We will end the merry-go-round of reoffending

By tapping into the expertise, resources and innovation of the private and voluntary sector, the government is bringing a fresh approach to rehabilitation.

Editor's note: This piece is a response to Alan White's article, "Three reasons Chris Grayling's outsourcing plan for the probation service is a terrible idea"

Last year around 600,000 offences were committed by those who had broken the law before. And almost half of people who leave prison are back to their old ways within a year.

These are dreadful figures and represent untold misery and pain for victims and billions of pounds in wasted taxpayers’ money. Anyone who is happy to live with this is on another planet.

Try telling the homeowner who has had their home broken into by the repeat burglar, or the old lady who has been mugged in the street by the recidivist crack addict that we’re happy with the status quo, that we’re doing enough.

Simply put, we are not, and I am determined to deliver swift and significant reforms so we can finally stop the merry-go-round of reoffending and give the public a criminal justice system they deserve.

By tapping into the expertise, resources and innovation of the private and voluntary sector, we will bring a much needed fresh approach to rehabilitation. Only paying providers in full if they are successful at reducing reoffending is the right way forwards, ensuring taxpayers’ money works harder with organisations that are fixed on turning round the lives of troubled offenders.

We need providers to work with all offenders. Our payment by results contracts will be split in two: one success payment for reducing reoffending and another for reducing the number of further crimes committed by the people they are working with. This will stop providers picking off the low hanging fruit – on the contrary, greater rewards will be available for tackling the most persistent and chaotic criminals who cause so much damage to our communities.

We will not see big private companies monopolising rehabilitation contracts – smaller grassroots charities and voluntary organisations have an essential role to play in our reforms. We will give them the right support to take their seat at the table. This is why we recently announced a significant package of measures to help the voluntary sector compete for contracts on a fair and level playing field.

Introducing competition and payment by results, and giving the voluntary sector a greater role, means we can do more with less. By freeing up our budgets we can afford to introduce a new minimum 12 months rehabilitation period in the community for every offender leaving prison. This will give frontline staff and offenders a proper chance at finally breaking the cycle of crime.

Our reforms are not about removing the public sector from the mix - quite the opposite. A new refocused National Probation Service will be at the heart of the system, protecting the public from the most dangerous offenders and taking on lower risk criminals whose risk rises. Let’s not forget, the professionals who are making these judgement calls today are the very same ones who will be making them in two years time. The difference is they will be working in a far more flexible environment, one in which they can innovate to find what works best.

The argument for change could not be clearer and we are now working closely with all providers on the fine design of a new approach that will bring together the best of the private, voluntary and public sectors, so we can better protect the public.

People have criticised payment by results, and pointed to the Work Programme. It is still early days but already more than 207, 000 people had been helped into a job through the Programme by the end of September 2012 and performance is improving still further.

We have seen some first-rate, innovative support from providers to get people into work, albeit in a challenging economic climate. That’s not to say we haven’t learnt valuable lessons from it. For example our rehabilitation contracts will not be 100 per cent payment by results. Providers will be paid a set fee for carrying out orders of the court, but to achieve the full value of the contract they will have to demonstrate real reductions in reoffending.

I’m under no illusions about the scale of this challenge and what we are trying to achieve, but I’m determined to drive these plans forward for roll-out by 2015 - it is simply not an option to rest on our laurels. No longer can we shrug our shoulders as if this merry-go-round of crime is an inevitable fact of life that we should all just put up with. We can and will stop it.

Chris Grayling is the Justice Secretary

David Cameron is escorted around C wing by prison officers during his visit to Wormwood Scrubs Prison. Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.