5th February 2014
Shadow Justice Minister Lord Beecham has major concerns about Government proposals affecting prisons and the probation service. These will be raised in a Lords debate this week.
In the past few years, Bills have often come to the Lords poorly drafted and frequently with but cursory examination, to the extent that they reach us in part sight unseen by MPs. The Coalition has pressed on with legislation paying scant attention to the views of, for example the Joint Committee on Human Rights or Draft Bill or Select Committees in the Commons, designed to provide a measure of pre-legislative scrutiny.
We have had examples of ‘pre-legislative implementation’ – a phrase I coined in relation to what happened under the Public Bodies Bill, where the abolition of Regional Development Agencies was proposed. Ministers gave repeated assurances that there would be consultation and that each case would be considered on its merits. Even so, they pressed ahead as if the Bill had been enacted, and effectively stripped the RDAs of their staff budget and assets without any consultation long before Royal Assent.
Similarly, the Constitution Committee criticised the Coalition over the proposed abolition of the Youth Justice Board and the Office of the Chief Coroner; and the Health and Social Care Bill aroused similar concerns. But the most worrying and immediate example of pre-emption (the topic of a debate in the Lords on Thursday afternoon) is currently in process. It concerns the future of something with a critical impact on public safety and the lives of those for whom it is responsible, namely the award winning Probation Service.
The government has set its stall on privatising 70% of this service, without properly piloting how the new system would work. Indeed, it cancelled the only pilot involving a probation trust, dealing with offenders with non-custodial sentences, and is reliant on the flimsy evidence of early reports from two very different schemes in Doncaster and Peterborough prisons.
There is huge concern about the risk to the public of outfits like G4S, Serco and other organisations who purport to be able to deliver almost any public service without prior experience. This is particularly acute as offenders move between risk categories. A binary system is clearly unsatisfactory.
Last year, Crossbencher Lord Ramsbotham, a former Chief Inspector of Prisons, and I moved amendments to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, without which the matter would never even have been discussed. Ministers clearly wished to avoid including their proposals in their legislation, knowing the opposition it would face, and pressed on with the reorganisation and fragmentation of the service. Even after the House of Lords had heavily backed our amendment and defeated the government, they carried on regardless.
They continue to do so now, even though their timetable has slipped beyond the recklessly adopted target date of, appropriately enough, April 1st; and under the cover of a misrepresentation of which the Lord Chancellor should be ashamed. Chris Grayling makes much of the reoffending rate of prisoners released after serving short sentences, as if this was something for which the Probation Service is responsible, when he must know it is not.
All in all, this is the latest example of a government treating Parliament with contempt. If the Coalition gets its way on this issue it will be signing a blank cheque in its own favour, enabling it to act first, and legislate, afterwards.
Jeremy Beecham is Shadow Justice Minister in the House of Lords
Shadow Justice Minister Lord Beecham has major concerns about Government proposals affecting prisons and the probation service. These will be raised in a Lords debate this week.
In the past few years, Bills have often come to the Lords poorly drafted and frequently with but cursory examination, to the extent that they reach us in part sight unseen by MPs. The Coalition has pressed on with legislation paying scant attention to the views of, for example the Joint Committee on Human Rights or Draft Bill or Select Committees in the Commons, designed to provide a measure of pre-legislative scrutiny.
We have had examples of ‘pre-legislative implementation’ – a phrase I coined in relation to what happened under the Public Bodies Bill, where the abolition of Regional Development Agencies was proposed. Ministers gave repeated assurances that there would be consultation and that each case would be considered on its merits. Even so, they pressed ahead as if the Bill had been enacted, and effectively stripped the RDAs of their staff budget and assets without any consultation long before Royal Assent.
Similarly, the Constitution Committee criticised the Coalition over the proposed abolition of the Youth Justice Board and the Office of the Chief Coroner; and the Health and Social Care Bill aroused similar concerns. But the most worrying and immediate example of pre-emption (the topic of a debate in the Lords on Thursday afternoon) is currently in process. It concerns the future of something with a critical impact on public safety and the lives of those for whom it is responsible, namely the award winning Probation Service.
The government has set its stall on privatising 70% of this service, without properly piloting how the new system would work. Indeed, it cancelled the only pilot involving a probation trust, dealing with offenders with non-custodial sentences, and is reliant on the flimsy evidence of early reports from two very different schemes in Doncaster and Peterborough prisons.
There is huge concern about the risk to the public of outfits like G4S, Serco and other organisations who purport to be able to deliver almost any public service without prior experience. This is particularly acute as offenders move between risk categories. A binary system is clearly unsatisfactory.
Last year, Crossbencher Lord Ramsbotham, a former Chief Inspector of Prisons, and I moved amendments to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, without which the matter would never even have been discussed. Ministers clearly wished to avoid including their proposals in their legislation, knowing the opposition it would face, and pressed on with the reorganisation and fragmentation of the service. Even after the House of Lords had heavily backed our amendment and defeated the government, they carried on regardless.
They continue to do so now, even though their timetable has slipped beyond the recklessly adopted target date of, appropriately enough, April 1st; and under the cover of a misrepresentation of which the Lord Chancellor should be ashamed. Chris Grayling makes much of the reoffending rate of prisoners released after serving short sentences, as if this was something for which the Probation Service is responsible, when he must know it is not.
All in all, this is the latest example of a government treating Parliament with contempt. If the Coalition gets its way on this issue it will be signing a blank cheque in its own favour, enabling it to act first, and legislate, afterwards.
Jeremy Beecham is Shadow Justice Minister in the House of Lords
Hello. Simon Garden here. Just thought you and your readers might be interested to note that EVERY posting I've made on the NAPO discussion forums has been deleted. It would seem that raising concerns about the failings of NAPOs leaders is not allowed, and that every word I wrote has been deemed to constitute 'a personal attack'. Fail your members? Not a problem. Object to that - not allowed....
ReplyDeleteHello Simon, it would seem that you definately cannot raise concerns and discussion about NAPO'S leaders!!! As Tony Benn once said, noone in power likes democracy!!!
ReplyDeleteI notice that the GS tweeted the following:
"Indicative Ballot now launched; tell 'Failing Grayling' he's got it all wrong! NAPO needs you to vote!"
Is that not a bit of a personal attack? "Failing Grayling", and just as strong as using the term "Invisible".
At a time when probation staff are getting distressed and frustrated does it seem an appropriate way forward that positive views are to be tolerated and dissenting voices deleted.
Happen, Jim Brown, on the On Probation blog needs to be warned , or he may end up being deleted -
"There's no doubt in my mind that unease and unrest are widespread within probation at the present time, and it's increasing. There are growing signs of anger and irritation with the Napo leadership, particularly with the General Secretary Ian Lawrence and his seeming inability to find time to communicate with the membership via the medium of the internet.
The Forum pages that have been mostly ignored over the last few months have recently shown signs of coming to life with critical questioning of the union's handling of things, together with exasperation at the lack of information and guidance from HQ. I've said before and I say again, I find it astonishing that in an age when the computer and internet give so much power to communicate quickly and efficiently, Napo have singularly failed to use the medium more effectively.
In many respects this blog only enjoys the success it does because it fills the vacuum that so obviously has been allowed to develop. Yes of course everyone's busy and there's a lot going on. Branch officials are working their socks off and to my knowledge no one is criticising them. But this is a crisis of great significance to thousands of people and they need very regular amounts of information, reassurance and guidance and they are not getting it at the moment."
I've not always agreed everything you have written, but I've never wanted to delete your postings, and in my opinion your postings should should all be re-instated
Hi. Simon again.Thanks for the Supportive words. Looking earlier i'd thought it was solely the things I'd written personally that had been removed. This was alarming enough, but I see now that entire threads have gone, and with them all of the debate and the discussion that followed. This discussion and debate was of course the whole point of my making the posts in the first place, and disturbingly it would seem that stifling discussion and debate is the real point in deleting not only every word I wrote but also the words of every member who contributed to the threads. Why not join in the threads - engage with members and address the issues raised? Allay fears? Offer reassurance? Prove me wrong? I'd be delighted to be proved wrong... but no. Just silenced. Not just me but all the members who wanted to consider these vital issues. It's an action that speaks eloquently to the outlook of our union leaders, and thanks to them the state of our union far more than anything posted by me. I wonder if the contributors to the threads have all been blocked from posting as I have too?
ReplyDelete