A Clear Signal

I think the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke sent out a clear signal to the Probation Service during the course of his talk to lawyers at Grays Inn on Monday evening. During questioning from Joshua Rozenberg and carried in the latest edition of Radio 4's Law in Action programme, Ken Clarke confirmed much of what had already been trailed, but also gave some more insight into his thinking and general direction of travel. He agreed that his department's settlement with the Chancellor was only based on estimates of re-offending and that a reduction in prison numbers of 3,000 was extremely modest and only brought us to the position of two years ago. He reminded the audience that prison numbers had increased by 20,000 since Michael Howard was in charge.

Significantly Mr Clarke said clearly that a renewed emphasis on community penalties was not about saving money. He appreciated that schemes had to be paid for and he hoped that Probation Trusts would get involved as providers of Payment by Results projects. In answer to a direct question, he confirmed this would be an additional role for probation. He wanted the money to go towards the best schemes and confirmed there was no shortage of good ideas 'out there', but that so far HM Peterborough was the only pilot.

So there we have it. A clear signal and in my view it's now up to all those highly paid Probation Trust Head Office managers with fancy titles including words like 'business development' or 'partnership' to earn their keep, read up damned quick on Social Impact Bonds and seize the moment before the 'third sector' or private companies get too involved. Here is an opportunity to bid for extra work, with external funding and prove to any remaining doubters what works in terms of reducing re-offending. 

This is not rocket science, but is something the probation service has expertise in. We know that people commit offences for a reason, not because they've got a genetic predisposition or are bad people.  It's because they've missed out on a good childhood, been abandoned by state education and do not have the skills, confidence or resources to gain employment or decent housing and get help with alcohol or drug addiction. What ever else Ken Clarke might be doing, he is offering us the opportunity to design a support package specifically for the short-term prisoner, based on our knowledge and experience and paid for through Social Impact Bonds and Payment by Results. I simply do not understand NAPO's philosophical opposition to such an idea, particularly if the funding comes from respected charitable bodies and represents additionality. 

I can see no point at all in making an enemy of Ken Clarke. He agreed that his plans are hardly 'populist' and are not going to win him many friends. By instinct and nature he is generally a liberal Justice Minister, having absolutely no political ambitions and in all these ways admirably demonstrates to me a refreshing desire to move away from the old Blairite tendency of trying to appease the right wing press. I might add that in that regard he's put plenty of 'blue water' between himself and  Michael Howard, a former Conservative Home Secretary for whom I have nothing but contempt. This could be the beginning of an attempt to return to the days when criminal justice policy was not a political football. It was felt to be far too important for that and proceeded gently by means of research, Royal Commissions or cross-party consensus. I would remind people that Payment by Results has cross-party support.

Make no mistake, if we fail as a Service to grasp this opportunity and allow the third sector and private companies free reign, we will not be understood by the public or possibly even our many friends in high places, and we will be set firmly on the slippery slope of decline and marginalisation. Now is the time to try and seize the agenda that will inevitably be put in train by the Green Paper and demonstrate that it's us that know about rehabilitation and we can be just as adaptable and imaginative as in days gone by.