Tuesday 1 August 2017

Bob Neill Gets Tough

Having seen the Justice Affairs Committee in action a few times, it rather reminds me of the following famous quote:- 
Healey said that an attack from Howe was "like being savaged by a dead sheep".
I notice Bob Neill, the newly reappointed chair, is not a happy bunny and used a piece in the Times last week to make his displeasure known. I thought his comment on probation was an absolute classic:-  
"The system set up under the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme is evidently not functioning as intended, and a raft of issues need addressing.."
It also comes to something when he doesn't seem to have noticed there's been some changes at the MoJ:-
"I have made no secret that I believe the National Offender Management Service lacks the managerial leadership to achieve the government’s vision.."
Anyway, he's on the case and people had better watch out.  

We have urgent work to do on prisons, legal aid and probation

Everyone around Westminster pays lip service to the importance of select committees but getting them up and running after the general election has proved to be a rather leisurely process. While the chairs have now been elected, other members will not have been appointed by the parties until we return in September.

Given that we will only be here for two weeks before the party conference season kicks in, little serious work is likely to be achieved until the second week of October. Effectively, that means that over a third of the year will have gone by without government, or anyone else, being subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.

Cynics might suggest that no government, whatever its political complexion, is going to rush to be scrutinised. I don’t suggest that is the motive here, but the delay is unsatisfactory, and it is therefore no surprise that support is growing for the timetable to be set in future by the house itself, rather than relying upon the priorities of the “usual channels”.

It’s also a shame because there is a lot of work to do. For the justice committee alone, I would flag up four key priorities:

First, prisons – undoubtedly the biggest issue on the new secretary of state’s desk, and one that consumes nearly half of the whole Ministry of Justice budget. This well documented crisis was reiterated again last week in a damning report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, signalling the need for an urgent change in approach from the top down. I have made no secret that I believe the National Offender Management Service lacks the managerial leadership to achieve the government’s vision, and given it has failed to arrest the declining situation across the prison estate, it’s difficult to justify the hefty bonus its chief executive received last week.

The omission of the prisons element of the previous Prisons and Courts Bill from the Queen’s Speech is admittedly a blow, but I am pleased that David Lidington has committed to continuing the prison reform agenda initiated by Michael Gove. Not all of this will require legislation, but it will need a clear political commitment from day one, especially to deliver the ambitious proposals set out in last year’s white paper, including the statutory statement that prisons must primarily be a place of rehabilitation.

That leads me on to probation & preventing reoffending. The system set up under the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme is evidently not functioning as intended, and a raft of issues need addressing, including the performance and financial viability of community rehabilitation companies and their interface with the National Probation Service.

Third, there are serious questions around access to justice. This is something the committee has raised concerns about in the past in terms of courts and tribunal fees, but we will also be looking to press the government on its promised post-legislative review of LAPSO (Legal Aid, Punishment and Sentencing of Offenders Act 2012). Although I understand the budget pressures at the time of its introduction, my personal view is that we have now removed more than the system can take and should rectify the anomalies as soon as possible (a glaring example being the lack of legal aid available for the parents of Charlie Gard, something no fair person could agree with).

There is also a need to look carefully at the human impacts of the government’s courts modernisation programme. There is a balance to be struck between achieving efficiencies and ensuring we have access to justice. I’m not convinced we’ve got that right if it means significantly longer and more expensive journeys, or anti-social court hours, for parties, witnesses and lawyers alike.

Finally, we must consider the legal implications of Brexit. Our legal system is respected around the world and the legal services sector contributes £25.7 billion to the UK economy. It’s another area where we need an early commitment to realistic and substantial transitional arrangements, listening to the concerns of the industry and addressing them as a matter of priority.

With the arithmetic of the Commons being what it is after the general election, select committees are in an enhanced position to do good and seriously influence government policy over the coming years. They must be allowed to get on with that important job.


Bob Neill

5 comments:

  1. Bob Neil says it's lack of executive leadership rather then the government's vision that is the problem. Anyone can have a vision but what TR lacked was a thought-out plan. But politicians never see the buck as stopping with them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Smoking ban begins today.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40782009

    ReplyDelete
  3. Having read Bob Neill's article I followed up my email to him last November:

    ---------
    "In light of the additional £20+million of public money sneakily handed over to the CRCs by MoJ/HMPPS at the end of May this year (under the guise of 'adjustments to contracts') might it be worth revisiting the original decision of Grayling & Maude to gift private companies some £80+million from the 'Modernisation Fund' (i.e. public purse money)?

    Selous also stated (in a written answer in Hansard):

    "Under the enhanced voluntary redundancy scheme opened in advance of the transition of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to new providers, probation staff were able to apply for voluntary redundancy on the basis that they would leave the service by 31 March 2016. The total cost of these redundancies was £16.4m. All remaining Modernisation Fund monies were awarded to CRCs. Redundancy funding was allocated pro-rata to CRCs based on their size and estimated future staffing requirements.

    As stated in my answer to questions 900, 898, 902 and 901, we have no plans to reclaim any monies allocated to CRCs from the Modernisation Fund; and consequently there have been no discussions with CRCs about this. Contract Management Teams are embedded in each CRC, closely monitoring how all monies are used and robust processes are in place to ensure all expenditure is correctly spent."

    On top of the £80+m lump sum I understand the contracts for the 21 CRCs (but only 8 owners) read that they are jointly guaranteed some £10m operating capital from public money every week for 7 years, with an additional £1m of public money each week under the rewards scheme."
    -----------

    A committee clerk has very kindly & promptly responded on behalf of Mr Neill stating that the Committee does not have that information but, in the event of an inquiry, such information would be examined.

    If nothing else, the questions have been submitted & acknowledged - in writing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never miss the opportunity to repeat Selous from 8/6/15:

      "As part of the arrangements for the transfer of services from probation trusts to Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC’s), an enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Scheme was put in place, in line with the terms of the National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections agreed with the probation Trade Unions, and funded by monies from the Modernisation Fund to support a sustainable reduction in resource requirements. An initial wave of redundancies was made in advance of the letting of the contracts for the CRCs, and the remaining monies were transferred to the CRCs on a pro rata basis to be used for the same purpose. While we have no plans to reclaim any monies allocated to CRCs from the Modernisation Fund, we have robust contract management arrangements in place to ensure that they are used for the purposes for which they were provided. Contract management teams are in place in each Contract Package Area to oversee each CRC operation."

      Delete
  4. I thanked the clerk who replied, adding:

    "I am certainly hoping that the Committee will deem an inquiry into TR is necessary sooner rather than later.

    Furthermore I am encouraged after reading Mr Neill's recent article where he wrote: "The system set up under the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme is evidently not functioning as intended, and a raft of issues need addressing, including the performance and financial viability of community rehabilitation companies..."

    I would humbly suggest that the loss of a first class public service and the vast hole left in the public purse are far more pressing issues than the financial viability of global facilities companies run by accountants who have no interest in performance and are simply 'hoovering up' the public money that rogue ideologues handed to them on a plate."

    ReplyDelete