A Farewell to Arm’s Length Bodies?

 

What will the recently announced review of quangos mean for criminal justice?  Like all Departments, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is having to justify the existence of Arm’s length bodies (ALB) as part of the exercise to drive out waste and inefficiency and rewire government.

Could this spell the end for His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) or for the Youth Justice Board? Could it lead to the amalgamation of various external bodies that scrutinise prisons? The surprise decision to scrap NHS England means nothing is off the table.

The Cabinet Office review will be looking at whether the current arrangements give ministers appropriate oversight of policy of national importance or involve duplication of work between their departments and ALBs. The need for stakeholder engagement will not be a sufficient reason for an ALB to exist although a clear justification for independent advice to ministers will.

So where might that leave the  35 public bodies supporting the MoJ?

The review comes in the midst of the row between the Lord Chancellor and one of its ALBs, the Sentencing Council, which in part involves an alleged democratic deficit in the Council’s work.

While the long term role of the Council itself is being reviewed separately, the differential access to pre-sentence reports about which Shabana Mahmood is so concerned is mirrored in the policy on bail reports adopted by HMPPS earlier this year.  

Could this apparent embarrassment prompt Ms Mahmood to tell the review that she wants to take closer responsibility for prisons and probation in some way? Under the current arrangements,  the HMPPS Chief Executive should consult the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary, and regularly share information, “on the handling and management of operational matters with particular focus on those that could give rise to substantial public, ministerial, Parliamentary or media concern.”

But that may not allow for the level of oversight that Ms Mahmood would wish to exercise. Announcing the intention to take the services into the heart of the MoJ could also be a useful line to take when her conservative Shadow Robert Jenrick returns to this particular fray after Easter.

On the other hand, many consider the future of probation at least would be best served away from Whitehall officials let alone Westminster politicians. The government is due to conduct a strategic review of probation governance. Recent administrative efforts have sought to bind probation more closely to prisons through the “One HMPPS” initiative. But all bets are off if there’s “No HMPPS.”

The Youth Justice Board managed a last ditch escape from the Coalition’s bonfire of the quangos in 2011. Since then it has lost its role in relation to youth custody, and may be vulnerable this time round. A review of its effectiveness, due to report to Justice Ministers shortly, could be enough to save it but some changes to its role are likely if it is spared again. 

The Cabinet Office may also look hard at the organisation of the bodies which monitor prisons. There are clear distinctions in the roles of the Prison Inspectorate, Independent Monitoring Boards, Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and Prison and Probation Ombudsman. But there is scope for some consolidation. Although as recently as 2020 there was a consultation on Strengthening the Independent Scrutiny Bodies through Legislation, the MoJ would be wise to offer to look again at the possibility of merging some of the bodies or functions.

In return the MoJ might propose restoring one of the bodies abolished in 2010- the Inspectorate of Courts Administration. When it was scrapped, the government claimed that HM Courts and Tribunal service “now has robust audit methods and management information processes in place, which negates the need for independent inspection.”

Given the backlog, concerns about the single justice procedure and radical reforms likely to emerge from the Leveson review, Ministers and the public need an independent organisation to report on what is going on in the court system.