Grayling’s hubris
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550513514912 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
Grayling’s hubris
60(4) 377–382
ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550513514912
prb.sagepub.com
Introducing this year’s McWilliams lecture, Professor Lorraine Gelsthorpe rightly
reminded those present that declarations of probation’s demise in England and
Wales have often been somewhat premature. However there are serious concerns
that the publication of the Target Operating Model (Ministry of Justice, 2013a) for
the Transforming Rehabilitation programme will bring this a step closer. Whilst the
probation service will continue to exist, albeit it in a much reduced form, it does
mean that its role and influence will be much curtailed and the context in which it
operates will be very different. From 31 March 2014 Probation Trusts will cease to
operate and be replaced by a National Probation Service dealing solely with the
highest risk offenders and the majority of services transferred to a holding Com-
munity Rehabilitation Company (CRC) in preparation for their eventual privatiza-
tion. Community Rehabilitation Companies will be formed by the Ministry of Justice
as companies limited by shares, which will be owned by the Ministry of Justice until
the contracts are awarded in December 2014. The Justice Secretary appears
determined to introduce the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda before the next
election, and in doing so has shown an unprecedented disregard for parliamentary
scrutiny. As Lord Ramsbotham suggested in the House of Lords debate on the Bill:
In the new rehabilitation revolution on which we are now embarked, people appear to
be made to play second fiddle to the market, while the timing appears to be determined
by the need to present tough achievements to the electorate in the 2015 election man-
ifesto. (House of Lords, 2013)
Using the provisions introduced by the previous government, and contained
within section 3 of the Offender Management Act 2007, the Secretary of State has
exercised his power to ‘make contractual or other arrangements with any other
person for the making of the probation provision’. In effect, he is using existing
legislation that was intended to drive local commissioning to justify the competitive
tendering of the 21 nationally let regional contracts and dismantling of the proba-
tion service. Despite the House of Lords supporting an amendment to the Offender
Rehabilitation Bill 2013 requiring the approval of both Houses before the proposals
could be enacted, the Government has begun the competitive process and the
reorganization of probation staff into the new structures before the planned Par-
liamentary debate. This raises serious issues of democratic accountability and, as
378
Probation Journal 60(4)
Rob Allen (2013) has cogently asked, ‘How is it that one here today gone tomorrow
politician can effectively dismantle a hundred year old public institution without
having his plans subjected to any rigorous scrutiny?’.
In order to support the Transforming Rehabilitation project, the Ministry of
Justice (2013b) published a summary of evidence on reducing reoffending that
was released on the same day as Probation Trusts in England and Wales were
given notice of the new arrangements and the start of the competition process was
announced. The summary of evidence document sets out some of the key learning
about what works in supporting offenders’ rehabilitation through the supervisory
relationship and case management process (p. 10). Its conclusions in terms of
what constitutes effective work with offenders are interesting but somewhat per-
plexing, as they would appear to contradict the need for the unprecedented
organizational changes proposed. The document acknowledges that the skills of
appropriately trained practitioners in supervising...
To continue reading
Request your trial