new statutory community resolution as part of the scheme.

This could see them offering a verbal or written apology to their victim, paying compensation or fixing damage. More serious crimes would be dealt with by a suspended prosecution which would have one or more conditions attached, for example paying a fine, or attending a rehabilitation course. Suspended prosecutions would be traced on a criminal record but community resolutions would not, the Ministry of Justice said.

Mr Grayling added: "Our police officers do a brilliant job in keeping our streets safe. But victims should not feel like offenders are walking away scot-free. "I'm not prepared to allow the current situation to continue and that is why I am making these changes. "This new approach will empower victims and give them a say in how criminals are dealt with, as well as making it easier for officers to deal with more minor offences."

Chief Constable Lynne Owens, national policing lead on out-of-court disposals, said the reforms should reduce bureaucracy and help increase public understanding. She said: "The pilots seek to test a new approach which gives officers and staff the discretion to deal with cases appropriately. "It will engage the victim in the process and require offenders to take responsibility for their actions." Police officers will use their judgement to assess each offence, as they do with the current system.

Richard Monkhouse, chairman of the Magistrates' Association, said: "We have pressed hard for a simplification of cautions, so this pilot is welcome especially in empowering victims. "However, we need to see more detail on the measurement of the pilot's effectiveness because our members tell us there are existing challenges with local scrutiny panels in evaluating the current regime for out-of-court disposals. "It's also important that this doesn't lead to an over-escalation and criminalisation of behaviour currently dealt with by informal community resolutions."

"Community Resolutions are a good approach but this move intended to create illusion of fall in reconviction rate." Comment via twitter by Sally Lewis.