§ Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone)I sought this debate after meeting South Yorkshire probation officers about two weeks ago to discuss the operation of the service. I was accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). Since then, I have met probation officers to discuss subsequent developments.
§ Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam)I presume that that was a party caucus meeting; otherwise, I would have expected to be invited.
§ Mr. ClaphamIt certainly was not. I thought that invitations had been distributed to Members from both main parties throughout South Yorkshire, and I am unable to elaborate on whether the hon. Gentleman received one—or, indeed, on why he did not receive one, if he did not.
It was clear from our discussion that the South Yorkshire probation service had responded positively to the challenges of recent years. I assume that the Minister has seen the service's annual report for 1994–95. If he has, he will have noted the increase in all aspects of probation work.
The number of pre-sentencing reports to the criminal courts has increased by nearly 15 per cent.; the supervision of offenders given community sentences has risen by 18 per cent., nearly twice the increase in 1993–94; there has been a 17 per cent. increase in the amount of automatic conditional release work; occupancy of bail hostels has risen by 10 per cent., and demand for welfare reports in the family courts has increased by 3.5 per cent. There has clearly been a dramatic rise in the work of the South Yorkshire probation service.
Impressive though those figures are, I must emphasise that the organisation aims not just to achieve numerical volume but to provide an efficient and effective service. What is not evident from the figures is the commitment to developing work programmes for specific groups of offenders that are intended to deal with certain types of offending behaviour. I think that the Minister will agree that that is an important development—a development that has taken place not just in South Yorkshire but throughout the probation service.
The South Yorkshire probation service's main function is the supervision of offenders on community orders, with the aim of preventing reoffending. In that way, the service makes a positive contribution to the community, ensuring public safety and strengthening ties. It works not in isolation, but in the community. Officers constantly interact with offenders who, while conscious of their actions, are not always conscious of the consequences of those actions. Those who have decided to change the qualifications for probation officers do not seem to have taken that on board.
Probation work is done in a social context. It is a complex process, often requiring the fixed ideas of offenders to be broken down so that they can be integrated and can live with others in harmony, without causing the problems that led to their initial contact with the probation service. Such a complex social process requires mature 680 officers with good education and a good training; it requires the understanding that mature recruits bring to the job.
That understanding, however, needs to be underpinned by education and training of a high standard. I believe that the necessary educational qualifications should be gained in universities, which can provide theoretical knowledge that can then be linked to practical skills.
The South Yorkshire probation service feels that the abolition of the requirement for people to hold diplomas resulting from a two-year course in social work or its equivalent before they can be appointed as probation officers amounts to deskilling. I agree. I do not believe that the proposals for in-service training will provide the necessary combination of theory and practice. Even at this 11th hour, I ask the Minister to consider implementing a new two-year diploma course. If he cannot do so, he should at least be able to tell us that he is prepared to review the matter again with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.
I am aware that the National Association of Probation Officers referred the whole matter of training to a judicial review. That review did not fully support NAPO's contentions, but I understand that the judge said that there was now a void, and that there should be appropriate educational and training qualifications for probation officers. Perhaps the Minister will expand on that.
According to the Dewes report, which was commissioned by the Government, the diploma in social work inhibits the recruitment of potentially valuable probation officers. The figures show, however, that the service is not losing nationally or regionally: it is obtaining mature recruits. In 1993, more than 50 per cent. of recruits were over the age of 30, and more than 40 per cent. had previous work experience. Perhaps the real disincentive has been caused by the fact that, in 1994, the Government cut £17 million from the probation service's education budget, thus reducing the number of available places.
Why, the South Yorkshire probation service asks, do the Government want to dismantle the current system of education and training, which is supported by NAPO and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation? The Industrial Society found its training and recruitment methods very effective.
It would seem—no doubt the Minister will expand on this—from leaks in the media that the Government wish to dismantle the probation service qualification, so that they can recruit more ex-service men and women, in the belief that they will instil more discipline. If that is really their objective, it results from a mistaken view of the probation service's work—like the belief that recruits do not require theoretical knowledge.
I again draw the Minister's attention to the fact that probation officers work with drug addicts, with people who are responsible for sexual abuse, with people who have been involved in family violence as well as family breakdown, and with the mentally ill. There is a need for a great deal of understanding, and that comes from an educational qualification steeped in much of the theory that applies to social work. Such education, linked to practice on the job, can provide the necessary skills to enable a probation officer to work well in the community.
Another reason why the Government want to dismantle the probation service came to the fore in an announcement only a week or so ago. The Guardian carried the headline 681 "Probation Pay Linked to Crime". I do not know whether the Minister saw that article, but he will no doubt be aware of the proposal for a pay-related bonus system. Probation officers in South Yorkshire feel that that would devalue the service. As we are now aware, the Home Secretary seems to be seriously considering the introduction of what I would refer to as a ludicrous performance-related pay system, which is linked to whether a probation officer's clients reoffend.
That barmy idea was proposed for the police force and withdrawn. The work that a probation officer does, to which I have referred, is even more complex, and a pay-related system would lead to all kinds of problems. It is an absolutely ridiculous idea, and would result in probation officers recommending for supervision under community orders only offenders they judge are least likely to reoffend. That would be the obvious way to ensure that they would receive their bonuses.
Those people who had been to prison or had a record of reoffending would not be recommended for community service. The system will ultimately lead to reduced pay levels in the service, which will deter the high-calibre recruits currently joining it.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the system's ultimate results. Are we saying that judges will be on bonus-related pay, and that their payment by results will be related to the length of sentences they impose? If that increased, as it ultimately would, the prison population, would prison officers be paid more to supervise the rise in the prison population? If so, are we to say that they are likely to receive decreases in pay if the prisoners they have been supervising were to reoffend? On reflection, I am sure that the Minister will agree that introducing a bonus-related pay system in the probation service is ludicrous and barmy.
As I am sure the Minister will be aware, there has been a fall in recorded crime of 2 per cent. in South Yorkshire. Burglary overall has fallen by 11 per cent. There was a fall of 1 per cent. in violent crime, and there has been a fall of 10 per cent. in the number of sexual offences. Those figures reflect in part—I emphasise, in part—the effectiveness of the South Yorkshire probation service. I say "in part" because I am aware that other agencies are involved in those welcome statistics, such as the police and the social services.
The probation service approach to offenders really works. There is a mountain of evidence to support that contention, but I shall use only two examples.
A cost-benefit analysis of probation-style programmes in America showed that the net saving of such programmes was $68,000 per offence. A study in the United Kingdom in 1993 followed a group of young offenders who had taken part in an intensive probation programme and compared them with a group of offenders who had been given custodial sentences. It showed that the volume of reconvictions of those given custodial sentences was 100 per cent. higher than for those who had undertaken an intensive probation course. The probation service approach is successful.
The whole approach could be undermined by an inadequate training system and a barmy payment-by-results system. The probation officers in South Yorkshire are extremely concerned by the Government's proposals—or should I say lack of them—on adequate education and training. They feel that the service will be 682 deskilled. Moreover, they are worried that the proposed payment-by-results system will devalue the service, and that the ultimate loser will be the community. I share those fears.
The Government's ill-conceived proposals will undermine the confidence of the professionals in the service and be to the detriment of the community. I therefore urge the Minister to think again, and to work with probation officers, chief probation officers and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to arrive at a satisfactory solution to the education issue. I urge him to drop the barmy idea of putting probation officers on a payment-by-results system.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville)I welcome this opportunity to reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), and I pay tribute to the South Yorkshire probation service and its work, and to the probation service as a whole.
We in government fully recognise the tremendous contribution that the probation service makes. The criminal justice system is clearly not all about prison. Many offenders, as the hon. Gentleman said, will very much benefit from a community sentence. That is central to our policy. We are very well aware that the probation service faces a greater and greater challenge, and I am glad to say that its overall resources have remained in real terms at a consistent level, which reflects our attitude.
What the hon. Member said about training is very important. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's decision last year to withdraw the requirement for a two-year social work degree has been misinterpreted, and misrepresented widely. It has been said, as it has again in this debate, that the decision represents deskilling. I reject that claim altogether.
We believe that we need very much more broad-based probation training in order to face the challenge of today's crime scene. No one would deny that social work is relevant to probation work, or that any new training scheme introduced should contain an important element of social work training, but other disciplines are equally important. Probation should be seen as a discipline in its own right, and any training scheme must incorporate all the relevant skills—whether in criminology, sociology or psychology—and expert knowledge that is required.
The hon. Member said that working with drug offenders is very important. This morning, I launched the south London drug strategy, which will involve a great deal of work by a number of professionals—including social workers and probation officers—in arrest/referral schemes. We must make sure that we can offer people who are passing through the criminal justice system—at the time of arrest, in court or during community sentences—the support they need to get off drugs. In doing so, we can reduce crime. That area formed a much smaller proportion of the work of the probation service five or 10 years ago.
We propose that the training and qualifications for probation officers in the future should contain all those elements, and should not be dominated by one particular discipline or by those with university qualifications. The training should be composed of the elements that the service believes are needed. The service should design the 683 course, which should contain enough flexibility to ensure that all the necessary elements are included. I hope that the negotiations will go ahead, and there is a meeting today between the Home Office and the profession. With good will on all sides, I am certain that the Home Office, the employers and managers of the probation service and higher education can come up with a course that reflects the needs and challenges of today.
§ Sir Irvine PatnickMay I join the Minister in praising the work of the South Yorkshire probation service? He may be aware that I made representations on behalf of that service to the previous Minister, and that those representations were considered before the changes that took place in the probation service. I am grateful for that, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to comment.
§ Mr. SackvilleI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We need a relevant professional training qualification. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone pointed out that the present system has attracted many mature people to the service, but we should not get carried away with the idea that we are trying to attract large numbers of ex-service men, who may or may not have relevant experience.
There is a strong argument that telling someone who wishes to join the service and who has relevant experience—someone who has worked with young people or has done a variety of work in the field—to undertake a two-year social work course could be a considerable disincentive. That is not the case for everyone—many people who are highly qualified and suitable for the service may be happy to get the degree.
§ Mr. ClaphamThe probation service has experienced no difficulty whatsoever in attracting the kind of recruits it requires. We are not talking about apprentices, or about people who work with mechanical parts. We are not talking about people who work with widgets. We are talking about training for men and women who are to work with people. They will need a theoretical education to underpin the skills they will require to work with drug abusers and sex offenders.
§ Mr. SackvilleThe hon. Member ignores this fact—there is no reason why all the theoretical knowledge could not be gained within a more flexible framework. It will be up to the probation service, in conjunction with all other concerned groups, to design relevant courses that contain all these elements. All that we are saying is that a two-year social work degree should not be compulsory.
I am convinced that certain qualified and suitable people will be put off if they are told that they have to take a two-year social work degree. Many people may 684 need social work training, but not necessarily the full social work degree. I think that that was the burden of the earlier remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick).
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone also mentioned performance-related pay. Again, this matter has been widely misconstrued—including in the article to which he referred. The background is that a Home Office options paper was put to the employers' side of the joint negotiating committee. It made no specific proposal, and certainly did not specifically propose that performance should be linked specifically to reoffending. That would be difficult, and would be a caricature of any sensible performance system.
Some unnecessary fears have been expressed about the subject. It will always be up to the employers and local committees to decide on the nature of any performance-related scheme. All services should already be using the standard competence-based appraisal scheme that was introduced two years ago with the backing of all concerned. If properly used, such a scheme should provide an objective way of assessing and comparing performance, and it was designed to bear the weight of performance-related pay if necessary.
There are many ways of assessing performance—timeliness in producing pre-sentence reports; timeliness in producing welfare reports in family court cases; quality of pre-sentence reports; and compliance with national standards. There is no reason to caricature the proposal as in some way linked to a raw measure of reconviction. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone's rather absurd analogies with judges and other parts of the criminal justice system did not add to the argument.
I accept the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone. Probation and the probation service do work, but they work alongside other aspects of the criminal justice system. Probation is not a substitute for prison. Given that the reconviction rate is about 50 per cent., we must assume that the reoffending rate—whether for those leaving prison or those who have gone through community sentences—is considerably higher.
That is an argument for the fairly robust line taken recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has recognised that—in cases of burglary, for example—very short sentences are passed from time to time on people who have offended and been convicted many times. There is room within the criminal justice system for an effective probation service, and we must make sure that the public are protected by taking those who persistently offend out of circulation.
We very much value the work of the probation service, and we hope that the present disagreement about the future of the probation training qualification—it has been going on for some months—will be resolved. There is no reason why we cannot find a flexible scheme that satisfies all sides and ensures that the probation service continues to play a vital part in our criminal justice system.