Bold spending needed to halt prison crisis
The government's efforts to fix the prison crisis may not work without "bold investment decisions", the leading union for the probation service has said.
Ian Lawrence, general secretary of Napo, said a review of sentencing policy by former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke "may come to little effect" if the probation service was underfunded.
The union boss said he supported proposals to scrap short sentences for some offenders and toughen up community orders supervised by probation officers.
But he said probation staff were already "overworked" and suggested any "cost cutting" could increase pressure on the service.
"I'm struggling to see how a package of sentencing reform can work without the necessary support," Lawrence told the BBC.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said a "crisis" in the justice system had "put a huge strain on the probation service".
"We are hiring 1,300 new probation officers, investing in technology to cut back on admin, and increasing focus on those offenders who pose the greatest risk to the public," the spokesperson said.
"This will ease pressure on the service, help cut reoffending and keep our streets safe."
Gauke is understood to be considering recommending the idea of scrapping short prison terms as part of the sentencing review.
The review comes as prisons across the country are struggling to deal with overcrowding after the number of offenders behind bars hit a new high.
In an interim report, Gauke warned that unless radical changes were made, prisons in England and Wales could run out of cells by early next year.
Gauke's sentencing review is expected to be published this month, before the government sets out its spending plans for departments in June.
"Napo would welcome any initiatives to reduce the numbers of people in our prison estate," Lawrence said.
"But that can't come without the lord chancellor absolutely recognising the pressures that the probation service is now facing and will in the future.
"And that's why we need brave, bold investment decisions by this government and not more of the same."
The prisons and probation budget fell by 12% when inflation was accounted for between 2007–08 and 2023–24, according to analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has outlined plans for efficiency savings and in her spring statement, said day-to-day government spending would fall by £6.1bn per year by 2030.
But the chancellor has not yet stated which departments will have less money to spend, meaning it's not clear how the probation service will be affected.
The money allocated to government departments for the three years beyond 2025-26 will be set out in the spending review in June.
Lawrence said a reduction in funding for the Ministry of Justice, which oversees the probation service, could mean less funding to support offenders in the community and worse outcomes.
"In other words, they go out of prison and they've got no option but to commit crime because they have no means of supporting themselves," he said.
"They're back in prison within weeks. And so it goes on and that costs the taxpayer millions."
A source at the Prison Reform Trust, a charity, said the probation service would need to be resourced properly if there was more community sentencing.
They said the government may have to divert funding from prisons towards probation and community solutions.
"It needs to make a strong economic case for why this would be a spend-to-save policy," they said.
In a national inspection report, the probation watchdog said there was a high shortfall of officers in some regions and workloads were a problem.
Lawrence said Napo was in dispute with the prison and probation service over pay progression and workloads.
He said the union had submitted a claim for a 12% pay rise for probation staff this year.
That's way above the increases independent pay review bodies have advised the government to give teachers (4%) and NHS workers (3%).
Lawrence said probation workers going on strike was a possibility if the pay offer was too low.
"We think senior leaders in [the service] have a responsibility to let ministers know the gravity of the situation," he said.
"And that worries me as to whether ministers are truly sighted on the operational crisis that exists in probation right now."
In a speech in February, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood set out her vision for reforming the probation service.
She said probation officers were "responsible for caseloads and workloads that exceed what they should be expected to handle".
The changes she announced included 1,300 new trainee probation officers by next March, and an £8m investment in new technology to reduce the administrative burden on staff.
Probation: 'Too few staff, with too little experience, managing too many offenders'
'Women and children not protected from male harm'
More offenders could be tagged, as minister insists he's 'not soft on crime'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'It's devastating': Council leader reacts after boy 'stabbed' in south Essex attack
A COUNCIL leader has described an alleged stabbing in Hawkwell as "absolutely devastating" and "completely out of the norm" for the area. Danielle Belton, leader of Rochford Council, spoke to the Echo expressing sadness after a teenage boy was reportedly stabbed on Clements Hall Way on Friday evening, leading to two arrests. Essex Police were called to the scene at around 6.50pm following reports that a group had been attacked by two suspects. One victim sustained a leg injury and was taken to hospital for treatment. According to reports, he was stabbed in the leg during the incident. Two 17-year-old boys – one from London and one from Leigh – were arrested shortly afterwards on suspicion of grievous bodily harm and remain in custody. "It's absolutely devastating for something to happen like this in our district, as it's completely out of the norm," Ms Belton said. "And as I understand it, these were two boys from outside of the area. Obviously, my thoughts are with the young boy that was allegedly stabbed and with his family. And I hope he's okay and that he makes a swift recovery." She praised the emergency services' response, adding: "I'm very thankful to the emergency services for acting quickly and for arresting the two suspects. But yeah, I just, I urge anyone with information to come forward to the police. And I hope we don't see something like this again. It seems very worrying for our area and something that we're not used to." Ms Belton said she was waiting for full details from police rather than speculating. "As of now I only know as much as what the police have put out, I'll wait for the full details rather than speculate, but as we understand it, there was an alleged stabbing," she said. "My main concern is for that of the young boy who has been assaulted, but will have to wait for the full details to come out from Essex police. "And I'd like to again emphasize that this really it is unusual. It's not the norm around here, but one time is too many, and it shouldn't happen." The council leader revealed she had recently met with the High Sheriff of Essex to discuss preventing knife crime, describing youth services as something she was "very passionate about". "Only last week, I met with the High Sheriff of Essex and we were talking about incentives for youth and we actually were talking about ways to prevent knife crime in the area. So I mean, it's tragic that this has happened, but it is something that we are trying to tackle and we want to help educate these young people so that they don't carry knives in the first place. "But it's a big piece of work. It's something that obviously there's more of an issue with in city centres, but we do not want that rolling out into our suburban areas, so we need to need to act swiftly to find the right services and the right thing to help our youngsters. to ensure others don't end up in a similar situation on either side of the knife, either as the victim or as the perpetrator."
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer resists recognising Palestinian state as unions' demand deepens Labour split
Sir Keir Starmer has indicated he will not agree to recognise a unilateral Palestine as a state, as a civil war over the issue threatens to erupt in his party. With tensions mounting in the Middle East, given the ongoing blockade of Gaza by Israel and the region on the brink of all-out war between Israel and Iran, Sir Keir made it clear that the UK government will not budge. The prime minister said: 'Our position on recognition of Palestine as part of the process hasn't changed for us. I hold very strongly to the belief that the only long-term solution to the conflict in the Middle East is a two-state solution. However hard that may seem at the moment in the current circumstances, that is the only way to peace. So that continues to be our position.' His comments came as the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Labour's biggest financial backer, issued a joint statement with its Canadian and French counterparts calling on the UK government to change its position. It makes three demands, including recognising Palestine's statehood. They are calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and for the government to ensure the Israeli government meets its obligations under international humanitarian law. The statement said: 'We urge our governments to formally recognise the State of Palestine now and to stand firm in their opposition to the atrocities committed in Gaza and in the West Bank. 'We welcome the recent joint statement by our heads of state calling for an immediate halt to Israel's assault in Gaza and for unimpeded access to humanitarian aid. 'These are critical first steps toward alleviating the suffering of civilians caught in the conflict. 'Our governments rightly acknowledged that permanent forced displacement is a breach of international humanitarian law, and we welcome their opposition to settlement expansion and the recognition that it is illegal and undermines the viability of a Palestinian state. However, words must be matched by action. 'As members of the G7, doing so would send a powerful signal – particularly in the lead-up to the UN conference co-chaired by France in mid-June. 'The time for decisive action is now. The need for justice, peace, and recognition has never been more urgent.' The text, seen by The Independent, comes as Sir Keir is in Canada meeting new PM Mark Carney for trade talks before attending the G7 summit where the Middle East crisis will be top of the agenda. It follows pressure from a number of senior Labour figures – including Commons foreign affairs chair Dame Emily Thornbury – for the UK to follow the example of Ireland, Spain and Norway last year to officially recognise Palestine as a state. Added pressure on the issue has even come from the Tories, with a group of Conservative MPs signing a letter from former minister Kit Malthouse demanding Palestine be recognised as a state. The Green Party and SNP have also long supported the policy. However, Jon Pearce, chair of the Labour Friends of Israel, which has a number of powerful cabinet allies, including the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Pat McFadden, has pushed back against the growing demands in Labour for Palestinian recognition. He claims it would undermine Britain's position as an honest broker in the conflict. He told The Independent: 'Given the all-too-evident threat posed by Iran's nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes, and its support for terrorism and proxy armies, not just to Israel and the region but to our own national security, it is vital that the UK maintains its diplomatic influence and credibility with our allies. 'Last year, Ireland, Spain and Norway unilaterally recognised a Palestinian state, but it changed nothing on the ground. If Britain were to follow this course, we would inevitably damage our reputation as an impartial broker and reduce our ability to have an impact.' He added: 'The Oslo accords state that any dispute must be resolved through direct negotiations. If Britain and our allies abandon our commitment to this core principle underpinning the accords, this will be a gift to those in Israel and the Palestinian Territories who have always opposed them and risk unleashing unbearable consequences for both Israelis and Palestinians. 'Recognition is a card that can only be played once. It must be done when it will have maximum impact.'
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'