Dear colleagues
Some of you will have seen that yesterday, Aurelius - the backer of one of the other parent companies providing probation services - published an announcement suggesting that they will shortly transfer their operations to Seetec, the parent company to Kent, Surrey and Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company.
The areas of service delivery in question are Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire (BGSW), Dorset, Devon and Cornwall (DDC) and Wales.
This announcement was picked up by some in the sector and was also circulated on social media.
There are a great many factual inaccuracies in the announcement. I want to set out candidly to the whole team what is happening.
The first thing I want to say is that Seetec is not in negotiations with Aurelius nor Working Links to buy these services or Working Links, as is suggested in the announcement. Neither has any agreement been reached to transfer these services.
However, as part of the Ministry of Justice’s contingency planning in respect of these regions, we have been asked to provide the MoJ with a proposal on how we might manage and operate these services. Those discussions are progressing but no final agreement has yet been reached.
You will know that I am of the view that should a provider be unable to fulfil their commitments, there should be an opportunity for others to step-in to manage the service. Seetec’s financial position is strong and, thanks to your hard work, we have a proven track record in Kent, Surrey and Sussex. We stand ready to help and support the Ministry of Justice if that is an option they wish to take.
However, perhaps more importantly, it is vital to remember that our probation colleagues in the south-west and Wales continue to support the people they work with and protect the public. It must be a very challenging time for them, and the announcement published yesterday has only served to fuel uncertainty and anxiety.
I am determined to ensure that we don’t add further uncertainty to that picture, and we will continue to focus on service delivery in our own area. I will keep you updated as to any other changes in this situation over the coming days.
Suki Binning
Chief Executive, Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC
https://www.ft.com/content/cd401568-2ac8-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7
ReplyDeleteFinancial Times subscribe to read "Parole reforms undermined by overstretched probation service"
DeleteThe 246 men and women who decide when to discharge prisoners from UK jails are not used to the limelight. But their decision last year to grant early release to “black cab rapist” John Worboys sparked public outrage and a hurried promise by ministers to reform the parole system.
DeleteWorboys was granted parole having served eight years of an indefinite sentence, and the decision was only overturned after a high-profile, crowd-funded judicial review.
The government’s overhaul, announced this week by justice secretary David Gauke, will give victims new rights to challenge the release of violent offenders. The reforms promise to reduce the time and cost of appeals, while a review of the parole board will consider whether “more fundamental changes” are necessary.
However, justice campaigners and criminal barristers say that Mr Gauke should instead be focusing his attention on other weaknesses in the criminal justice system.
Releasing prisoners safely into the community depends on a well-resourced and effective probation system. Instead, probation officers managing offenders such as Worboys complain they are overstretched and under-powered after previous Conservative reforms — including a programme of extensive privatisation in 2014 — have left probation in a mess. Whitehall’s spending watchdog last year accused ministers of “setting probation up to fail”.
Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, argues that making further changes to parole risks missing the point. “The interests of public protection are best served by having proper support for those leaving prison,” he said. “The Worboys case focused attention hugely on what had happened in custody, but the ultimate question is whether serious offenders can be managed safely when they get out.”
The Worboys decision garnered attention partly because it was so unusual. The taxi driver, who sedated his female passengers before assaulting them, was convicted of 19 sexual offences against 12 women but is alleged to have attacked more than 100 women over six years.
The news that he was due to be released came as an unwelcome shock to those victims, many of whom had not been contacted before the decision was made public because their cases had not been brought to trial. In this instance, the attacks on the indictment represented only a small fraction of the total number of alleged offences.
Immediately after the High Court overturned the parole decision, Mr Gauke scrapped the previous policy of secrecy surrounding parole decisions to allow victims to see a summary of the reasons for granting release. Nick Hardwick, head of the parole board, was sacked despite having previously lobbied for much greater transparency in parole judgments and suggesting better processes of engagement with victims.
Victims’ rights campaigners argue that the proposals to improve communication and provide easier routes to appeal are not only necessary, but long overdue. A new “reconsideration mechanism” will be imposed after every parole decision, giving victims 21 days to submit their concerns to the Ministry of Justice without having to resort to a court process.
DeleteAlex Mayes, policy and public affairs adviser at the charity Victim Support, believes that too often, the criminal justice process “leaves victims in the dark” and that the process for challenging parole decisions are “complex and costly, presenting a serious barrier . . . to access”.
He added that as well as being able to challenge decisions, it was “vital” that victims are given a voice and told how decisions are reached, and what conditions offenders will be subject to on their release. “This can include asking that steps be taken to ensure their safety, such as preventing the offender from contacting them or from entering their local neighbourhood,” he said.
However, these conditions are enforced by probation officers — and the MoJ’s own statistics show the signs of a stressed workforce, with resignation rates on the rise.
Harry Fletcher, former head of Napo, the probation union, said that reforms to probation five years ago had damaged the “performance and quality” of probation supervision. The creation of a privatised stream to deal with low-level offenders had also left public probation officers managing higher-risk individuals with more work than they had time to do.
By contrast, there are signs that appeals systems for victims do work, as proved by the successful judicial review in the Worboys case. Phillippa Kaufmann, a QC at Matrix Chambers who acted for two of the victims, said she was concerned that prisoners themselves — who are also allowed to use the reconsideration mechanism to challenge parole decisions not to release — will be put at a disadvantage.
“My real concern us that prisoners are going to find it even harder to challenge parole decisions . . . If they have already gone through an appeals process, the High Court is going to be much less amenable to looking at the case again when it has already gone through one hoop unsuccessfully,” she said.
Ms Kaufmann added that secretary of state’s proposals for victims “just looks like window dressing”. She pointed out that the Worboys case showed that there is already a procedure available to challenge parole decisions.
“The victim is essentially just going to the Ministry of Justice and saying, can you take this forward? . . . It is not clear what expertise is in place on the part of the MoJ to conduct a robust assessment of the legality of the decision,” she said. “We are in real danger of fixing something that doesn’t need to be fixed.”
Seetec is not in negotiations with Aurelius nor Working Links to buy these services or Working Links, as is suggested in the announcement. Neither has any agreement been reached to transfer these services.
DeleteOh really ! Why not address the Aurelius commentary then?
we have been asked to provide the MoJ with a proposal on how we might manage and operate these services.
Why ask Seetec an no other provider . When and for what reasons have you been approached by the MOJ . Have Working Links breached their contract has the MOJ discovered some major issue ?
We stand ready to help and support the Ministry of Justice if that is an option they wish to take
Where in the stated contracts amended and restated does this proviso exist for other contractors ?
What scam is Seetec and the MOJ pulling off here? What is being kept from the public attention. Has this working links contract failed and what is the reason.
This is public money and questions have to be addressed. What official announcements are there and what is the view of Unison and Napo. Where are the open transparent communications than this contradictory rubbish from KSS. What extreme risks are the the public facing from this failure of the CRC operated by Working Links. What can other CRC operators learn from what Working Links failure is illustrating in secret.
When will the public be told the truth. Who is organizing a freedom of information inquiry and when.
This has all the hall marks of a complete attempt to cover up. Has Working links been accused of embezzlement again. Is there more fraud accustions from dishonestly handling Government contracts target fiddles. Why is the situation being obscured in zero clarity. The contract has failed but and when will the staff be assured of their jobs and futures. Privatisation has put every probation worker at risk of gross incompetence by these contract blaggers.
As Ms Binning indicates, perhapse a chapter and verse explanation as to what may be happening to Working Links is not being made so that when it id explained the furture position can also be explained. People on her may want to fuel their finger pointing hollier than thou dogmatic agenda with this but im sure the those who are employed by the CRCs involved just want some certainty. Perhapse for their sake people should put their ideology to one side and let MOJ get on with producing a plan for whatever may have happened and then explain in a way which doesnt add fuel to the uncertainty.
ReplyDeleteYou must be moj reading that excuse some just want the truth . Your agenda is clear enough.
Delete13:11 spell check would help. I would like to see scrutiny of the privateer failure after all it is said that is public funded. Where has this money gone . Also why should the public purse pay twice over. For failures.
Delete