Something of the Night

We seem to be on a roll in exploring all aspects of why the probation service has gone from gold standard to utterly broken with news of the upcoming free webinar by the Social Work Network next February:-   

“Probation work is not a branch of social work”: Post-1995 probation, social work and the making of separate professions

Professor Mark Drakeford | Professor Anne Worrall | Professor Gwen Robinson | Professor Aidan Worsley | Russell Webster | Dr Caroline J. Bald (Chair)

Baroness Blatch’s wording in the House of Lords on 5 December 1995, when she defended the removal of the social work qualification requirement and described probation as “a discipline in its own right”.

What happened when probation and social work ceased to share a professional route – and what does that history mean now?

In 1995, the Home Office removed the requirement for probation officers in England and Wales to hold a social work qualification and began the process of separating probation education from social work education. The change marked an important point in the development of two increasingly distinct professions. It was also strongly contested: of 493 responses to the consultation on the proposed changes, only 11 supported the proposals in full.

Thirty years on, this Social Work History Network webinar brings together people whose professional and academic lives span that period of change. Some trained at a time when movement between social work and probation was still relatively commonplace; others have researched what happened to probation and social work - their workforce and professional identity afterwards.

Using personal experience, historical research and contemporary perspectives, the panel will consider what was gained and what may have been lost when the professions moved apart. In particular, we will explore education and professional formation; workforce identity, mobility and resilience; the changing place of qualified and paraprofessional staff; and what professional boundaries mean for the people who encounter both social work and criminal justice systems.

The discussion will also look forward. At a time of renewed interest in probation professionalisation and regulation, what can this history tell us about professional identity, education and the relationship between social work and probation today?

There will be time for discussion and questions from the audience.

--oo00oo--

Why was the social work requirement removed from probation? Thank you AI:-

In 1995, the UK Home Office removed the requirement for probation officers in England and Wales to hold a social work qualification (such as the Diploma in Social Work).

Official Reasons for the Change

• Widening Recruitment: A 1994 Civil Service review and subsequent Home Office arguments suggested that ending the social work mandate would help broaden and diversify the field of recruitment to bring in people with different backgrounds.
• Redefining Probation as a Justice Discipline: The government and then-Home Secretary argued that "probation work is not a branch of social work" and viewed probation as a distinct discipline in its own right—moving away from a welfare-focused model to a more enforcement- and compliance-oriented judicial function.
• Service-Led Training: The policy shifted qualifying education away from independent universities/social work programs and put training directly under the control of the probation service itself (leading to the introduction of the Diploma in Probation Studies in 1997).

Opposition and Controversy

The decision was heavily contested at the time—out of nearly 500 responses to the government consultation, only a small fraction supported it. Critics, practitioners, and academics argued that severing the link would narrow the training's focus and produce a more rigid system rather than fostering critical-thinking, anti-oppressive practice.

--oo00oo--

Now, who was Home Secretary in 1994/5? Why Michael Howard of course, remember him? The famous "prison works" quote comes from Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard, who first delivered it at the Conservative Party Conference in October 1993.

The Full Quote

"Prison works. It ensures that we are protected from murderers, muggers and rapists – and it makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice ... This may mean that more people will go to prison. I do not flinch from that. We shall no longer judge the success of our system of justice by a fall in our prison population." 

Oh look, this bollocks is still current in the Tory Party:-

Prison Works: Building a stronger, fairer justice system

In a major speech, the Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy MP CBE sets out why prison works and why Britain needs much more of it. Too many violent and repeat offenders avoid custody, and those who are jailed are held in a crumbling Victorian estate. The speech will make the case for a radical expansion of capacity through new, purpose-built prisons, a reset of the relationship between the MoJ and HMPPS, and greater independence for governors, all aimed at a system that keeps the public safe. Westminster 24th November 2026.

--oo00oo--

While we're at it, thanks to AI, lets remind ourselves of other stand-out moments of Howards time at the Home Office:-

In October 1995, then-Home Secretary Michael Howard sacked Derek Lewis, the Director General of HM Prison Service, following a series of high-profile prison escapes. The dismissal sparked a major constitutional row over ministerial responsibility and led to a landmark High Court settlement and one of British television's most famous political interviews.

Background and Dismissal

The Escapes: The crisis was triggered by high-security breakouts, most notably the escape of three inmates from Parkhurst Prison on the Isle of Wight in January 1995 and an earlier breakout from Whitemoor Prison.
The Learmont Report: Howard commissioned an independent inquiry led by General Sir John Learmont. Published in October 1995, the report criticised management failures across the Prison Service from top to bottom.
The Sacking: On the day the report was released, Howard demanded Lewis's resignation. When Lewis refused to step down, Howard dismissed him.

Political and Legal Fallout

Policy vs. Operations: HM Prison Service had recently been established as an executive agency. Howard maintained that he was responsible for overall policy, while Lewis held sole responsibility for day-to-day operations. Critics and opposition MPs argued Howard was using this distinction as a political shield to avoid resigning himself.
Wrongful Dismissal Settlement: Lewis sued the Home Office for breach of contract and wrongful dismissal, arguing Howard had repeatedly interfered in operational matters. In March 1996, the Home Office reached an out-of-court High Court settlement, agreeing to pay Lewis £125,000 (one year's salary) plus additional pension and bonus compensation.
Newsnight Interview: During the 1997 Conservative leadership contest, BBC presenter Jeremy Paxman repeatedly asked Howard whether he had threatened to overrule Lewis over the removal of Parkhurst's governor, John Marriott. Howard evaded giving a direct yes-or-no answer to the exact same question 12 times, creating a defining moment in British political broadcasting.
Subsequent Revelations: Former Prisons Minister Ann Widdecombe publicly clashed with Howard in 1997 over his handling of the affair, famously remarking that he had "something of the night" about him. In 2005, Home Office documents released under the Freedom of Information Act showed that while Howard had privately inquired about his power to overrule Lewis, he accepted civil service advice against doing so and issued no formal instruction. 

--oo00oo--

Finally, it's worth re-visiting this blog post by Rob Allen from 2013:-

Twenty Year Stretch: Michael Howard and the Legacy of Punishment

"Howard’s legacy was longer lasting however. By provoking political adversaries to oppose his reforms, he pushed his shadow Tony Blair and New Labour as a whole into a repressive approach to penal policy. Prison numbers have continued to rise ever since 1993.

More disturbing perhaps was Howard’s shamelessly populist approach to law and order- most notoriously in his attempts to increase the tariff for the juvenile killers of James Bulger, later described by a senior judge as “ institutionalised vengeance ... [by] a politician playing to the gallery”. In respect of his sentencing policy the Lord Chief Justice told the House of Lords that “Never in the history of our criminal law have such far reaching proposals been put forward on the strength of such flimsy and dubious evidence.” Indeed the most recent review of evidence by the Ministry of Justice has found that “to date there has been no clear consensus from criminologists and commentators about whether there is an incapacitation effect at all, and if so, its scale.”

Howard’s treatment of the probation service was equally cavalier, removing the requirement for university based social work training and threatening the very existence of the service. When he left office recruitment had almost dried up and it was left to Jack Straw to introduce a new scheme of professional training as an urgent priority."

Rob Allen