January 22, 2010: Probation's Future Debated In Lords

The future of the Probation Service has been debated in the House of Lords. During the adjournment debate, which had been secured by Lord Ramsbotham on 21 January, an impressive list of speakers contributed, raising a broad range of concerns including the effect of the establishment and operation of the National Offender Management Service on Probation, the lack of a Probation voice in policy making in NOMS and the need for more resources for the Service.

The full debate is available on Hansard. However, some brief extracts are published below.

In opening the debate, Lord Ramsbotham said:

"The only alternative to custody is community sentencing, in which the public will have confidence only if offender supervision is seen to be credible. Of course probation staff have other tasks, but to have a credible probation service the Government's basic responsibility is to ensure that there are enough trained probation officers with enough available time to supervise the rehabilitation of the number of offenders for whom they are responsible-nothing more, nothing less. If there are not, neither probation nor the criminal justice system will be effective."

He concluded:

"Prison staff do not understand the minutiae of probation work, nor can they be expected to do so, any more than soldiers can be expected to be sailors. The two services are different but complementary within the criminal justice system. Therefore, to exclude the voice of probation from the formulation and direction of probation policy and to put it in the hands of people who know only about prisons is seriously unwise."

"What can be done? I know that we are in the run-up to an election and that this is not the best time to make proposals, but in the hope that the next Government, from whatever party, will realise the danger and do something about it, I shall make the following suggestions for action:

• First, repeat Jack Straw's statement of 16 May 2000, substituting the word "restored" for "new".
• Secondly, restore an independent National Probation Service by immediately appointing a director-general, with membership of all relevant policy committees, responsible and accountable for the performance of the service.
• Thirdly, recast NOMS not as a service but as the acronym of the national offender management system within the criminal justice system.
• Fourthly, ensure that probation really is accountable to local communities, again as stated by Jack Straw, linking regional management to local rather than central control by rationalising probation performance criteria within local area agreements and crime reduction partnerships. All-important local confidence in community-based alternatives to custody is best gained by local rather than national action, because outcomes are locally visible.
• Fifthly, announce that, in principle, and as a basis for resource planning, probation officers and probation service officers are to spend a minimum of 50 per cent of their time in face-to-face contact with offenders.
• Sixthly, decentralise administration and rein back micromanagement, examine and cut out all superfluous branches in NOMS and rationalise and reduce audit reports and returns’"
   

Return to Top