On probation - Telegraph Probation officers in England and Wales are to stage a 24-hour strike from tomorrow in protest at the Government's reforms of the service. They object to plans by Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, to transfer responsibility for low-risk offenders to private firms and charities, with payment by results. A smaller public sector probation service will continue to monitor high-risk offenders. A good deal of alarmism is accompanying the campaign against these changes: the public will be placed at risk; criminals will "fall between the cracks"; and the reforms are being rushed. Yet the principal bone of contention here is ideological. The probation union Napo believes this service should only be delivered by the state and accuses the Tories of privatising it for the sake of doing so. For his part, Mr Grayling says the state has failed and it is time to try something new. The notion that the private sector should be excluded from delivering probation services, irrespective of whether the current system works, is the truly dogmatic position. Mr Grayling is trying to improve results - and if private firms can achieve that then they should not be excluded by an outmoded animus against private sector involvement. It is not as if Napo can point to the signal success of the current system to reinforce its argument. Last year, more than 600,000 offences were committed by people who had broken the law before. In addition, almost 150,000 criminals dealt with by the police and courts had committed at least 15 previous offences. The rate of recidivism is actually worsening despite an annual prison and probation budget of £4 billion. This is a scandal that needs to be addressed and not reduced to a pointless public good/private bad argument which might still exercise the unions but is irrelevant to most people who just want to see results.