PLANS to shift the supervision of sex offenders and domestic abusers in England and Wales to less-qualified probation staff have raised alarm among experts, with warnings that public safety could be at risk.

Under the proposals, set to be implemented in June, behaviour programmes for offenders will be delivered by “band 3” staff—who are not fully qualified probation officers—rather than “band 4” officers with extensive experience handling serious cases, including those involving rapists and paedophiles, and violent partners.

The move is part of wider changes in the probation system, which will also see the number of low- and medium-risk offenders required to complete twice-weekly rehabilitation courses reduced. Instead, probation officers will be expected to manage these offenders using “toolkits” in weekly meetings, rather than putting them through structured rehabilitation courses.

Some intervention programmes for sex offenders, including Horizon, Kaizen, and iHorizon, will also be scrapped in favour of a new single scheme called Building Choices.

Martin Jones, the chief inspector of probation, has urged the government to closely monitor the new programmes to ensure they are effective and do not compromise public safety.

“HM Prison and Probation Service needs to be certain that these programmes are delivering the intended results,” Jones said. “There is a real risk of wasting public money on schemes that fail to reduce reoffending.”

Concerns have been growing among probation officers, who have been voicing their unease for months. Some believe the changes will not lighten their workload, as intended, but instead add to it. Others fear that shifting responsibility to less-experienced staff could lead to poor outcomes.

Whitehall sources have echoed these concerns, warning that the new approach could damage the probation service’s reputation and effectiveness.

A probation officer, speaking anonymously, said: “There are serious worries about these changes. Peer challenge in group settings is a key part of rehabilitation—when offenders deny their crimes, others in the group call them out. This dynamic is much harder to achieve in one-on-one meetings.”

The overhaul comes amid broader pressures on the probation system. Last month, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced that rehabilitation courses for 13,000 convicted criminals would be scrapped due to what she described as “impossible” workloads faced by probation officers.

Mahmood defended the changes, stating: “We must prioritise resources for the most serious offenders. Those who pose a higher risk will still receive the courses they need, and breaches of licence conditions will continue to be met with prison recalls.”

She also outlined plans to recruit 1,300 new probation officers by March 2026, alongside an additional 1,000 staff by this March, and introduce new technology to reduce administrative burdens on officers.

Jones acknowledged the need for reforms, admitting that probation officers were struggling with heavy caseloads, but stressed that cutting structured rehabilitation for lower-risk offenders should be carefully reviewed to avoid unintended consequences.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Our priority is keeping the public safe, which is why probation officers will continue to focus on the highest-risk offenders. Only staff who are fully trained will be allowed to deliver accredited rehabilitation programmes, and this will not change under the new proposals.”

HAVERFORDWEST Parkrun number 312 took place on Saturday (Mar 15) at the Racecourse, with 80 participants crossing the finish line—among them, Henry Tufnell MP, who completed his first parkrun.

The MP recorded a time of 18 minutes and 14 seconds at the free weekly 5k community event. His wife, Poppy, also took part, volunteering for the first time as one of 15 helpers who ensure the event runs smoothly under the parkrun UK umbrella.

The event, which has now seen 24,536 finishers, takes place every Saturday at 9:00am. Organisers expressed gratitude to Haverfordwest Racecourse Public Park Trust for their continued support in hosting the event and to Haverfordwest Cricket Club for providing toilet facilities for participants each week.

THE SENEDD recently voted down a motion demanding fair funding for Wales from the High-Speed Rail 2 (HS2) project, reigniting concerns over Westminster’s treatment of Welsh interests in major infrastructure investments. The decision has sparked frustration across political lines, particularly given the widely accepted view that Wales has been unfairly denied financial compensation for a rail scheme that provides no direct benefit to the country.

A flawed classification

The root of the controversy lies in HS2’s classification as an ‘England and Wales’ project, despite not a single mile of track being laid in Wales. This designation, originally justified by the Conservative UK Government on the grounds that HS2 would benefit North Wales via a link to Crewe, has deprived Wales of consequential funding under the Barnett formula. However, the scrapping of the Birmingham-Manchester leg of HS2 by former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak further undermined this justification, leaving many to question why Wales has continued to be excluded from receiving a fair share of funding.

While Scotland and Northern Ireland have received consequential funding from the HS2 project, Wales has been left without any direct financial benefit. Estimates suggest that Wales should have received around £4bn-5bn in consequential funding if HS2 had been correctly classified as an England-only project. However, recent recalculations by the Treasury have seen those figures fluctuate dramatically, with more recent estimates dropping to mere millions—a shift that suspiciously coincides with the arrival of a Labour government in Westminster.

Cross-party recognition of unfairness

There is a broad political consensus in the Senedd that Wales has been shortchanged. In 2022, Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies broke ranks with his party to tell Boris Johnson that Wales was owed funding from HS2. Labour in Wales has long argued that the country has been systematically underfunded in rail infrastructure, and Plaid Cymru, alongside the Welsh Liberal Democrats, has also championed the cause.

Yet, despite this shared recognition of unfairness, when a motion was tabled in the Senedd this week demanding that HS2 be reclassified as an England-only project and that Wales receive its fair share of funding, both Labour and Conservative MSs voted against it.

Why did the motion fail?

The failure of the motion appears to be as much about political maneuvering as it is about policy disagreements.

The motion, proposed by Plaid Cymru, called for:

• Updated figures on the rail enhancement funding shortfall in Wales.
• A confirmation from the Welsh Government that HS2 should be reclassified as an England-only project.
• A formal request to the UK Secretary of State for Transport to release the full consequential funding to Wales.

However, Labour and Conservative MSs rejected the motion, with Labour opting instead to delete its contents entirely and replace it with a statement highlighting the supposed benefits of having a Labour government in Westminster. Several Welsh Conservative MSs indicated that they might have supported the motion if Plaid Cymru had not included language that criticised the previous UK Government’s unfulfilled pledge to electrify the North Wales Main Line. This suggests that party rivalries overshadowed any genuine attempt to secure additional funding for Wales.

Apathy and absenteeism in the debate

The broader issue at play is the growing sense of disengagement from Senedd members during opposition debates. The HS2 debate saw conspicuously low attendance from both Conservative and Labour MSs. Onlookers noted that only two or three Conservatives were present, while Labour benches had around seven members in attendance. Such poor participation, despite the significance of the topic, raises concerns about whether some MSs are taking their duties seriously.

Welsh Liberal Democrat MS Jane Dodds described the debate as “depressing,” noting that while all parties seem to agree that Wales has been shortchanged, they were unable to unify on the issue.

Labour’s dilemma: Party loyalty vs Welsh interests

The shift in Labour’s stance on HS2 funding is notable. Before Keir Starmer’s election as Prime Minister, Welsh Labour had been vocal in demanding fair funding for Wales. However, since the new UK Government took office, Labour MSs in Cardiff Bay appear to have softened their approach, likely to avoid disrupting relations with their Westminster counterparts.

This reluctance to push for what is widely acknowledged as a fair claim for Wales has led to accusations that party loyalties are being prioritised over the national interest. Labour backbencher Alun Davies, one of the few to go on record about the issue, acknowledged the problem, stating that while HS2 funding is a historic and ongoing issue, the real solution lies in the full devolution of rail infrastructure.

The bigger picture: Structural inequality in UK funding

At its core, the HS2 funding dispute highlights a deeper issue: Wales remains the only UK nation without full control over its rail infrastructure funding. Without these powers, Wales is at the mercy of UK Government decisions that consistently prioritise England’s transport needs while leaving Welsh infrastructure underfunded.

Even if Plaid Cymru’s motion had passed, the UK Government would still have had to be pressured into acting. However, the rejection of the motion sends a worrying signal that the Welsh political establishment is not willing to present a united front on an issue of major financial importance.

In the end, the Senedd’s decision to reject the motion is a stark reminder of how political maneuvering can obstruct meaningful progress. While MSs from across the political spectrum claim to support fair funding for Wales, when the opportunity arose to take a stand, party interests and political calculations took precedence. The failure to secure HS2 consequential funding is not just a financial injustice—it is yet another example of how Wales continues to be placed at the back of the queue when it comes to Westminster’s spending priorities.