Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach ? Interim report on the Government's Transforming Rehabilitation programme - Justice Committee Contents

2  The transition from Trusts to Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service

The target operating model

36. The reorganisation of probation services to facilitate the reforms will see the 35 Probation Trusts dissolved in April 2014 and replaced with a National Probation Service (NPS) and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). The Government has published a target operating model which explains how the system would work in practice once the reforms are fully implemented.[77] The CRCs, owned and run by those organisations that are successful in bidding to deliver services in a designated area under contract to NOMS, will manage the majority of offenders in the community-those sentenced to community orders or suspended sentence orders, and those subject to post-custody licence conditions or supervision requirements. Each CRC will be designated a small number of resettlement prisons which will release the vast majority of offenders to that area,and in those prisons theCRCs will be expected to deliver a pre-release resettlement service. The National Probation Service (NPS) will be a delivery arm of NOMS comprised of local delivery units which will directly manage offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm to the public—including those whose risk has escalated to that level during the course of their sentence—and those released from custody who have committed serious offences. They will also play a role in the management of all offenders, including conducting risk assessments, advising the courts on sentencing, responding to escalations in risk, and taking enforcement action. It is envisaged that the NPS will deliver some specialist interventions for the offenders it manages, but in general it will purchase interventions from CRCs.

37. The Ministry has planned for a staged transition process. Although the Government's plans will constitute a radical change in the probation system, Mr Wright reiterated to us that this was not a "big bang" approach, which he accepted would be "inherently risky". He explained that there would be a period of time to enable the transfer of the case load and to make sure that the system is working as intended whilst both halves were still in public ownership.[78] We set out the Government's timetable for the phases of reform in Appendix 1.

38. Initial speculation was that there would be a 30:70 split in resource allocation between the new services, with the lion's share going to new providers, reflecting the fact that the highest risk offenders constitute only 30% of the existing probation caseload. However, whilst the Ministry estimates that the split in caseloads is likely to be in roughly this ratio, they were unable to detail exactly how the funding would be split, although they indicated that it was likely to be somewherebetween 30:70 and 50:50, as the cost of supervising high risk offenders is greater than for those who are low risk.[79]The precise split in resource will not be clear until the competition process is completed.

39. As we noted in the previous chapter, the proposed delivery structure represents a significant departure from the existing system for operation of probation services. Our witnesses have highlighted three key design problems with the model related to: the risks of separating aspects of offender management; the potential impact on relationships between probation services and their local partners; and limitations in opportunities for staff development. We also consider in this chaptersome practical considerations related to the process of apportioning the staff who are responsible for managing offenders to the two separate entities, and the capacity of trusts to maintain business as usual through the transition process.

Public safety

40. Many of our witnesses had particularly serious misgivings about how one of the fundamental elements of the model—the division of the management of probation cases between those offenders deemed to represent the highest risk of harm and less dangerous offenders—will work without jeopardising public protection.[80] The target operating model proposes that if the risk assessment of an offender changes from low or medium to high, the public sector National Probation Service will assess the case and consider whether the management of the case should transfer from the CRC to the NPS.

41. Witnesses saw an apparent contradiction between the new model and what is known about the importance of the relationship between the offender and the supervising officer in desistance from offending. The assumed wisdom in probation practice is that there should be a single "offender manager" for an offender throughout the life of the order or licence.[81]Christine Lawrie, a former Chief Probation Officer and former Chief Executive of the Probation Association said:

    The most effective risk assessment is an unbroken process involving periodic "actuarial" and continuous "clinical" monitoring, review and action by a single responsible person.The new arrangements make it impossible for this to happen in the contracted services.[82]

Sue Hall, Chair of the Probation Chiefs Association, explained the implications of this:

    Where currently we have one simple model of an offender manager managing the offender's entire journey through their order or licence, we now potentially have a bureaucratic system to put in place that ensures that information moves between two sets of organisations. We all know that points of data and information transfer are potential points of risk.[83]

42. NAPO, the PCA and the PA all say they are gravely concerned about the implications of this split for safeguarding public safety.[84]The public sector will retain responsibility for public protection, but the day to day management of risk is likely to reside with the provider which will need to take decisions about when, for example, a change in behaviour or non-attendance requires an issue to be escalated to the national service. While it is not yet clear precisely where the split in caseloads will lie, it is likely that CRCs will be "managing a whole raft of offenders who are at risk of committing harm" including "domestic violence cases, complex mental health cases and child safeguarding cases".[85]This, and the necessary escalation process to enable new providers to identify and notify the probation service if they believe the risk posed by an individual may have changed, will be determined during the next phase of implementation.[86] Probation stakeholders anticipated difficulties in creating a new interface between the contracted and the public sector as they estimate that 20% to 25%of the caseload will move across the sectors, in other words from low or medium to high risk and vice versa..[87]

43. The Probation Chiefs Association thought that the complexity of information exchange to keep track of changes in individual cases was likely to result in greater bureaucracy and to more public protection failures than under the current system.[88]Napo considered that risk changes needed to be acted on immediately in order to protect the public.[89]The potential complications that might stem from these observations were illustrated by the reported breakdown in the timely sharing of comprehensive information by the contractor which prevented probation staff from taking breach action in the community payback scheme in London mentioned in the previous chapter.[90]Our witnesses also anticipated difficulties with particular elements of probation work which will be retained by NPS, including that of victim liaison officersand advice to the parole board.[91]When the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Parole Board appeared before us on 17 December to give evidence on their work in general, we asked about the implications of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms for the Board. They welcomed the greater focus on serious offenders by the NPS, and were confident in the advice they would receive from them, but were concerned about the likelihood of higher levels of recall on their caseloads.[92]


44. A key question which the Government must address is how these inherent difficulties can be minimised satisfactorily under the programme. When asked to explain how this dual oversight would work, the Justice Secretary said he envisaged it being "a simple process". He told the House:

    The national probation service team will be responsible for risk assessment. They will have a duty to carry out a new assessment when a person's circumstances change, and it will be the duty of the provider to notify the team of any material change of circumstances. They will be co-located, and when an offender becomes a high-risk offender, they will be taken back under the supervision of the national probation service. This is about people sitting in the same office and working together, just as people work together in any office environment.[93]

When asked about this, Sue Hall replied:

    Is there any model that mirrors what the target operating model will be? No, there is not. Will people be sitting in the same offices? Yes, they will, for about two years, but the process will allow prime providers to move out of MOJ offices in due course. On day one, we will all be in the same office, although we may have moved our chairs around a bit, but the fact is that you will have one national structure managing half, or 40%, of the staff and one local structure managing the other 60% of the staff. Those management structures are not aligned in a way that will make the development of local processes easy.[94]

45. Jeremy Wright MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice with direct responsibility for the reforms, did not see what was proposed as a significant departure from existing practice:

    "It is not the case now that necessarily the same individual deals with an offender when they are medium risk and high risk, and that the offender manager is the same individual and the person who determines breach.There are already interactions between individuals, and it is important that they continue."[95]

Whilst Mr Wright acknowledged that the relationship between CRCs and NPS would be "crucial", he was confident that risks would be minimised effectively for two reasons: first, there would be an expectation that there will be good communication between them as it will be mutually beneficial and, secondly, there would be contractual obligations on behalf of the CRCs to engage with the NPS.[96] The Secretary of State recognised that there was potential for a detrimental impact on public protection during the process of allocating cases between staff once they are repositioned into the two new entities, but felt that phasing the migration of some cases would manage this risk: "We can make modifications in the plans for an extended period [of transition] for those individual cases where there is a public safety issue. We are not going to compromise public safety."[97]

46. Research and professional experience suggest that those being supervised by probation benefit from having a single case manager. The changing dynamics of risk of harm in individual cases also require continuous case management to enable professional and objective assessment to be made, based on a direct relationship with an offender.Whilst under the present system offenders sometimes move between supervising officers much of the evidence we received pointed to there being additional risks over and above the current situation which will be challenging to remedy through contractual specifications. It is essential that arrangements are put in place to ensure very good lines of communication and cooperation between Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service. Co-location will certainly help in the short term, but unless that is required through contractual terms there is no guarantee that it will happen in practice over the medium to long term, as the quest for efficiencies leads to the evolution of delivery models and reconfiguration of the probation service estate.It will be important for the Ministry to monitor this aspect of the new operational arrangements particularly carefully.


47. The other aspect of probation stakeholders' apprehensions about the new model is its potential to damage Probation Trusts' existing work with local partner agencies which they see as crucial to reducing re-offending.[98] Police and Crime Commissioners, local authorities, and other criminal justice stakeholders shared these reservations.[99] As noted in our report on the role of probation, a key characteristic of rehabilitation is the wide range of local delivery partners involved.[100] These partnerships might not be an unqualified success but many, such as integrated offender management schemes, are demonstrating effectiveness.[101]

48. Our witnesses identified a number of unintended consequences of the reforms which might erode the close working links between local partners and frustrate efforts for them to work even more closely together.[102] In particular, they questioned whether the introduction of national commissioning against the trend of other Departments' programmes, changes to existing area boundaries for the delivery of probation services, and the introduction of new providers paid for by results might militate against proactive engagement, co-commissioning and the pooling of resources to develop more efficient and comprehensive services at local level.[103] The role of local authorities and police and crime commissioners as local commissioners also appeared to some of our witnesses to have been undervalued.[104]Richard Monkhouse of the Magistrates' Association feared that the new commissioning arrangements would undermine the contribution of local voluntary sector organisations that provide a net of non-statutory assistance to those whose offending does not (yet) warrant a community order signposted to them by the courts.[105]

49. Mr Grayling characterised this aspect of probation work as "simply organising resources that are already there locally from other public bodies."[106] Nevertheless, the Ministry appears to have been conscious of the need for new providers to integrate into and make best use of existing local structures from the outset, and has given particular attention to seeking to ensure that Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) and Integrated Offender Management (IOM) schemes are preserved.[107] Participation in some statutory partnerships will be contractual, but for others prospective providers will be required to evidence how they will engage and this will be monitored.[108]For the majority of statutory partnerships the Ministry proposes that both new entities will need to be involved, suggesting that there is likely to be some duplication of resource and the need for clear delineation of each entity's responsibilities.

50. Probation is the lead agency in a range of local partnerships. In future there will be two probation services (the new National Probation Service and the contracted provider) in every locality delivering similar services side by side and sometimes via one another. Each will have to form working relationships with other local organisations, bodies and services for the delivery of the joint or complementary services which characterise effective local work with offenders. Ministers should recognise that there is a potential risk that this will lead to inefficient use of resources, and confuse accountability at local level.The Government proposes to give new providers accountability for reducing offending within community safety partnerships by mandating this in contracts and asking prospective providers for clarification of how they will preserve and develop existing partnerships: that is to be welcomed. It is important that Ministers put in place appropriate safeguards to ensure that new providers in the private sector appreciate the importance of working with existing local partnerships to reduce reoffending. We will consider the future prospects for local partnerships further in our final report in this inquiry.

Practicalities related to splitting the service

51. The first phase of the transition to the new model is the creation of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and the National Probation Service (NPS) which will replace the 35 existing Probation Trusts in April 2014[109]. The plans for creating the new structures are well underway, with the Ministry aiming for the transition of staff to Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service to be completed by the end of January 2014. We understand that the intention is then to shadow run CRCs in the public sector until about November 2014, using the same buildings and IT equipment, whilst making refinements to the operating model, when they would be handed over to the new providers.


52. Probation stakeholders impressed on us the magnitude of change that they felt Trusts were being expected to manage in order to reorganise the service within very tight timescales. They are moving to a new state, involving Trust mergers and future changes to conditions of service, and being expected to wind down by April 2014—faster than initially anticipated. As well as these complex and demanding tasks, they must maintain "business as usual" and avoid standards of public protection slipping.[110] Sue Hall anticipated that there would be "quite a lot of upheaval" to ensure that staff end up in the right place, at the right time and, more critically, that offenders also know who their supervising officers are to be.[111]Both she and Sebert Cox, Chairs of the Probation Chiefs Association and Probation Association respectively, felt that the pace at which they were being expected to make the transition was challenging and risky.[112]

53. The Ministry has put in place a number of measures in an effort to involve existing probation stakeholders in the transition process and to implement the reforms at a manageable pace. These include establishing a Ministerial Sounding Board to "hear directly from Trust leadership" and seeking input into defining the criteria that will be used to test readiness at each stage of transition.[113]The Ministry has developed a "Business and System Readiness" assurance process designed to:

    [...] ensure that every aspect of the new service and the system reform being developed are thoroughly validated prior to proceeding with implementation; provide the programme and the business with the assurance that the system performs as expected in an environment that mimics implementation as closely as possible; support the "business as usual" function to ensure that structures and resources are in place to respond to the reforms as required.[114]

54. Despite these measures the pace of change appears to be making it difficult for civil servants to provide timely information to probation trusts to enable a difficult transition to go as smoothly as possible and to carry staff with them. Sebert Cox explained how it felt from his perspective as a Trust Chair:

    [...] we are getting a lot of information—coming almost on a daily basis now—on the way it sees the programme operating [...] We also have a process of information flowing around but not in sufficient detail that allows us to be making the necessary changes to build the new structure".[115]

Sue Hall's view as a Trust Chief Executive was that:

    There are issues in terms of capacity from the centre and about managing the staff transfer safely and well and in a way that does not demoralise and demotivate staff, so that performance does not deteriorate and so on. We have been very clear about the risks that the programme is currently running. We have been very plain in our discussions with the Ministry of Justice and have written to the Secretary of State outlining our concerns very directly. […] It is reasonable to say that there is a big gulf between the way the programme is being experienced by trusts and the way I think it is being described at the centre. From a trust point of view, it feels unco-ordinated and as if it is not keeping to the time scales that we will need if we are going to do our bits of the business.[116]

Neither Mr Cox nor Ms Hall felt that the concerns of Chairs and Chief Executives were being given sufficient weight by the Ministry of Justice and they felt many questions remained unanswered, despite their having written to officials on 10 October and the Secretary of State on 8 November, drawing his attention to their joint risk register (which had led them to conclude that the "risk of unsafe and unsatisfactory implementation is very high").[117] This does not accord with the reassurances theSecretary of State gave us of the Ministry's commitmentto "giving Trusts all the information, resources, and support they need to successfully transition to the new system"[118]

55. The Probation Chiefs Association also warned of risks that "the existing professionalism, skills and public service motivation will be lost through the transition".[119]There is some evidence to suggest that the programme is beginning to impact on Trusts' performance in reducing reoffending, which fell for the last quarter.Sue Hall attributed this to: staff lacking certainty about their future; capacity in the system to manage the change; and staff leaving.[120] Several other witnesses noted the likelihood of a loss of expertise, including from Trusts Boards, senior management, and frontline staff.[121]The fact that a quarter of posts for the leadership of CRCs are unfilled is perhaps testament to the depth of feeling amongst the probation sector about these reforms, given that there are currently 35 Trust Chiefs.

56. We put to the Secretary of Statethe views of probation professionals responsible for managing the splitting of the service about the risks attached to the pace of transition. He said:

    I do not think that is right. Every time you put a group of people through change it causes challenge and uncertainty, and that is unavoidable. We are doing our best to make sure that we take the process through as smoothly as possible. We have had some constraints on our ability to communicate plans in detail because of the negotiations that took place with the unions […] One or two people in the probation service have said to you it is quite rushed. People in senior positions in the probation service have said to me they just want to get on with it from the point of view of staff; they want to know where they stand and end the uncertainty.[122]

57. He also explained that once the initial reallocation of staff had taken place by April 2014 there would be a"very long period of bedding down and transition" during which time the caseloads would be migrated and the systems—includingthe process of interaction between the two teams, for example on risk management—will be dry run, tested and modified to ensure they are "fit for purpose" before the new providers take ownership.[123]

58. In our 2013 report on ALS and the interpreting and translation contract we concluded that the Ministry did not give sufficient weight to the concerns raised by professional stakeholders, and argued that had it done so, many of the operational problems experienced during the project's implementation could have been anticipated and avoided. It would be extremely unfortunate if the Ministry's desire to see this new tranche of complicated reforms designed and implemented quickly led to a similar situation developing. We have heard compelling evidence that neither Chief Executives nor Trust Boards feel confident that they are ready for the first stage of transition or that their concerns are being listened to.


59. The Ministry wishes existing staff to be allocated to CRCs or the NPS by the end of January 2014. On 20th November 2013, the Unions, Probation Association (acting for Trusts) and the MoJ were unable to settle a National Agreement on Staff Transfer. There are differing interpretations of what transpired during the final negotiation meeting that resulted in the breakdown of talks. The Secretary of State told us that the Ministry:

    […] went as far as we felt we could in trying to take the unions with us. We worked very hard over an extended period to try to reach agreement with them on transitional arrangements. In the end, they decided they could not reach agreement with us, which is a shame because things like the quite generous voluntary redundancy package we were going to offer to back-office staff, who will lose their roles in the new set-up, will now not be available because we cannot do it without union agreement. It is a bizarre situation where the unions are blocking a quite generous redundancy package for their own members.[124]

60. The unions have publicly given a very different version of events. Napo's blog states that talks failed because: "On the last available day for negotiations, new information was presented by a senior MoJ Official which would have caused significant detriment to members. This prevented the NNC [National Negotiating Committee] from actually debating the substantive Framework Agreement which was on the table."[125]Napo also issued a statement that it would be seeking the intervention of ACAS.[126] During the Commons Bill Committee deliberations it was clear that the main concerns of staff relate in particular to the continuity of employment and pension provisions.[127] We asked the Ministers whether they would pause the process of staff transition but they stated that it was important to proceed to give staff certainty about their future positions.

61. The explanations of the unions and the Ministry about why they were unable to come to an agreement about terms and conditions for staff under the new modeldiffer. Regardless of what actually occurred, it is important that both sides resolve this difference of opinion through negotiation. It is highly unfortunate that agreement was not reached before NOMS commenced the splitting of staff, but we understand that negotiations on terms and conditions have resumed and we hope that outstanding issues can be resolved swiftly and satisfactorily.

Retention of skills and development of staff

62. A further concern relates to staff qualifications in the new probation landscape, in particular, in relation to the qualifications that will be required of staff employed by the new providers, and the implications of splitting the system for ongoing staff development.In our probation report we examined new arrangements that had recently been introduced for training probation staff—known as the probation qualifying framework—and concluded:

    The success of any new commissioning model in protecting the public will be predicated on the existence of strong safeguards to monitor standards of professional expertise. Staff undertaking offender management work on behalf of other sectors will require the same high-quality qualifying training as probation professionals working for trusts in order to foster some consistency in the specialist skills required.[128]

63. With respect to these matters, the target operating model states:

    "The new system will ensure that professional standards continue to be maintained, with probation professionals working in both the NPS and CRCs, and opportunities for placements and interchange between them. The NPS and CRCs will both be required to have suitably qualified and competent staff. The NPS will continue to use the Probation Qualification Framework (PQF) and CRCs will also be free to use the PQF should they choose to do so. It is envisaged that a new Institute of Probation will promote professionalism and provide a forum for sharing best practice across the probation profession in the public and market sectors".[129]

The Secretary of State wanted to retain the skills of probation practitioners but also to bring in additional mentoring and support skills, in particular from the voluntary sector.[130] He told us that he did not wish to have proscriptive qualification requirements that would prevent "old lags" from being able to mentor offenders.[131]

64. The Ministry has agreed to provide some initial financial support to the Probation Institute—a joint initiative of the Probation Association, Probation Chiefs Association, Napo and UNISON which will be established in March 2014 to "safeguard professional standards and act as a centre of excellence". However, despite its creation, Sue Hall observed:"[t]he only thing [new providers] will be required to do is to explain how levels of training and qualification are appropriate to the job they need to do." She argued that giving new providers a choice in whether they have qualified probation officers was "a mistake" and called for a unified framework of qualified staff across both the CRCs and the NPS."[132]

65. Community Rehabilitation Companies will be managing considerable risk on a day to day basis, yet will not be required to have professionally qualified staff. This is a matter of considerable concern to us. We welcome the creation of a centre of excellence for probation, and we would hope that new providers will support their staff to gain suitable accreditation and qualifications through thisProbation Institute. We nevertheless believe that they should be bound by a contractual requirement to have a minimum proportion of qualified probation staff related to the volume and risk levels of offenders supervised and to provide continuous training. This should not inhibit the Secretary of State's desire to enable more ex-offenders to become involved inmentoring offenders currently under supervision, which we support.

77   Ministry of Justice, Target Operating Model: Rehabilitation Programme, September 2013 Back

78   Q240 Back

79   TheNational Probation Service's assessments will determine whether someone is a high, medium or low-risk offender, so the exact proportions cannot be determined. Qq191-193 Back

80   See for example Q5 [Mr Hadjipavlou]; Q25 [Mr Lawrence]; Prison Reform Trust (PPC 13). See also A4E (PPC 03); Christine Lawrie (PPC 28); Napo (PPC 31); Martyn Underhill (PPC 23); Gillian Riley (PPC 25) Back

81   Napo (PPC 31) Back

82   Christine Lawrie (PPC 28) Back

83   Q156 [Ms Hall] Back

84   Q156 [Ms Hall], Napo (PPC 31). See also Probation Chiefs Association and Probation Association risk register. Back

85   The public sector probation service is retaining only offenders who are a high risk of serious harm.  Back

86   Q156 [Ms Hall] Back

87   Q24 [Mr Hadjipavlou]; Napo (PPC 31) Back

88   Probation Chiefs Association (PPC 07). See also Q55. Back

89   Napo (PPC 31) Back

90   See PPC 31. Napo members have complained about offender projects being closed without warning, of a lack of robust evidence when cases come to court for enforcement action, a lack of proper health and safety, lack of safeguarding procedures for those aged under 18 and a lack of proper record keeping.  Back

91   See Ms Riley (PPC 25); Napo (PPC 31) Victim liaison officers provide assurance to victims about aspects of the case management of offenders, and the Parole Board relies on evidence about risk management from probation practitioners who know the offender. Back

92   Oral evidence taken on 17 December 2013, HC 917, Qq16-17 Back

93   HC Deb, 30 October 2013, col 1001 Back

94   Q163 [Ms Hall]. See also Q55 [Mr Johnson] Back

95   Q182 Back

96  Ibid. Back

97   Q195 Back

98   Q5 [Mr Hadjipavlou]; Q23 [Mr Lawrence]; Probation Chiefs Association(PPC 07) Back

99   London Councils (PPC 05)  Back

100  Commissioning activity to reduce crime and re-offending is embedded in the work of a range of local partnerships (and their component agencies) including: community safety partnerships (CSPs) in England and Wales, multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), Child Safeguarding Boards and local criminal justice boards (LCJBs). LCJBs were abolished by the government in April 2011 and funding ceased but they continue to exist in many areas. Probation's role in community safety partnerships was cemented by the Policing and Crime Act 2009 which made the trusts a 'responsible authority' sharing responsibility with other agencies for local targets to cut offending. According to the Probation Chiefs Association, other partnerships in which Probation Trusts are a lead agency include: Integrated Offender Management schemes featuring co-delivery of services with the police; Community Budget pilots and 'Total Place' initiatives with Troubled Families; Women Offender Community Schemes; Strategic engagement with Health and Well Being Boards; Resettlement, social housing and back to work projects; Victim Support and Restorative Justice; service user mentoring schemes; and youth offending teams. Probation Chiefs Association (PPC 07) Back

101   Q34 [Mr Johnson]; Probation Chiefs Association (PPC 07); National Policing Lead for Integrated Offender Management (PPC 08); Ms Mountstevens (PPC 19); Mr Underhill (PPC 23); Napo (PPC 31)  Back

102   See for example, A4E (PPC 03); Criminal Justice Alliance (PPC 06); Prison Reform Trust(PPC 13); Mr Allen (PPC 20) Back

103   Local Government Association (PPC 11); London Councils (PPC 21)  Back

104   See for example, Centre for Justice Innovation (PPC 10); DrugScope (PPC 12); Prison Reform Trust (PPC 13); Howard League for Penal Reform (PPC 16); London Councils (PPC 21); Ms Lawrie (PPC 28) Back

105   Q7 Back

106   Q15 Back

107   Ministry of Justice, Transforming Rehabilitation: a strategy for reform, Cm 8619, May 2013, p 29 Back

108   Ministry of Justice, Target Operating Model: Rehabilitation Programme, September 2013 Back

109   This was originally anticipated to be occurring in October 2014. Back

110   It was initially proposed that shadow arrangements would be operating from April 2014. Q154 [Ms Hall]. See also Q173 [Mr Cox] Back

111   Q153 Back

112   Q153 [Mr Cox; Ms Hall]; Qq172-175 [Ms Hall]. Letter from Probation Chiefs Association and Probation Association to Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, 8 November 2013 Back

113   Ministry of Justice (PPC 32) Back

114  Ibid. Back

115   Q152 Back

116   Q172 Back

117   Letter from Probation Chiefs Association and Probation Association to Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, 8 November 2013 Back

118  Ibid. Back

119   Probation Chiefs Association (PPC 07); see also Prison Reform Trust (PPC 13) Back

120   Qq154, 157 Back

121  Q155 [Mr Cox]; Magistrates' Association (PPC17); Ms Lawrie (PPC 28)  Back

122   Q195 Back

123   Q195; Q184 Back

124   Q195 Back

125  NNC talks breakdown due to MoJ interference, Napo News, 21 November 2013  Back

126  Transforming Rehabilitation - NNC talks break down after chaotic MoJ intervention, Napo News, 21 November 2013  Back

127   Offender Rehabilitation Bill Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons, 28 November 2013 Back

128  Justice Committee, The role of the Probation Service, Eighth Report of Session 2010-2012, HC519-I, para 258  Back

129   Ministry of Justice, Target operating model: Rehabilitation Programme, September 2013, p 7 Back

130   Q180 Back

131   Oral evidence taken on 27 February 2013, HC (2012-13) 964, Q48 Back

132   Q156 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 22 January 2014