Saturday 25 May 2024

What a Week

Well, that's been quite a week. Who would have thought our Prime Minister would throw a hissy-fit to avoid being dumped by his own colleagues, cement his political epitaph in the rain and start an election campaign both he and his party are clearly unprepared for. Being certain of defeat, it has triggered a veritable stampede by Tory MP's for the exit. Whilst this is most welcome in many cases, without a doubt probation and the causes of justice sadly loses a staunch ally in the retirement of Sir Bob Neill, long-standing chair of the Justice Committee:-  

To everyone who has contributed to the work of the Justice Committee 

You will be aware by now that a General Election has been called for 4 July. This means that, as of tomorrow, Select Committees are required to cease work ahead of Parliament being dissolved next week, on Thursday 30 May. 

The Justice Committee will therefore not be able to produce reports it had planned relating to its open inquiries: Prison operational workforce; Future prison population and estate capacity; Use of pre-recorded cross-examination under Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999; Work of the County Court; Probate and The Coroner Service – follow-up. 

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to these inquiries and to assure you that, in the process of doing so, you have played a valuable role in the scrutiny of justice policy, enabling us to ask the key questions of those in power. The evidence you provided will remain on the public record on the Parliament website and will therefore be available to inform the sector and other stakeholders. Where it has been possible, we have also written to the Ministry of Justice with our high-level views. Many of the issues will still need to be urgent priorities for the next government, and it is therefore quite likely that they will influence the agenda of the Justice Committee in the new Parliament. 

I would also like to thank everyone who has contributed to our past inquiries. I firmly believe that, over the years, the cross-party Justice Committee has made a significant and visible contribution to the national debate on justice policy and been robust in holding the Ministry of Justice, its Ministers and its arm’s length bodies to account. For example, the Committee’s influential work on IPPs (Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences) as well its examination of the unsustainable risks around prison overcrowding and estate capacity has played an important role in shaping public debate on these issues. A functioning and properly resourced justice system underpins our democratic values and deserves a central place in Government policy making. 

During my time as a Member of the Committee and then Chair, I have seen the Justice Committee increase its strength and reach, undertaking challenging and innovative work and engaging directly with people who have real experience of the issues in hand. This excellent work, of which I am very proud, will no doubt continue in the next Parliament and I strongly encourage you to continue to engage with the Committee’s work. 

It has been an immense privilege to Chair the Justice Committee since 2015 and I thank you again for your support.

Sir Robert Neill KC (Hon) MP 
Chair, Justice Committee

--oo00oo--

It's to be hoped that Bob Neill may find himself elevated to that 'other place' in any Dissolution Honours and possibly go some way in picking up the mantle long-held by our other very keen but sadly missed advocate, Lord Ramsbotham. 

Lastly, I would like to thank Napo London Branch for kindly inviting me to speak to them yesterday in a wide-ranging discussion on everything 'probation'. Following as it did in the wake of the BBC Panorama programme, it's abundantly clear that any incoming government has a great deal of work to undertake in fixing many broken aspects of the criminal justice system, not least being a thoroughly demoralised and stressed Probation Service. In such circumstances, do look out for each other and consider sharing your thoughts and experiences with colleagues on here.     

15 comments:

  1. "I firmly believe that, over the years, the cross-party Justice Committee has made a significant and visible contribution to the national debate on justice policy and been robust in holding the Ministry of Justice, its Ministers and its arm’s length bodies to account."

    Yes you've raised issues, but you have NOT held anyone to account. That's a bit of self-congratulatory myth-making.

    But not a single mention of probation. Ah well...

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The Justice Committee was critical of the way the probation service was privatised. As he knows, I do not have an ideological objection to privatising services, in the right circumstances and in the right way, but the simple truth is that the way it was done in probation was absolutely the wrong way to do it, splitting up and dislocating the service, with a mixture of that which was retained nationally and that which was with various outsourced companies. It was wholly unsatisfactory and created some dire results..."

    Followed immediately by:

    "... I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who, when he was Justice Secretary, took the tough but right decision to reverse the process and unify the service once more."

    Is that "holding ministers to account"? To 'pay tribute' to Buckland for that is like saying Vennells tried to stop the prosecution of the sub-postmasters.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think decision to reunify was raised by Gauke and Stewart?
    Buckland was just sensible and continued down the path when they were turfed out by Bojo the clown.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FT Yesterday:-

    If the government came to you and said, here is £250mn to build anything you like for your local community and we guarantee a further £20mn every year for the next century to help run it, what would you do? Build a prison? No, I didn’t think so. Yet this is what is happening every time a new prison is built.

    Remember Wrexham, where an industrial centre was allowed to decay along with all the jobs; in its place the biggest prison in the UK was built. Remember the Victorian mental hospitals that surrounded London, pulled down to be replaced by prisons. Public resources have been consistently diverted from industry, health, education and housing into prisons.

    Local communities would like a new hospital, a school or college, or perhaps investment in a factory to create renewable energy; many places would be grateful for the annual grant to pay the wages for an ongoing project or for a nursery or decent care home. Towns and cities would like to invest in crime prevention but that would take only a small portion of the money.

    But this government, just like the one before, committed to spend billions on expanding a failing prison system, which does nothing to prevent or deter crime and certainly does not make us safer.

    Meanwhile, the courts and probation service are also in chaos: underfunding of the fabric and staff is responsible for delays and risky care and custody of dangerous men. The money is being poured into a bottomless pit of prison building while the criminal justice system is still failing.

    It has become a platitude to claim that this is a crisis. But the overcrowded, dilapidated prisons, together with those released early committing more crimes, has led to warnings that the situation is so bad it is endangering public safety.

    The recent inspection of Wandsworth prison revealed it was rat-infested and violent, a foul and stinking holding pen. It is not alone — even relatively new prisons are imposing similar conditions on inmates and staff.

    Probation is also facing impossible challenges. Men (over 95 per cent of those in prison are men) released from long prison sentences are often dumped in filthy hostels with nothing to do all day and underpaid, disaffected staff.

    The National Audit Office revealed this week that there was a backlog of more than 67,500 cases in the crown courts. This means victims and defendants waiting perhaps several years to have serious issues resolved — including rape and murder. 

    I attended the launch of a citizen-led review of the magistrates’ courts this week, conducted by a voluntary organisation called Transform Justice, which found courts where the accused couldn’t hear, with procedures not explained so that the process was mysterious to everyone except the professionals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The most telling point was made by the representative from HM Courts and Tribunals Service, who reported that he’d never found a “real criminal” in the magistrates’ courts — the defendants were people who had been failed by health and mental health services, with lives derailed by poverty and poor housing.

      Our magistrates’ courts are stuck in the 18th century, using unforgiving procedures and punishments against the poor and the unhappy. The challenges in the prisons, courts and probation are well known but no politician has the courage and honesty to come up with a comprehensive plan for these endemic problems.

      We cannot keep pouring good money after bad, damaging people in the name of a justice system that is rotten to the core. Wholesale reform is the answer and with a lengthy general election campaign we have an opportunity to have a grown-up debate about doing this differently.

      A US scheme, Justice Reinvestment, improves public safety by reducing prison use and the related spending across the criminal justice system, directing the savings into reducing crime. This leaves fewer people in prisons, some jails can be closed and money funnelled instead to local communities.

      A prison population of 95,500 in the UK is unsustainable. We have one of the highest uses of prison in western Europe. More than 230,000 people are on probation. The criminal justice system is an insatiable beast that is sucking money out of health, housing and education. 

      Of course we must be protected from people who commit the most heinous crimes, but they are not the majority of those in prison or probation or the courts.

      Taxpayers, victims and local communities deserve better and we should demand it.
      Frances Crook

      Delete
  5. Has anyone else over 100% on WMT had any success in telling managers to F off when getting allocated another case ? Currently at 175% and being allocated more .. why aren’t the unions pushing this more… it’s not safe for anyone. I don’t get paid anymore for being above capacity nor any thanks.. has anyone had any luck with saying no and handing cases back ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s not about telling managers to F off. It’s about being clear that although the case is allocated to you what you’ll do with the case will be minimal and explain why. Minimal is a 5 min check in and giving a next appointment. No ISP, referrals, screenings, home visit or anything else. Request the manager endorses this on the case record.

      Delete
    2. Napo abandoned workloads employee care agreements a long time back and under the current GS dumped off all workload weightings and formal hand back triggers. Thank him for this situation absolute dire given the agreements were over strike actions. You will all know what I think JB won't publish so make it up yourselves.

      Delete
    3. Go ofceth stress and demand a reduced caseload on your return

      Delete
    4. We tried in our PDU when we were all around 175%. And they started refusing overtime saying our reduced operating model accounted for that (amber). We got put back in our place quickly. Managers got told to deal with it and offer stress risk assessments and occy health assessments. Both are considered reasonable adjustments so the organisation can cover its arse when the shit hits the fan. One person was reduced to less than 110% and put on an immediate performance plan.

      Delete
    5. I wonder what would happen if collectively we all said no we aren’t working above 110% ?! Surely it would all crumble.. doesn’t surprise me that they tried to spin it back on officers. Unbelievable that the unions aren’t fighting this more

      Delete
  6. If prisons aren't your thing, then what about this?

    "The Conservative Party has said it would bring back mandatory national service if it wins the general election."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpddxy9r4mdo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Conservative Party has said it would bring back mandatory national service if it wins the general election.

      It said 18-year-olds would have a choice of either joining the military full-time, or volunteering one weekend every month carrying out a community service.

      The party is proposing a Royal Commission to consider the details but would plan for the first teenagers to take part in September 2025.

      The cost is expected to be around £2.5bn per year.

      Under the plans, young people could choose a full-time, 12-month placement in the armed forces or UK cyber defence, learning about logistics, cyber security, procurement or civil response operations.

      Their other option would be to volunteer one weekend per month - or 25 days per year - in their community with organisations such as fire, police and the NHS.

      Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he believed bringing back compulsory service across the UK would help foster the "national spirit" that emerged during the pandemic.

      Mr Sunak said: “This is a great country but generations of young people have not had the opportunities or experience they deserve and there are forces trying to divide our society in this increasingly uncertain world.

      “I have a clear plan to address this and secure our future. I will bring in a new model of National Service to create a shared sense of purpose among our young people and a renewed sense of pride in our country."

      The prime minister said the move would help young people to learn "real world skills, do new things and contribute to their community and our country".

      The Conservatives said the move would help ensure young people who are unemployed or not in education or training, and those disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, are diverted away from "lives of unemployment and crime".

      The party said national service would provide "valuable work experience" and "ignite a passion for a future career in healthcare, public service, charity or the armed forces".

      A Labour Party spokesperson called the announcement "another desperate £2.5 billion unfunded commitment from a Tory Party which already crashed the economy, sending mortgages rocketing, and now they’re spoiling for more.

      “This is not a plan – it’s a review which could cost billions and is only needed because the Tories hollowed out the armed forces to their smallest size since Napoleon," the spokesperson said.

      Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Richard Foord MP accused the Tories of cutting troop numbers.

      Mr Foord said: "If the Conservatives were serious about defence, they would reverse their damaging cuts to our world class professional armed forces, instead of decimating them, with swingeing cuts to the number of our regular service personnel."

      "Our armed forces were once the envy of the world. This Conservative government has cut troop numbers and is planning more cuts to the size of the Army."

      National service was introduced in 1947 after World War Two under Clement Attlee’s Labour government.

      It meant men between the ages of 17 and 21 had to serve in the armed forces for 18 months.

      The mandatory national service scheme came to an end in 1960.

      In May 2015, Prince Harry advocated his support for the return of national service saying the Army had been important for him.

      A number of European countries, including Sweden, Norway and Denmark, already have a form of conscription for their armed forces.

      Conscription requires young men and women to serve for a limited time in uniform. It means that some of the population will have had some military training - and can then be assigned to reserve units should war break out.

      Cuts in the British Army have seen its size fall from more than 100,000 in 2010 to around 73,000 as of January 2024.

      Delete
    2. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/26/uk-powder-keg-prisons-ready-to-explode-this-election/

      Delete
    3. It will never happen it is a distraction to stop proper policy debates like how is the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales to be mended and how long will it take?

      Delete