Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 1

Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 1

The work of the All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group June 2010-July 2012

Prisoner Rehabilitation: A jail sentence shouldn’t be about society’s revenge, but rather a chance to change the direction of a life. Lord Corbett, Chairman, All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group 2002-2012 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 2

The Prison Reform Trust aims to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing parliament, government, and officials towards reform.

The Prison Reform Trust is grateful to the Barrow Cadbury Trust for its kind support.

First published in 2012 by Prison Reform Trust

ISBN: 978-1-908504-02-9

Photo credit: Andrew Aitchison www.prisonimage.org

For more information contact the Prison Reform Trust

15 Northburgh Street London EC1V OJR

020 7251 5070

www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk [email protected]

Registered charity in England & Wales no. 1035525 Company limited by guarantee no. 2906362 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page i

Prisoner Rehabilitation: the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group 2010-2012

CONTENTS

Foreword iii 2010 22 June - Vulnerable women in the justice system 1 6th July - Crispin Blunt MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice 7 19 October - Aileen Murphy, National Audit Office 13 2 November - Children and young people in the criminal justice system 21 7 December - Restorative justice 29

2011 18 January - The Archbishop of Canterbury 37 1 February - Perspectives on Breaking the Cycle 43 15 March - Toe by Toe: empowering prisoners to rehabilitate prisoners 49 10 May - Nick Hardwick CBE, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 55 21 June - Arts in Prison 61 28 June - Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke MP, QC, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice 67 18 October - Community Justice 73 22 November - The Sentencing Council: 18 months on 79

2012 24 January - Multi-faith prison chaplaincy and community chaplaincy 85 6 March - Public or private prisons? 91 24 April - Working in prison 99 15 May - Youth Justice Board 107 19 June - Prisons and Probation Ombudsman 111 26 June - Intermediaries for vulnerable defendants 117 3 July - The future place of resorative justice in the criminal justice system 123 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page ii

ii Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page iii

Foreword

The All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group aims to increase its members’ knowledge of penal affairs and to work through parliamentary channels for reform of the penal system. With the prison population in England and Wales now above 85,000 despite cross-party agreement on the need to reduce numbers and at a time of radical cuts in public expenditure, there has never been a greater need for an active and informed group.

This report comprises presentations made to the group between the general election in May 2010 and the summer recess in July 2012. They highlight good practice and innovation that should be supported regardless of the austere financial climate – indeed, in many cases the urgency and importance is heightened by these challenging times. Together they provide evidence that prompts important questions about fairness, effectiveness and value for money across much of the criminal justice system.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale had been the elected chair of the group in each year from 2002 until his death in February of this year. Robin believed that a jail sentence should not be about society’s revenge, but rather a chance to change the direction of a life. The Robin Corbett Award for Prisoner Rehabilitation has been established in his memory. It will be presented each year, at a meeting of the group, to a small charity that has made a significant contribution to prisoner rehabilitation.

Our election as co-chairs of the group in 2012 will, we hope, ensure active interest in both Houses of Parliament. We are delighted that Claire Perry MP as vice chair and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts as the group’s secretary will continue to provide support and guidance. There are 99 Members of Parliament and 95 Peers in membership of the group.

Finally we would like to thank the Barrow Cadbury Trust, who supports the Prison Reform Trust to provide the secretariat, company secretary of the Prison Reform Trust Geoff Dobson OBE, who is clerk to the group and Julia Braggins our minute taker, for their valuable assistance.

The Rt Hon Paul Goggins MP General Lord Ramsbotham GCB, CBE

Co- Chairs, All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group Summer 2012

iii Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page iv

iv Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 1

2010

22 June 2010: Vulnerable women in the justice system - womens’ centres and the Corston agenda.

This meeting was held with the Women’s National Commission.

Speakers: Clare Jones, Joint Chief Executive, WomenCentre, Calderdale and Kirklees and Chair of Women’s Centre Forum Rokaiya Khan, Chief Executive, Together Women, Yorkshire and Humberside Pip Tibbetts, Partnerships Manager, Bradford, West Yorkshire Probation Area Sister Lynda Dearlove, Director, Women at the Well, King’s Cross, London Clive Chatterton, Governing Governor, HMP and YOI Styal. And Gemma, Soraya and Dorothy, who attend the centres.

Lord Corbett opened the meeting, with special thanks to Baroness Gould and the Women’s National Commission with whom the meeting had been organised. He was delighted that Baroness Corston could join the meeting, and extended a particular welcome to all new MPs and peers for this first meeting of the new Parliament. He mentioned the report of the group’s work during the last session, Too Many Prisoners, which was sent to all those who had expressed an interest. He welcomed early indications of the new Government’s thinking about spending on prisons – whatever the reason. He then went on to welcome the evening’s speakers, starting with Clare Jones, joint chief executive of WomenCentre, Halifax, and Chair of the Women’s Centres Forum, who would set the scene for the meeting. Clare Jones explained that the Women’s Centres Forum was the new umbrella body for the 38 women’s community and diversion projects now operating across England and Wales. This gave her a good insight into what was going on across so many areas, to provide ‘the holistic and women-centred community-based approaches, offering real alternatives to custody and opportunities for women. You will hear more about the situations in the lives of some of these women that result in their offending in the first place, and how they get pulled into a cycle that is impossible to get out of without some real support, and that’s what our projects are there to provide. It is fantastic to have Baroness Corston here, because it was from the recommendations in her report that we have been able to make the case for monies to be made available for our projects to be run, to be able to make differences to people’s lives. The results show the impact this work is having. The problem for us is that funding is only available until March 2011. We are working with 2,000 very vulnerable women, enabling them to keep out of the criminal justice system and to make significant differences in their lives. Our main concern is that we will go back to square one by the next financial year, unless we have commitments that there will be some sustainability.

1 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 2

My day job is as joint chief executive of WomenCentre, formerly known as Calderdale Women’s Centre but now working with Kirklees as well. We offer a one stop shop. Every project works slightly differently, but the big similarity is that we trust the value of the women themselves, and build up a trusting relationship with each individual. We believe in those women, and we understand the context of those women’s lives. Many have had childhoods that have been full of abuse and neglect, and for many their day to day lives include substance misuse, domestic violence, mental health issues, housing issues, debt, finance issues, homelessness: a whole range of issues that really need specific help to help people make differences. I’m now going to hand over to Clive Chatterton, Governor of Styal Prison, who is going to talk about his experience of working in the women’s estate. Clive Chatterton thanked the group for the opportunity to speak. He was really grateful, because he felt quite strongly about this issue. He continued: ‘I joined the Prison Service thirty five years ago, and over that time I have served in fourteen male establishments – all kind of establishments, top security, Victorian locals, remand homes, juvenile establishments, and I got to the point after all those years coming through the ranks that I thought I’d seen most things. But I got more than a slight shock last July when I was given the opportunity to go and run Styal, the third prison that I’d governed. When I got there I was quite shocked by what I found. So much so that the first couple of months while I was there, driving home past the airport, I was thinking ‘Am I up for this? Can I handle it? What’s this about?’ because I’d never seen anything like it in my life. I asked myself: was I going soft? For all those years, being so close to the criminal justice system, I was unsighted to the issues in women’s establishments. And it struck me that if I was unsighted, if I hadn’t been exposed to these things, there must be lots of my colleagues in other criminal justice agencies who were also unsighted. The Baroness in her report uses the phrase that the statistics about female offenders are ‘shocking’, and that has stuck with me since I read it. I’m not attempting to be a judge and jury. But one of the things that troubled me on those drives home in the early months was the level of self harm. I’d never experienced anything like it, and I know my colleagues in male prisons hadn’t. In a male prison almost twice the size, you’d probably have, on a daily basis, about half a dozen prisoners on ACCT procedures – at risk of self harm. At Styal there are about fifty a day, on special observation for self harm. The second thing that struck me was the level of mental health issues. The place generally runs on its medications. A lot of the ladies are substance abusers and anything from 40- 60% can be on methadone maintenance programmes. I’ve never seen such a concentration of damaged fragile people. Trained prison officers, dedicated committed professionals who do a fantastic job, are being asked to look after people who have clearly got severe mental health issues, and a large percentage of the population have got other social care needs. We are trying to do something that we’re very good at, but it’s not what we were trained for. The other thing that struck me was the use of short sentences: there are hundreds. Yesterday I got the stats to prepare for this meeting. 107 ladies are on remand: we can make an educated guess that probably 50% are not going to receive a custodial sentence. 119 prisoners are doing 12 months or less: 72 of them six months or less. I’ve done a presentation to the North West Criminal Justice Boards, and one of the slides I used was from a two month period last year. During October and November at Styal we received 34

2 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 3

ladies doing eight days or less. Eight of those were sentenced to one day. One lady was discharged before she slept for the night. She was a fine defaulter. Quite frankly I find that startling. I’m not judge and jury and I’m not saying I want to be. I would like to inform the discussion. If I am asked in my professional capacity about short sentences – the Prison Governors’ Association (PGA) has made a statement on short sentences, but these are my own views - when I see a young lady that I saw last year, with a ligature which left her unconscious, and if we hadn’t rescued her she would have died, almost every part of her body was covered with slashes, she then set fire to herself, and received burns that meant that again she almost died, and when she had recovered from that she drank disinfectant…. And I am asked: do short sentences work? I remain to be convinced by that. Clare Jones thanked Clive Chatterton and introduced the next speaker, Rokaiya Khan, Chief Executive, Together Women, Yorkshire and Humberside.

Rokaiya Khan began by explaining that the Together Women Programme (TWP) was one of the two pilot demonstration projects following Baroness Corston’s recommendations. She continued: ‘We set up one stop shop centres across Yorkshire and Humberside providing a range of support structures for women at every stage of the criminal justice pathway. We also provided services for women at risk of offending, from first time offences right through to women being released from prison. The pilot demonstration project ran for just under three years, and the model was to work with a range of existing voluntary sector organisations and services that provide healthcare, benefits advice, access to education and employment, bringing those services together within a gender specific centre. This was modelled around breaking the barriers of access to services for women offenders, so we provided childcare, and some of the therapeutic elements that the women required, as well as dealing with some of the challenges and addressing their offending behaviour.

We are awaiting the results of an independent evaluation but the indications are that in any one year we have provided support for 1500 women. For us, the challenge was around sustainability. How could we mainstream our services within local commissioning? We have been fairly successful in attracting gender specific commissioning, from local authorities, the police and the probation service, to provide a range of different interventions. In Bradford we run intensive alternative to custody orders. That’s a particular pathway of addressing intensive support for women on the cusp of custody. The compliance rate for women on these orders is nearing 90%. We’ve done lots of work with sentencers because it’s about providing a robust package, so that they can have some faith that it’s not a soft option, and that women are going to need to address the root causes of their offending.

We did a cost benefit analysis recently around what it costs to support a woman in a community based intervention like ours. To provide intensive support for a woman for up to six months costs under £1,000. And you’ll know that keeping a woman in custody for a year costs in the region of £40,000. So it absolutely makes sense to invest in community services like ours.

One of the things I’m particularly proud of is the ground-breaking work we’ve done with West Yorkshire Probation, who have taken bold decisions about investing in a community service like ours. I’d like to introduce you to Pip Tibbetts, Partnerships Manager, Bradford Probation, who’s going to tell you more.’

3 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 4

‘After TWP came to our area, we decided that we wanted to do things differently with women. Every district now has a link manager for women offenders whose responsibility it is to try to educate magistrates to reduce short sentences, custody etc. Every offender management team, the group of people supervising the 3,500 offenders we are working with in Bradford at any time, has a semi specialist – that’s somebody who’s learning how to work with women better, learning about different agencies who provide gender specific services, and half of their case loads are women.

Then last year we decided we wanted to take it one step further, and to develop a model of working with the most complex and hard to reach women on our case load, with Women’s Centre, Calderdale and Kirklees and TWP involved. So we are developing an integrated women offenders management model, for want of a better phrase, and what that means is that we are locating three members of our staff in Bradford, two in Leeds, and one in the WomenCentre in Calderdale and two in Kirklees, whose entire case load is made up of women. So half of all women are now supervised within a one stop shop centre. The sentence plan, which is part of a community order, is jointly decided with the women, with a women’s centre key worker and with the offender manager, and delivered together.

So probation is able to do the bit it does best, and the women’s centres are able to deliver what they do best – and that is intensive support. In terms of how we risk assess, if the woman is deemed low risk that means they get a limited package of support from probation, but that’s most of the women we supervise. We wanted to do more for those women, so that they don’t become high risk, and so that they don’t get sent to prison. This model is offering that opportunity. We’ve got an 87% completion rate for community orders that are supervised at these one stop shops, which is an early indication that this works. And 88% of all appointments that are offered to women at these one stop shops are kept. For women who are chaotic, who have complex interconnected needs, this is an amazing achievement. And I think this is testament to how you can work in partnership to deliver better services for women.

I am joined today by Gemma, a client attending TWP in Leeds, who will share with you some of her experiences’.

Gemma began: ’I had a really abusive upbringing and childhood. Even though I did well at school, and I haven’t been to prison, I must have been lost. I met someone and it wasn’t a healthy relationship at all. If it wasn’t for TWP I probably wouldn’t have made the right relationships. I wouldn’t have known how to come across, and meet people easily. I didn’t like having to go down to the probation to see a probation worker, it felt daunting, and also it was full of lads and people I didn’t want to get involved with. It put me off track when I wanted to go in the right direction, for the kids’ sakes. Now I’ve been to TWP I feel like I’ve benefitted loads from it, and I feel like one day I’ll be able to volunteer, and move on.’

Clare Jones thanked Gemma and then introduced Soraya, from the Women’s Turnaround Project in Wales.

Soraya began: ‘I’m 31 years of age. I’ve been in and out of gaol from the age of 19, all short sentences. I never touched drugs at the time. My first experience of drugs was in gaol

4 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 5

and I came out with a heroin habit. I was ashamed to tell my family – I came from a good background, and I didn’t want to disappoint them. My pattern then was shop lifting, to fund my habit. I turned to heroin, crack, alcohol. When I was in gaol last year on my last sentence, I saw a leaflet about the Women’s Turnaround Project. I picked it up and when I came out I asked my probation officer to refer me. She said you’ve got to do self referral, so I did. I was with them in October. By November they’d got me on a methadone script. From December I was clean of everything. I’m now off my methadone and now my plan is to go to college and give something back. I’ve got first hand experience, so I can understand where other people are coming from. If I can help one person like Women’s Turnaround has helped me it’s a big achievement in my life. I know that with help from Women’s Turnaround and with the passion in my heart I might one day be the next Baroness up here.’ (Applause)

Clare Jones thanked Soraya and introduced the next speaker Sister Linda Dearlove, Director of Women at the Well in King’s Cross.

Sister Lynda Dearlove said that she was not going to concentrate on the work of providing one stop shop support and services for women involved in street based prostitution, but rather ‘on some of the barriers that seem to be inbuilt within the criminal justice system that prevent us from providing the best service we could to those women. There are some particular aspects of the law that do that, for example the overuse of ASBOs to police prostitution, which isn’t what they were intended to do. The way in which they are being used, which is hugely geographical, actually prevents the intention of the ASBO which is about rehabilitation and reform. If the ASBO itself prevents the women from accessing the support services they need in order to address the offending behaviour then by definition those women are unable to do what needs to be done. And so those women frequently breach their ASBOs and they end up in prison.

Once they are in prison, with the disruption to their lives, they lose their benefits, their accommodation, and quite often their methadone script or whatever else they were having to enable them deal with their substance misuse. And when they come back out again we quite often find we are back to square one. But sometimes we are behind that. We paid for a hotel for someone for thirty weeks, to keep them off the streets, to get their benefits sorted and to get them housed. The particular issue there was that the local authority was saying ‘we intend to extend the ASBO’. They were taking over as judge and jury from the magistrates because they decided that it was a foregone conclusion. And so they were not putting her into the accommodation that should have been available. We had to negotiate with another borough. In London it’s a particular issue, because each borough is its own local authority. All of your services are tied to that local connection. So by introducing large geographical area ASBOs we are preventing women from accessing the services they need.

Another aspect is that conditional cautioning is frequently not being used as we would like to see it. We are in a situation now in Kings Cross where women are not being cautioned at all. The first thing that happens is that they have been seen and they are being summonsed to court to answer a charge of prostitution. But many say they weren’t working at the time. It’s very hard to prove, if the incident happened a week or ten days ago. Many of us don’t know what we were doing yesterday. We are managing to challenge that very strongly with a very good firm of criminal solicitors that we use. But those women may be getting back into the criminal justice system and back into prison for things that aren’t reasonable.

5 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 6

Yet another aspect that’s hugely important is that women are quite often issued with a tagging order. The taggers arrive and they don’t have any photographic ID. So because they don’t have a passport, or a driving license, or quite often they don’t know where a lot of their life is let alone their passport or driving licence even if they had one, they are then not tagged. As a result of not being tagged they are then recalled, and they will be sent to prison.

Those things are innate within the system. We manage when we know about it to get solicitors involved and we challenge it. But if those are the things that are recalling women to prison, how can we say that the criminal justice system in working?’

Sister Lynda Dearlove then introduced the next speaker, Dorothy.

Dorothy began: ‘I’ve lived in the Kings Cross area for the last two or three years. I’ve not long come out of prison. I was in there for breaching my license due to the postal strike. I didn’t get my appointments. I didn’t get a chance to appeal because you don’t go back to court for a breach, you go straight to prison. I’d just got a hostel place, I’d just been put on a script, I’d got all my benefits sorted out, and being recalled meant that all this went to pot. Everything stopped. I did my 28 days, and on my release I got my discharge grant of £47 which was supposed to last me till my next benefit. I was also told to approach the housing office in the borough where I live. I went to the housing office and was told they couldn’t help me because I wasn’t a priority. I wasn’t vulnerable. Luckily enough I knew the ladies at the Women at the Well which is just round the corner. So I went round there and Lynda asked if she could come round with me to housing again. So basically she accompanied me and dealt with the staff and got me into a hostel where I’m living now. They helped me get all my stuff sorted back out again. I’m now on a college course. I go to the centre every day and use their facilities. I get help with my bus fares to go to college, and I get food every day. There’s acupuncture there, there’s cookery courses, there’s lots of things you can do to get back on the right path.’

6 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 7

6th July 2010: Crispin Blunt MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice

Lord Corbett welcomed the speaker, Crispin Blunt MP, Parliamentary Undersecretary of Sate for Justice.

Crispin Blunt MP thanked Lord Corbett very much for the invitation, and his introduction. He was conscious that there were ‘lions of penal affairs in the room’, including one of his predecessors in the role, and it was a privilege to be invited to speak. He would be speaking from a prepared text:

‘As a minister for all of two months I am grateful for the opportunity to address colleagues tonight – on a subject of interest to us all – and certainly of great interest to our constituents. And one which has been at the forefront of national debate in the wake of Ken Clarke’s speech last week.

It will not surprise you to learn that I wholly endorse Ken’s typically perspicacious contribution. I would be excited in any event by the challenge of the post I hold, but am especially privileged to have the opportunity to work with such a distinguished politician – and one who clearly wants to get policy making on sentencing and criminal justice to be based on what actually works. And I am even more excited by the fact that I believe we have a once-in-a- generation opportunity to transform our criminal justice system and that I can contribute to that change.

That’s why I am spending as much of my time as I can visiting a number of prisons, probation trusts and youth offending teams across the country. I want to hear the views of staff – the people at the sharp end who know what does and does not work; to find out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis; and most importantly to listen to them on how they would improve the system. I have already met very good people out there, doing some fantastic work. I know the commitment and professionalism of the staff. I am proud to be ministerially responsible for over 70,000 people directly employed in offender management in the prison and the probation services. They are in the business of providing security to the people of Britain as in different ways are our armed forces and police. Whilst the risk is less intense it exists and is present on everyday of their working lives with offenders. I hope we can get that recognised and appreciated more than it is, as well as the realisation that their success in rehabilitating offenders in their care makes all our futures more secure.

But it is just as clear to me that in many areas the criminal justice system is failing – it’s failing the people who serve in that system, it’s failing the offenders managed by that system and by extension their victims and the victims of the future we are creating – it’s failing in summary to serve the public.

Criminal justice is founded on the central obligation of any state – the security of its people. Yet we face the wretched reality that everyday we will fail. However effective we are at securing the realm from our external enemies, every day hundreds, in fact thousands, of our

7 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 8

fellow citizens have their own security shattered by their homes being invaded by burglars, their peace ruined by intimidation and violence, their lives scarred by criminally inflicted injury and for about two families every day their lives shattered by the homicide of a family member. And there is no magic wand by which we politicians can wave all this away. Everyday we are and will be reminded of our failure through the graphic and awfully compelling stories in our media of the reality of crime experienced by individual victims.

The causes and solutions to crime are not absolutes, or simple; do not lend themselves to easy nostrums presented in a single press release or even a single speech. Success will be measured over a generation, and that is a singular challenge for policy makers in the age of the 24 hour rolling news cycle.

Today I want to share some of my early thoughts on the challenges we face, and to explain what will guide us as we look to revolutionise the system First, we face an unprecedented economic situation. Our ambition to reform the system must be seen in the context of the constraints on the public finances. Achieving savings will mean driving value for money and delivering more from less. The test of an effective criminal justice system is not how much money we’re spending on it, but on the outcomes it is achieving. Over the summer we will be developing options on how we serve the public in the future with a significantly lower budget.

Second, victims of crime are too often poorly treated. According to the British Crime Survey, 80% of the public believe that the criminal justice system respects the rights of the accused. Just a third believe it meets the needs of the victims. Regardless of what people perceive, we know that a failing criminal justice system is failing the public. It means more crime. That means more victims.

Third, we are just not dealing with offenders properly. Half of all crime is committed by people convicted in the past. And of that half, a small group of these are committing a disproportionately large number of offences. This much is clear: there is just not enough rigorous intervention to stop the ‘revolving door’ of offenders entering our criminal justice system. Most short sentenced prisoners receive no supervision or support on release. Half of adult offenders reoffend within one year of release from prison – and the rate of reoffending has risen in recent years. And it is not just about adults; we need to manage young offenders effectively. And if you don’t get their treatment right, the young offenders of today are the repeat offenders of tomorrow. All this must change.

Many offenders need a great deal of support. They might have been failed by absent parents. They might have suffered childhood abuse. Many have failed in the education system, abused drugs and alcohol or ended up homeless. 45% of sentenced offenders have emotional wellbeing issues including mental illness and one in three reports that they have an accommodation ‘need’. These figures are shocking enough. But we believe the problem to be even greater. There is a cycle to crime – from generation to generation. Children with a parent in prison are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour and have contact with the criminal justice system in later life.

8 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 9

And fourth, the sentencing framework is highly complicated, utterly confusing and ultimately disingenuous. Sentences bear no resemblance to the time actually served in prison. This leads to confusion for victims of crime. It creates a sense of injustice when the public discover that a criminal will actually serve a much shorter time in prison than was specified in court, and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. Our challenge is to bring consistency, honesty and transparency to sentencing – for the public, victims of crime and practitioners.

These are hardly new challenges. Indeed they are all too familiar. But this cannot go on. We just cannot continue to spend more on a system that does not have the faith of the public and which does not break the cycle of crime. We have a once in a generation opportunity – to think carefully and creatively how we reform the criminal justice system to more effectively protect the public, to prevent crime, rehabilitate offenders and cut reoffending. And we are going to set out in detail our proposals for rehabilitation and sentencing reform in a Green Paper after Parliament returns in October.

Serious offenders who commit serious crimes are still going to go to prison, whatever interpretation the excitable try to put on Ken Clarke’s speech last week. But we must end the revolving door of reoffending. Time in prison must be an opportunity for offenders to gain skills so that they become productive members of society. Prisons must focus on getting offenders off drugs, on work and prepared for release – with homes and jobs to go to and as far as we can helping them not reoffend.

And as part of their rehabilitation, offenders can and should pay back to victims and society for the harm they have caused. So we want to allow for deductions from the earnings of prisoners in properly paid work to contribute towards services for victims, as a way of helping make amends for their crimes.

This involves a wide range of partners from across communities and government. It includes early intervention work; improving life chances and voluntary sector mentoring and support. It involves challenging families to tackle the intergenerational cycle of crime. The Justice Committee’s excellent report, ‘Cutting Crime: The Case for Justice Reinvestment,’ will inform our work as we go forward. I want to see much better recognition of the fundamental links between poor social outcomes and crime and reoffending, right across communities and government. The ministerial group on homelessness offers us a vital opportunity to reinvigorate action over housing provision for offenders.

The government is just as committed to welfare reform so that work is the best solution for people, offering them a route out of poverty, and for offenders, providing them with stability to stop offending and become a better member of society. The Cabinet Committee on Social Justice, which will meet for the first time tomorrow, was set up to consider issues relating poverty, equality and social justice, to begin coordinating this agenda.

It’s clear that centralised direction and targets will either be inefficient or ineffective. We can no longer afford either. So we need to empower local agencies – both criminal justice agencies and others such as local authorities, primary care trusts and Jobcentre Plus - to work together in tackling those entrenched social issues that many offenders face.

9 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 10

We must work with communities to build public confidence in the system. Funding and decision-making must be devolved to local groups; greater volunteering; and engaging the voluntary sector to run innovative services that tackle the root of the problems and provide value for money.

We must build confidence in the criminal justice system. And that means an evidence- based approach, spreading information about what works in the system and ensuring those who work in it are equipped to do the job. We want to move away from a plethora of new initiatives and announcements – we want the criminal justice system to be judged by its ability to deliver results not on the basis of a fanfare of announcements. Put simply, we are moving to evidence based policy making from policy based evidence making.

And the incentives need to be right. We will move away from a system where targets are the incentives to one where we offer stronger incentives by opening up competition in penal services and paying providers by results. As many of you will know, we are currently running a competition to select national framework providers of community payback services. Probation Trusts are also taking a Best Value approach to reviewing their current community payback provision. And we are enthusiastic about the work starting soon on Social Impact Bonds in Peterborough Prison. We will pay social investors there if, and only if, they reduce the reoffending of short sentenced prisoners.

We have a historic opportunity to look at how restorative justice can be introduced into the criminal justice system. I met with representatives from the Restorative Justice Consortium, and I have asked them to work with my officials, to put forward proposals on how restorative justice measures could be used across every phase of the criminal justice process: from pre-trial right through to interventions in prisons to prepare offenders for release.

I expect these will be radical changes. And they give us the chance to empower those organisations left out of the process for so long. We want to listen to new ideas to improve the criminal justice system, and we want to listen to a wide range of groups: from the established and respected voluntary organisations such as the Howard League for Penal Reform and Prison Reform Trust, to the small community-based organisations – our door is open. I am keen to explore how we carry out this engagement in a structured and effective manner. As part of that process, I am organising round-table events with voluntary sector organisations to discuss these ideas in more detail.

Finally we will assess the sentencing framework - a comprehensive look at how we can increase consistency, honesty and transparency. It will look in detail over the coming months at the full range of penalties and restorative measures available in the criminal justice system in both the adult and youth sentencing framework, ensuring that appropriate links are made between the two.

We will specifically examine proposals for reform through a system of minimum/maximum sentencing. Our aim is to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system by improving honesty in sentencing. The offender will serve a minimum period in prison as set by the judge in court. The victim, family and witness will know that the offender will not be released any earlier than this point. The judge would also set a maximum period to be

10 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 11

served and the offender has to earn any release earlier than this point by, for example, complying with the prison regime and actively engaging in rehabilitation. This is just common sense.

For too many decades the sentence passed by the court does not reflect the time served in custody. It is through legislation that I want to see the minimum custodial sentence being exactly that, the minimum time that must be spent in custody. I am not advocating doubling sentences or increasing sentence lengths. But I do want to do away with countless legislative changes that have meant sentences don’t make much sense to anyone unless they are an experienced criminal lawyer. Actually since my brother is an experienced criminal lawyer I know that isn’t true either. This is a complex subject, even for judges. Making it simpler benefits everyone and increases public confidence. This is an opportunity for anyone to influence how the sentencing framework should look and operate in the future.

The Coalition Government understands the need for a new start. We know this will not be easy in the current economic situation. We will have to make some very tough decisions and the Ministry of Justice and our partners will have to make radical changes to the way we deliver services together.

As I said earlier – this is a once in a generation opportunity. We will take the time needed to get this right and will consult widely before bringing forward plans for reform. We will publish detailed proposals in a Green Paper in the autumn, leading to a coherent package of legislation in the second Parliamentary session.

In summary victims of crime today must be front and centre of our consideration and part of our plans for sentencing and rehabilitation reform. We must ensure that offenders are rehabilitated and potential offenders diverted from their current path into the revolving door of today’s criminal justice system. Only by doing that will we reduce the number of victims of tomorrow, and if we do that we will build public trust in a criminal justice system we can all be proud of.’

11 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 12

12 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 13

19 October 2010: Value for money in the criminal justice system

Speaker: Aileen Murphie, Director, Home Affairs and Justice VFM, National Audit Office

Lord Ramsbotham then introduced the speaker, Aileen Murphie Director of Justice VFM, from the National Audit Office. He had had the pleasure of working with Aileen frequently in the past, when the NAO had collaborated with the Prisons Inspectorate over matters of joint interest, and joined the inspectors in visits. He had always appreciated Aileen’s interest in the context of what was being assessed, which gave everyone confidence in her work. It was particularly pertinent that she should have been invited to speak at this time.

Aileen Murphie then began: ‘Thank you very much Lord Ramsbotham for that introduction, and to the group for the invitation to speak today about what value for money means in the context of the criminal justice system. There could be no more apposite time to discuss value for money than the night before the Spending Review announcement. To reduce departmental expenditure by 25%, 30% or 40% is not something that can be done by merely cutting a percentage off everyone. It means a permanent reduction in what is termed a department’s ‘run rate’: that is the amount of money that it routinely uses. In order to make reductions of this size, our Guide to Structured Cost Reduction (copies provided) makes clear that several things are critically important, one of which is the cost to value ratio. That is, what value are we getting for the cost which we are putting in and how can we assess that?

So it is against the backdrop of the need for structured cost reduction that I would like to explore value for money in a CJS context and I will illustrate with a number of issues drawn from evidence we have brought together in our vfm studies. I have been working in this area since 2003 and have completed 17 reports to Parliament on a variety of crime and justice topics, from efforts to reduce crimes like burglary, to NOMS’ efforts to manage prisoners on short sentences, or people on community orders, together with aspects of management such as the management of sickness absence and the procurement of routine items. It is worth pointing out that the size of the justice sector is much bigger than it was only 10 years ago: the budgets for police, courts and correctional services have all risen by large percentages and the size of the prison population is at unprecedented levels. However budgets do need be weighed against the estimates of up to £20 billion of the costs of crime to society.

Just for the information of members of the group, the NAO is headed by an Officer of the House of Commons, the Comptroller and Auditor General who reports to Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee uses our reports to examine the Accounting Officers of departments: the Permanent Secretaries and Chief Executives on their use of public funds.

13 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 14

The first issue I want to touch on is what is meant by value for money. Value for money is a slippery concept, meaning different things to different people and it is worth exploring what we mean by it when we use the term. The second issue relates to outcomes: how you can measure them and what the causality might be from expenditure on the criminal justice system (CJS) And the third is about context: what makes the CJS both different and problematic to the external evaluator and how might the problems be overcome?

Value for money Value for money has no set or statutory definition more precise than referring to examinations of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the NAO Act 1983, despite the National Audit Office commonly being said to have a ‘value for money remit’. The terms are not defined in the Act. For the sake of discussion, I would refer members to the NAO definition that “Good value for money is the optimal use of resources to achieve intended outcomes.” The NAO uses a structured framework for the assessment of value for money, based on identifying inputs, outputs and outcomes and using them to construct a case by case assessment of value for money.

So to take an example, when we reported in March 2010 on the management of prisoners serving short custodial sentences, our assessment of whether MOJ and NOMS were achieving value for money related to 2 aspects:

• how well NOMS was meeting prisoners’ immediate needs on arrival in custody • whether NOMS was helping those prisoners reduce their risk of reoffending.

Our conclusion was Yes to the first and No to the second: In other words, that NOMS was successfully achieving its objectives in terms of keeping the vast majority of short-sentenced prisoners safe and well, a notable achievement in the face of the prison population and in this respect it was delivering value.

However, we go on to say that there is little evidence to indicate that NOMS is achieving its goal to reduce the risk of short-sentenced prisoners reoffending, beyond the deterrent effect that prison may have for some of them, and to this major extent the delivery of value for money falls short. And this is a major shortfall in VFM because custody is the most expensive disposal available to the sentencer: up to £200,000 per year for the most expensive on the youth side and therefore its use and potential effect on the offender has to be considered carefully before resources are committed.

So the inference that the reader of the report can draw is that beyond the deterrent and incapacitating effects of custody, NOMS is not meeting its intended policy outcome of rehabilitation for these prisoners, is not achieving value for money and is therefore using resources sub optimally.

14 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 15

This example illustrates what we mean by the optimal use of resources, very often what a department can achieve cannot be set in motion cleanly or quickly and therefore an optimal outcome has to be weighed against what is possible. Often too the potential speed of implementation is not what policy makers would wish and previous attempts at change or innovation cannot be shrugged off. For instance, as an example, I would cite the length of time that the new community sentence took to be fully implemented and all requirements fully available in all parts of the country. It was some considerable length of time: almost three years I think. Therefore, it is not possible to ignore the context in which the agency is operating, the main contextual element being the size of the prison population which tends to dominate thinking in the correctional services.

The second issue that I wanted to explore relates to outcomes: how you can measure them and what the causality might be from expenditure on the CJS? The first thing to consider is what the outcome is. What is it that an organisation, be it government department or whatever, is trying to achieve?

The CJS is a very complex system and its beginning and end are not clear. Neither is the outcome that the whole system is aiming to achieve. In terms of the beginning of the process, one could assume that it starts when a crime is recorded as such by the police, because this action triggers the use of resources by both the police and other public sector agencies, almost regardless of what happens next, whether or not a case comes to court. Immediately, that complicates the structural picture: in policy terms preventing crime is the business of the Home Office and through the block grant, of individual police forces; yet reducing reoffending and public protection falls to the Ministry of Justice.

Or to take the resettlement of offenders, the key activities are likely to be getting someone accommodation and/or a job, which involve the activities housed within another two government departments and far removed from the policy making centres of all departments.

Why does this matter? It matters because of a lack of clarity for people working within the system. If there is not one clearly agreed outcome or series of outcomes that people are working towards then they cannot see why they do what they do and why it matters. And it matters because without an outcome, value for money cannot be measured.

An example illustrating this is the accretion of measures to combat antisocial behaviour. In our report on Tackling Antisocial Behaviour in 2006, we listed 17 different forms of intervention which policy makers and legislators had set out for use in situations of antisocial behaviour over a period of years and attempted to evaluate some 6 of them, including the ASBO. What was not clearly defined though, as we pointed out, was the outcome aimed at: every area had

15 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 16

to agree to have something to do with respect and public perceptions in their local area agreement. Not something around which effort can easily be coalesced or resources allocated efficiently.

My second issue is about assessing and evaluating outcomes in something as complex as the CJS. The first problem the evaluator comes up against is the fact that assessing complex policy outcomes is difficult to do. Many if not all major public policy issues arise from a combination of causes. For instance, it is often said that the factor least important in determining the health of the population is what the NHS actually does, with education and income having a far higher influence. The same could be said of crime. It would be nonsense to suggest that the causes are not rooted in human and societal causes.

Then again, causal factors also do not necessarily operate in a simple linear way. Poor employment prospects may lead to crime, for example, but a conviction will further limit employment chances. So what’s the cause and what’s the effect? These complexities raise the question of how best to evaluate the value for money or cost effectiveness of policy interventions, given that evaluation of specific policy initiatives may be misleading if there are other system wide factors that can change over time, while evaluating an entire casual network is expensive and may not be practical.

So, where to begin? Our recent report on short sentenced prisoners points out that we do not know enough about the basics. A job and a place to stay are key in not reoffending but as we say in the report, NOMS does not know how many short-sentenced prisoners are having accommodation and employment needs addressed successfully whilst in custody and it is not possible to identify the specific contribution that prisons make to solving these problems by looking at existing Key Performance Targets. So to put it a different way, we don’t know who gets help and whether that help works.

And in our report on offender learning in 2008, we found that there was little evidence on the impact that learning and skills provision in general has in reducing reoffending, other than improving basic skills. The evidence base for the particular mix of learning and skills provision for offenders most likely to achieve greater employability and reduce reoffending is poor. This means that there is not a clear statement at the national level as to what the mix of learning and skills provision at each prison establishment should be. So the provision to prisoners and in the community at any particular location was our report concludes, a historical accident, with no real idea of what it could achieve in terms of outcomes. This is not likely to result in good value for money.

Again in our report on community sentences, we pointed out that there was no national data on non completion of community orders. Thus even the basics of information on assessing effectiveness is missing. It is worth noting though that the report says a comparison between the actual reconviction rate and a predicted rate shows community sentences can

16 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 17

reduce reconvictions proportionally more than a custodial sentence. However, we need more evidence on the effectiveness of individual requirements (for example supervision) and on the mix and sequencing of interventions.

And the third is about context: what makes the CJS both different and problematic in terms of evaluation? The first issue, which I have touched on above, is complexity. Delivery of the service involves a very wide range of organisations, including three government departments, their agencies and non-departmental bodies, third party organisations as well as the independent judiciary and operationally independent police forces.

The function the CJS delivers: justice is unlike any other function of the state because of the need for it to be delivered objectively and impartially. The judiciary, which constitutionally is the third arm of the state, is independent of both the legislature and the executive. Independence is important so that judges can discharge their responsibility to be fair and impartial including protecting citizens against any unlawful acts of government. Judges have to be able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented in court by the parties and in accordance with the law. The operational independence of the police is a fundamental part of British policing, because the decision to arrest and take action against an individual should not be under political influence. Although independent of government, the majority of police funding comes through the Home Office and the costs of the judiciary are reflected in the accounts of Ministry of Justice. This adds further complexity to the governance and regulation of the system.

As well as complexity in breadth, this is also mirrored in depth: each of the bodies involved in the criminal justice system has long delivery chains, from the centre out to the local offices, and these are geographically dispersed. This makes management of the organisations more challenging in the sense of implementing a consistently understood and delivered policy.

And the fact that responsibilities cross different departments and involve a wide range of delivery partners means that it is much more difficult to establish and adhere to a single focus. Partnership working is crucial and delivery partners’ successes in meeting their own objectives may not necessarily contribute to the overall system. Delivery partners have their own objectives but cannot achieve them in isolation. But to achieve them all, each partner is dependent at least to some extent on at least one other. But the interrelationship between different parts of the system is not always properly understood by those working within organisations or indeed at depth level.

When we reported on the CPS’s work in magistrates’ courts in 2006, 17% of cracked trials (nearly 20,000 a year) were attributable to the Crown Prosecution Service at a cost of £24m. The police and the courts contribute to the inefficiencies that result in prosecution delays: often the police do not provide the evidence in time for the hearing; and Her Majesty’s

17 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 18

Courts’ Service staff move cases at short notice, so that prosecuting lawyers have to present cases they have not prepared. One part of the system entirely depends on smooth working with the rest.

In another example, our report on the Parole Board showed that the Probation Service’s move towards greater consistency in breaching people on community orders led to a rise in the workload of the Parole Board, which it did not have the capacity to meet. In 2006-07, the Board had failed to meet its target to review decisions to recall offenders to custody, in part because of the large rise in the number of recall cases. The effect of a change in practice in one part of the system was not modelled through to others resulting in the creation of a large backlog of cases which the Board is still attempting to reduce some four years later.

And the final aspect of why evaluating the CJS is problematic is because at the heart of correctional services is the creation of a functioning human relationship between the offender and those charged with their supervision. Assessing what makes this relationship work – offender engagement to use the current phraseology – is inherently difficult and not amenable to straightforward analysis.

On the positive side though, there are two examples from the Prison Service where managers have delivered change effectively and brought about considerable improvement in value for money: the first is the management of sickness absence and the second in the procurement of routine items like prison officer uniforms. In both, the key elements of success in improving management and saving resources - £84m in terms of procurement - were:

• clear policy goals – in sickness absence to reduce the average to nine days a year • managers at all levels knowing what the policy was and their part in it • overcoming of resistance to change – centralised procurement is never popular • much improved information available to all levels of management.

Managing staff absence and buying routine stuff better sounds dull but these typify the basics of good financial management. And if you look up our financial management review of the MOJ, published in July 2010 and soon to be taken by the Public Accounts Committee, you will see that the Ministry has made progress in improving its financial management but still falls short of best practice in the consistency of its approach, its understanding of its costs and the integration of its financial management systems throughout all of its delivery bodies. Without full information on its costs, which it still does not have, the Ministry’s ability to allocate resources on the basis of the relative financial and operational performance of individual prisons, probation services and courts is reduced.

18 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 19

So in conclusion, what needs to be done, especially now, in the likely event of considerable resource constraint? Our Guide on Structured Cost Reduction sets out some useful principles in how departments can move towards transforming service provision while reducing costs:

Much better information is essential on all aspects of service delivery and the costs of provision, tied into a research strategy that has at its core the assessment of the effectiveness of interventions delivered.

Well founded partnership working is crucial if the criminal justice system is to function as a whole system and if different organisations are not merely to pass costs, either actual or in activity, to one another.

This should be based on agreed outcomes for the whole system and based on integrated financial management and a thorough understanding of the costs of provision.

Thank you very much’.

19 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 20

20 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 21

2 November 2010: Children and young people in custody

Speakers: Penelope Gibbs, Director, Out of Trouble Programme, Prison Reform Trust Jim Hopkinson, Head of Leeds Youth Offending Team Rory, a young person with experience of custody

Baroness Stern welcomed everyone to the meeting. She explained that she was taking the chair in Lord Corbett’s absence in hospital. He was doing well, she was glad to report. It was her pleasure to introduce the speakers, beginning with Penelope Gibbs.

Penelope Gibbs said she would start by introducing the Prison Reform Trust’s Out of Trouble Programme, and then the other speakers. She continued. ‘This programme started more than three years ago. When I took on the job of running the programme I was told that its aim was to reduce child and youth imprisonment in the UK, which seemed a pretty daunting task. This was a task set for the PRT by The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund.

For the last three years it has to be said that we concentrated on under-18-year-olds (whom I will call children from now on) in England and Wales, to do our best with partners, such as the Youth Justice Board (YJB), to try and reduce numbers. I will start with the absolutely great news that numbers have reduced significantly. I don’t think this is a story that has been out there that much. In 2002 there were on average over 3,000 children in custody at any one time. I heard this afternoon that the numbers were down, on a week’s basis, to fewer than 2,000. At the moment the average is slightly over 2,000 at any one time. So we are talking about a significant reduction in the number of children in custody at the same time as the adult prison population has risen. So it’s a very special and good situation, and one which we hope we have had some influence over – though of course there are bigger forces at play as well.

So what have we done over the last three years and what have other people done? At PRT we have been keen throughout to produce an evidence base for our argument that there was an unnecessary use of imprisonment on both the remand and sentencing side. We have produced a raft of reports which are on our website and which I hope the members of this group have received over time. The one I want to talk about today is Punishing Disadvantage, which was published about a month ago. It is the first profile of every child in custody. If anyone wants a hard copy do let us know.

21 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 22

Even though we knew bits and pieces about the kind of children who were in custody and why they were there, we wanted to bring it together and do a quantitative study, the first time since Professor Norman Tutt did such a study more than 20 years ago. The Kings College researchers looked at the whole population of children in custody. One thing we have looked at quite a lot is: Why are the children there? There is a huge proportion on remand. 25%, or a quarter of the number in custody, are on remand, which is far higher than the adult population. One thing that concerns us about that figure is that we also know that the majority of those children either get a community order or get acquitted. So that suggests that the reasons for the remand, in at least some of those cases, were not as sound as they might be. I would not be surprised if there were more receptions on remand than there were sentenced, because they are in for a shorter time.

This study did a very interesting look at both what the offences are, and the seriousness of those offences. Half of the children were in custody for non-violent offences, and that’s quite a consistent pattern. 58% according to this study are in for offences which are deemed to be of low or medium gravity by the youth offending team that is dealing with the child. One of the key offences which worries us a lot is breach. Of all those children in custody, there are more in for breach (21%) than anything else. This means technical breach: not turning up for appointments, not complying with orders. We are not in any way condoning that behaviour, but we would say that imprisonment for non-compliance with an order is an over- punitive response. We would urge a change of primary legislation to make that less possible. Violence against the person is the next biggest offence group, and then we have robbery, car crime, burglary and so on.

Unfortunately the most popular sentence is the four month detention and training order. So the vast majority of those in custody are not in for four months, they are in for two months. This again is probably a worrying statistic in that there is little you can do of benefit to a child within the space of two months.

The other aspect of this study which is perhaps the more depressing side is that we looked at using ASSET for the social, health and welfare needs of these children. 28% have witnessed domestic violence,12% have experienced the bereavement of either a parent or a sibling, a very high proportion have family involved in criminal activity, 40% have been on the child protection register and 51% have been living in deprived households. These stats really underpin what we knew, but bring it all together. The cohort of children who end up in custody are absolutely the most socially excluded and deprived, and there is an indication there that they have at some point been failed by us, by the system, and by children’s services so that they end up not only offending but in custody. And around a third of those in custody are looked after by the local authority.

The report also has case studies of children, taken from the ASSET files which the YJB let us go through in order to do this study.

22 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 23

I have with me Rory who has very kindly come along to give a bit of an insight into the experience of a young person in the criminal justice system. Rory is 18 now, and he lives in Wandsworth. He is with us because he is defended by Shauneen Lambe, who is part of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, and who works for a charity called Just for Kids Law. Shauneen has worked defending Rory for quite a few years.

Penelope Gibbs (PG). To start with, Rory, can you tell us how long do you think you spent as a teenager either on a community sentence or in prison? Rory: About four or five years. PG. You are 18 now, so it started when? Rory. When I was about 14. PG. What kind of things did you have to do on community sentences? Rory. Just basically go to appointments, and do community service: fix stolen bikes and give them back, paint, clean graveyards. PG. Have any of the things you’ve done on community sentences worked for you, or had an effect on you? Rory. I don’t think they’ve really helped me that much, to be honest. They told me they were going to help me a lot and I’ve never heard from them. So I don’t think they’re doing much to help. PG. So you’ve spent four, or probably three, years with the YOT and nothing worked for you. You’ve also experienced child custody. How many different places have you been in? Rory. Four. Hassocksfield in Durham, Feltham, Huntercombe, and Oak Hill. PG. Were you in there for remand or sentence? Rory. Sentence and remand PG. So of that time can you work out how much time you spent on remand? Rory. Just over a year. PG. At one stretch? Rory. Altogether I’ve done a year and a half. The longest I’ve done at one stretch is six months. PG. Can you remember what reasons the court gave for remanding you, because presumably you pleaded innocent of the crime? Rory. Failing to return. Not turning up. Breaching bail. They said they had no choice in the matter. PG. In terms of your experience of being in custody, whether for remand or sentence, what kind of activities did you do? Education? Training? Rory. In prison it’s quite hard to get some sort of an education. You have to wait on a waiting list. But I got mechanics, health and safety, and a cleaning course. PG. What effect overall do you think that being in custody had on you? Did it change you for the better? Did it help you stop offending?

23 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 24

Rory. Personally I think it made me worse. I was mixing with kids who’d done things much bigger than me. I was influenced by the older kids and in with the wrong crowd. PG. So was this when you were in the Young Offender Institution? How old were you when you were in there? Rory. When I first went to Feltham I was fourteen and I was in there with people who were seventeen. PG. In terms of the people you saw in custody, which did you think should have been there, and which not? Rory. To be honest it’s hard to judge because there are a lot of people in there. I don’t know so I can’t talk about their cases. But there were a lot of kids being bullied in jail. There’s not a lot they can do. They can’t go to the jailers or they’d get bullied even worse. And they don’t give you much help anyway, to be honest. PG. In terms of the staff themselves, they were fine? Rory. There were some that tried to help, but there were a lot that didn’t really care. They didn’t see a lot of things going on. In the showers they had their backs turned and things like that. PG. In terms of coming out, the last time, did you then come out and go straight back into education? Rory. No. I’d missed the enrolment time. There was no help to get back into college so late in the year. PG. So you came out to..? Rory. Nothing. Just the estate and to the people doing nothing with their lives. PG. You haven’t been in trouble for a while now? Rory. No, about twenty months. PG. So what do you think has changed? Rory. I’ve grown up. Started to realise that it’s not doing anything for me, being in jail. I need to get somewhere in life. I’ve realised that for myself, the hard way. PG. Looking back, why did you get into crime? Rory. Boredom. There was no-one there to tell me. My father wasn’t there. When I got out of school, I was hanging around with older kids who weren’t in school. I was influenced by other kids. There was a lot of peer pressure. PG. So at what age were you last in school? Rory. Thirteen. PG. And they weren’t on your case to get you back? Rory. No. I was in the youth offending team about ten times and they never mentioned anything about education. PG. What do you think overall anybody could have done earlier on to try to help you not to commit crimes? Rory. Mostly it was because I had nothing to do with my life. I was always around on the estate. If I had had something to do to keep me busy I wouldn’t have got into some of the stuff I did.

24 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 25

PG. So it was linked to not being in school. The stats in Punishing Disadvantage suggest that only about 10% of children in custody were in mainstream school. Thank you very much Rory.

Another part of the Out of Trouble project has been working not only on the bigger scale of legislative change, but also locally. One of the initial things we highlighted was that the use of custody appeared to be startlingly different across local areas. So if you look at 2008-09 you find that Merthyr Tydfil imprisoned 20.2% of the children who were convicted in court, whereas Newcastle imprisoned 1.6%. The interesting thing is that there is quite a consistent pattern there. Merthyr Tydfil may be small but it had been at the top of the league of percentage imprisoned for at least ten years. And Newcastle, in fact the whole of the North East, has been very low for the last ten years. We said to ourselves, we may or may not be able to move political minds in the centre about changing primary legislation, but shall we have a go at talking to YOTs and seeing if we can persuade them to really go for it, to try to reduce custody in their own area. We sent letters to chief executives and leaders of councils in the high custody areas. And one of the people whose chief executive got a letter was our next speaker, Jim Hopkinson from Leeds. He accepted a meeting, and was subsequently happy for us to come along and help him look at what was happening in his area, in terms of the high custody rates. I’d like to introduce Jim to give you a bit of a picture about what’s been happening in Leeds.

Jim Hopkinson began. ‘Thank you very much. I’ll just spend the next five minutes telling you about the Leeds custody story. We have a lot of gratitude to PRT for helping us on our road to reducing our numbers in custody, although we still have a way to go. Leeds has historically been a high custody area, and perhaps as a YOT we started to accept that and to accept the mantra that there is a level of offending in Leeds that means that some people need to be in custody. Leeds has a population of more than 750,000 people. We have 180,000 children in Leeds. 75,000 of those are 10-17, and if they offend they would come to our services. We have 1,400 looked-after children in Leeds - and I’ll talk in a moment about the linkage between looked-after children and custody - and as a YOT we work in any year with about 2,000 young people whom we supervise.

At the time the PRT got in touch with us, about 11% of youth and crown court sentences were for custody. Actually what does that mean? It’s better to talk in terms of numbers. In 2006-07, we had 240 young people in Leeds sentenced to custody, and on any one day there would be round about 89-90 young people from Leeds in custody. That’s no small amount of young people and no small amount of public money being spent on incarcerating them. In fact we calculated that the cost to the public purse for incarcerating those young people was about £5-6m. This cost was the same as the youth offending service budget we had for working with all of the rest of the 2,000 young people.

25 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 26

So in 2006-07 we had 240 young people incarcerated. The actions that we took meant that by the following year we had 220 young people incarcerated. The year after that (2008-09) we had 190 young people incarcerated and last year that figure had fallen to 153. So we have done an awful lot of work in terms of reducing the numbers of young people in custody. But we’re not complacent, and we recognise we’ve got a long way to go.

In fact there’s another way of looking at this and that’s to look at the ratio of the 10-17 year old population to those who are in custody. In Leeds our current ratio is about 1: 447. In 2006 our ratio was more like 1:300. But if you look at an area like Surrey their ratio is something like 1:5000. So there’s an awful long way we can go. Now clearly our demography is not the same as Surrey, but there are wildly different ratios of custody rates even in areas with fairly similar demographics.

So how did we reduce this level of custody with the help of PRT and what were our strategies? The first of our strategies, and I need to take responsibility for this, was to ask whether we really knew our custody population. I send that challenge out now to my colleagues in other youth offending services and the leaders of their youth offending service management boards. I would have to say that I didn’t. If you had asked me in 2006 how many of our young people were in custody, I would have been able to tell you. But what I wouldn’t have been able to tell you was how many of those were looked-after children; how many came from black or minority ethnic groups; which offences were getting those young people into custody; how many were breaches; how many were persistent offenders; how many were first time entrants into custody, who hadn’t had earlier interventions through prevention projects or referral orders. I couldn’t tell you what the average length of sentence was. I couldn’t tell you what the split was between those sentences that took place in the crown court or in the magistrates court. I couldn’t tell you about the age profile; how many of those young people were under 14; how many were aged 15, 16 or 17. I couldn’t tell you about the gender split, or about which of those young people went into custody from being in school or training, or how many were not in school or training at the time they went in. Doing that research and coming up with a series of action plans based on every one of those parameters, was very, very helpful in terms of the work that we’ve done to reduce our levels of custody. And we still have further to go.

The way we can reduce custody is, firstly, to prevent young people offending in the first place; secondly to work with those young people who have offended to make sure they don’t offend again, so better community sentences that are successful; and thirdly – and I’d like to concentrate for a minute on this one - having the confidence of the court. If the courts are confident in your youth offending service, they are prepared to make community sentences where otherwise they would make custodial sentences. With the help of the YJB and prompts from the PRT we set about a consultation exercise with our courts and our legal advisors on how we could reduce custody in Leeds.

26 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 27

At that time I had an excellent relationship with our youth court bench, and I think they would say they had an excellent relationship with us, but it wasn’t impacting on our custody rates. So we knew we had to take that to a different level. With the assistance of the YJB and one of the board members, district judge David Simpson, we set about holding a half day seminar with our youth courts and our legal advisors to really get to grips with custody in Leeds: to talk about the cost of custody, to talk about a national indicator that we had at the time about reducing the levels of custody, and what the responsibility of the court was to assist us to do that, and to talk about practical strategies that we could do together to reduce the numbers of young people in custody. The deal we offered the court was this: you come up with the ideas and we as the youth offending service will deliver them.

It was a very useful half day seminar. Very few JPs were aware of the cost of custody. They all said they liked our pre-sentence reports, but they said they’d like to see the pre-sentence report writer in court, to speak to that person about their report. We said: we’re a very big youth offending service, we have a dedicated court team. We listened to the court, we adapted to what they said, and we now send our pre-sentence report writers to court when a young person is at risk of custody, rather than saying we have a dedicated court team, we can make an economy there. And that has reaped huge dividends. There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence to say that the pre-sentence report writer’s ability to be questioned has helped the court to take a judgment call on a young person who might otherwise have received custody.

The second one is that the court said: we don’t get positive feedback from the youth offending service. They see the failures, they see the young people who end up in court for breach, but do they see our positive success stories? Answer: No, not well enough. So the court asked for positive feedback on a sample of cases. We might have said: we’re very busy, that’s too much work to write progress reports. But that’s what the court wanted, that’s what we chose to deliver, and again it’s had a huge amount of impact, to demonstrate that for most of the young people we work with we have successful outcomes, because of course the court only sees the cases that are not successful.

Thirdly, if you took a straw poll of magistrates and asked: how many of you have visited our local institutions - HMYOI Wetherby, and Eastmoor, a secure unit - most of them would probably put their hands up. If you asked them how many of them had come out to a youth offending service, to observe one of our programmes, to sit next to one of our youth offending service workers and really get to grips with the work that they do, few have. And we made that deal with magistrates: we wanted them to come out and shadow our youth offending service workers, talk to them, sit in on our groups if possible, and really understand the complexity and depth of the work that they do. So Rory would talk about seeing his youth justice officer twice a week or so, but we want our magistrates to understand that it’s not just twice a week. Most of our youth offending service workers

27 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 28

would be working on some aspect of that young person’s life pretty much day in day out – whether that’s a negotiation with health, or education, or a substance misuse agency.

Finally the courts said that they wanted the looked-after children’s social worker to attend court and they weren’t doing that well enough. We would agree with that, but again it gave us the momentum to make that happen. And we would say that the most important aspect – what has helped us most to reduce our custody rates in Leeds - is securing the confidence and the investment of the court.

At the same time, we have got better as a youth offending service, and we know that has had an impact on our reoffending rates. Our prevention programmes work well and the numbers of people offending for the first time have gone down. Custody levels follow that. Our numbers of young people who reoffend have gone down. Custody levels follow that. Our use of evidenced based programmes has increased, with successful outcomes: custody levels follow that. We have invested in new things like speech and language therapy, and programmes with looked-after children.

Last but not least I want to talk about breach rates. We know that breach is a real precursor to custody. When young people breach, it can tip them into custody: they breach and they have some other offences. We put a challenge out to our youth offending service that we wanted a 10% reduction in breach. We actually used the mantra: ‘Each one breach one less’ and we thought that that would reduce our custody levels quite significantly. That’s nothing to do with the court, or with not following national standards. It’s a call to our youth offending service officers to better engage young people, to get out there and prevent breach. We believe that that’s been important. We still believe that there should be a graded approach to the response to breach, because we go by the letter of national standards as to whether we do breach people. We need people to be realistic about conditions, and about their maturity.

On the To Do list: we still need to better engage our district judges. We still need to work with our local authorities and the courts about transferring the costs of custody to the local authority. What would that mean for their practice? We still need to get better at prevention, and to think about where ring-fenced prevention budgets may or may not go. And we still need to get better at remands because we still have made little impact on the numbers of young people who are being remanded in Leeds. Thank you I’ll stop there’.

28 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 29

7 December 2010: Restorative justice

Speakers: Lawrence Kershen QC, Chair, Restorative Justice Council Lizzie Nelson, Director, Restorative Justice Council Jo Nodding, a victim of crime

Lord Corbett welcomed everyone to the meeting. He noted that the group had received a memorable presentation two years ago on the theme or restorative justice (RJ), featuring a burglar and his victim. He was very pleased to introduce the speakers on this occasion.

Lawrence Kershen began by outlining the shape of the forthcoming presentation. He continued: ‘I worked as a barrister, as a QC, and as a Recorder of the Crown Court for a good number of years. My work was in both the commercial and the criminal fields. One of the problems for me in the criminal field was that I felt that what was happening was not achieving what we wanted from society, namely that victims got some sort of satisfaction and resolution out of the criminal justice process but also that offenders were brought to book and were faced with the consequences of what they had done. Our system is set up so that the criminal does not have to say anything other than ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ most of the time. So I started to think that the real missing link in many cases would be the opportunity for the victim to confront the offender and to let (usually) him know what had happened, to ask his or her questions of the offender; and also for the offender to have the opportunity to speak, not through a barrister, not through some paper document, to tell their story, and for understanding to grow. And that’s when, having invented it in my mind, I discovered that there were brave people out there actually engaging in that process, actually doing it, as practitioners; and more important that there were victims of crime willing to engage with their victimisers, to face them and talk through those events. And so I began to be involved with the Restorative Justice Consortium, as it then was, now the Restorative Justice Council (RJC). I am at present its Chair.

The RJC is the independent third sector membership body for restorative practice in England and Wales. I say restorative practice because we don’t confine the application of these processes only to criminal justice, but also to education and organisations. There are about 100 organisations that are members of the RJC, both from the statutory and the voluntary sector, and in addition we have individual members who are both practitioners and trainers. RJC works firstly as a public voice, to speak on behalf of restorative practice; as a professional voice, speaking on behalf of those practitioners; and also to set standards. We believe that high quality is absolutely essential in the delivery of RJ, and that without it there is a risk of harm being done, when healing is what RJ is about. In practice we also cover various consultancy projects.

29 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 30

So that’s an overview. I now practice in mediation in the commercial fields, so you’ll understand that for me the idea of resolution of disputes by dialogue – the idea of people talking face to face – is absolutely essential to what I believe is an effective justice system both in criminal and in commercial experience. Having said that I am going to hand over to Lizzie Nelson, who will take us into a little more depth on this subject.

Lizzie Nelson began by thanking the meeting for its invitation. She continued: ‘We are really very pleased to be here, particularly given the publication of the sentencing Green Paper today. I’m just going to say something about the research, about what’s available now, about what we understand is in the Green Paper, and some key questions coming out of that. Then I am going to hand over to Jo, because I think that’s going to be much more interesting than anything I have got to say.

It is very important to note that the previous government funded a £7m seven year research programme, which some of you will have heard about already. This included an independent evaluation by Professor Joanna Shapland. She found that in serious offences with adult offenders - robbery, burglary and violence - 70% of victims wanted to participate in a face to face meeting with their offender. In Northern Ireland, 79% of victims participated. Satisfaction rates for victims were 85%, and in Northern Ireland again, 90% of victims come away from these meetings satisfied.

When the final report in that research was published, back in 2008, the government said the research was inconclusive on the question of recidivism. The researchers found that RJ impacted on the frequency of offending, but they could not say by how much. Since this government came to power, there has been a renewed interest in RJ. The MOJ research analysts have gone back to the raw data and done a meta-analysis. They have found that RJ reduces the frequency of reoffending by 14%. That research finding will be published alongside the Green Paper today. Academics in the field have said that they think the actual statistic is closer to 27%, but the MOJ position is that it is 14%.

Having a clear government position on the question of reoffending is absolutely essential because now they can actually model what the cost savings and benefits would be. We did some work with Victim Support earlier in the year, and using some very conservative assumptions – 40% take-up rates, looking at 75,000 serious offences – we found that using RJ could save the criminal justice system £600m in two years, in cashable savings, through reductions in reoffending and changes in sentencing patterns. So there are huge advantages to the tax-payer as well as to the individuals who are involved in the process.

Moving on to what is currently available in our criminal justice system, a lot of police forces are now using restorative skills in street policing. ACPO did a survey recently and 33 forces said that they were using restorative practice in some way to deal with low level anti-social behaviour type crime. Within youth justice, leading YOTS are using RJ in all sorts of innovative

30 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 31

ways. But overall, in the referral order, which was the primary vehicle for RJ that the previous government brought in, the national average is only around 10% of victims participating. However the PRT and the Youth Crime Commission, who published their report earlier this year, highlighted that in Northern Ireland, where they brought in youth conferencing through the Justice Northern Ireland Act 2002, victim participation rates are at 79%. So there is a huge gap between what’s possible in terms of delivering RJ in our system, and what’s actually happening now. One of the things we are really pleased about is that the Green Paper is looking at how we can build on the best of good practice that is already there in our youth justice system and get this process off the ground for the majority of victims of crime who we know want to participate.’

Alun Michael MP enquired as to what things had made a significant difference in Northern Ireland.

Lizzie Nelson ‘ In Northern Ireland the legislation says that victims are ‘entitled to participate’, whereas in our legislation it says that the referral order panel ‘may invite.’ the victim. I think that makes a huge difference to what YOTs see these meetings as being about and who the panel meeting is for. Also the referral order panel volunteers are not trained to do the preparation with victims, whereas in Northern Ireland the training is very good. They use conference facilitators, and they spend 30 hours on average per case, which includes about 20 hours preparation with the victim and the offender. All the evidence is that you need to do that preparation work - in Northern Ireland they go to the victim’s home and encourage them to tell their story, to talk about the impact of the crime on them and all that happens before they actually meet the young offender. That is what I think makes the difference in participation rates.

Coming on to adult justice in this country, there is very little provision. One or two prisons have some kind of RJ available, and in Thames Valley the probation service offer RJ as part of a community sentence. But basically that’s it. We have calculated that fewer than 1% of victims of adult offenders in this country have access to a RJ process. The Green Paper, as far as we are aware, looks at RJ in terms of policing anti-social behaviour; at its potential as a diversion, for both adult and young offenders; and at the option of pre-sentence RJ for adult offenders. All of this is very welcome. Moving forward in response to the Sentencing Green Paper, we would emphasis three key questions.

First, we think that RJ should be available to all victims of crime, at all stages of criminal justice. It should not be dependent on the offence type. Some victims and some offenders are not going to be ready to participate at the diversionary point or pre-sentence, so it should also be available post sentence. But it is a huge step forward. If the government is serious about introducing it at the pre-sentence stage that is fantastic and the research evidence, which looked at pre and post sentence, showed that victims of crime were happy that they could come at the right time for them. For the most serious crimes, it should be available post- sentence.

31 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 32

Lawrence has already mentioned quality assurance and this is absolutely critical. It is wonderful that the government wants to expand the use of RJ, and their vision for a big society means that they want to encourage all sorts of providers in the third sector, community groups, church groups, statutory and private sector organisations, to take part in this and offer RJ facilitation. But the risks are real. If the preparation does not happen there is a real risk of re-victimising victims. So we are absolutely committed to there being the highest quality standards. We have developed national occupational standards with Skills for Justice. We are involved in a pilot of new accreditation. We are developing a system for practitioner registration, which would be searchable on-line, so that any victim considering participation could just go and check: does this person have any accreditation? We think that setting those kinds of standards, which would apply whoever is offering this process, is essential.

A third point, on pre-sentence RJ, would be the need for judicial oversight – though not in the sense of shutting down the options. A real strength of pre-sentence RJ is that the case goes back to court, and the judge will make their sentencing decision in the light of whatever has come out of the RJ process. But it is very important that the victim and the offender are both clearly told that there is no automatic relationship between participation in RJ and the sentence you get. The victim cannot be held responsible, and nor can it be a ‘say sorry and you get off’ for the offender. The judge will take whatever comes out of the RJ process into consideration in their sentencing, alongside all the other aspects that they would generally consider. So those are the some of the key points we will be bringing up as we work with everyone in the sector to develop our response to the Green Paper.’

Lawrence Kershen (LK) thanked Lizzie Nelson and introduced the third speaker, Jo Nodding (JN). He continued: ‘I am going to ask you what happened to you, and how you came to be here, but before I do I think you would call yourself a survivor, rather than a victim of crime. You sought out the RJC because you found the RJ process that you went through so valuable, and you felt so lucky to have the opportunity to have done it, that you want the same for others. Thank you so much for coming, and struggling through -13 degrees from County Durham to be here today.’

JN: ‘I am an education manager for an independent fostering agency so I deal with children in foster care. In 2004 I was working with a young person who was in foster care. I had been working with him for about two months. He was not able to be educated in school so I was educating him out of school. I picked him up one particular morning and unfortunately I was left alone with him and he raped me. And for a long time that put my life on hold.

I got told the next day, that although he stole my car, he would not admit to the rape. He said ‘I don’t know what she’s going on about.’ So I had to go through three months not knowing whether I had to go and give evidence in court. That put me through a lot of extra

32 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 33

stress. Once the DNA evidence had been presented to him he pleaded guilty but I still went to court because I wanted to face him. At that time I did not know anything about RJ so I thought that was my only opportunity to show him that I could face him’.

LK. ‘So he was sentenced and I believe it was a life sentence. And then after that what happened?’

JN. ‘I had a meeting with my first victim liaison officer (VLO) after about a year. She came to see me at my home, and she was the only person who ever mentioned RJ to me. She asked, if I ever got the opportunity, would I like to have a meeting with the young person. Straight away I said yes that was something I wanted to do. It was never mentioned again. After another four years, in November 2008, I had a new VLO and I actually brought it up with her. Her response was very negative: she said it was very unlikely, with a serious crime like rape. But I was very determined, and so I asked her to go and speak to the authorities. I was determined to fight.

I got a phone call in March last year, to be told that the Aim project were going to come and see me, and see the offender, to see if he would be willing to have a face to face meeting. I had a couple of meetings, they went to see the young person, and I was told that he had given permission for the meeting to go ahead. What you both said about the preparation work is so, so important. A lot of people think RJ could do more harm than good. If the preparation work is not there, and the people who do this are not properly trained, I do believe it could. They have got to make sure that the victim and the offender are really well prepared.

I had quite a few meetings. The young offender had more than me because he was younger than me and needed them. Neither of us knew what the other was going to say, but they make sure that you know what is going to happen on the day, that you know the structure of the meeting, and that you are not going in with any expectations. If you go to a meeting expecting answers, and you don’t get them, that could do more harm than good. My expectations of that meeting were just to let him see me. The judge made the comment to this young person in court that he had destroyed my life. I did not want him to think he had destroyed my life, not only for myself but for him. He was only young when he did this crime, and he is only young now. I thought it could do him more harm to think he had destroyed my life.’

LK. ‘What did you want to achieve?’

JN. ‘I wanted to achieve things for myself and for the young person. I wanted him to see that I was still doing a job that I loved and that I had survived. On the day of the attack I thought that he was going to kill me. I was petrified, and that’s how he saw me. He had complete power over me. I wanted to show him that he didn’t. I am here now, and I am not scared of him any longer. I wanted him to know the impact it had had, not only on me but on my family.

33 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 34

My VLOs kept telling me he was doing victim empathy work. Someone can sit there and tell him how a victim of rape feels, but, to me, the only person who can actually tell that offender is the victim themselves. I was the only person who knew how he had made me feel’.

LK. ‘Is that what happened at the meeting?’

JN. ‘Absolutely. It was all set up in Manchester. I requested that he was in the room first, because I felt that I was more able to walk in. It lasted an hour and twenty minutes. I had the opportunity to be able to go through the whole events of the day, to tell him how it had made me feel. I think what shocked him was when I said I thought he was going to kill me. He had tears in his eyes at that point. It also gave me the opportunity to tell him how it made my family feel, because it wasn’t just me he affected on that day. He affected my Mum, my Dad, my brother, my husband: they had to watch me suffer. I wanted him to realise that. I did ask him questions. I did not go to get questions answered but it did give me an opportunity to ask him some. And it gave him the opportunity to say sorry. I didn’t expect that. He thought I was going to be angry with him. So it gave him the opportunity to see that I wasn’t angry. He’s only young, and I want him to be successful in life. He has lost all his teenage years. I was able at the end to forgive him. And the reason I wanted to forgive him was, for me, because hatred eats you up, but secondly more for him. Because I wanted – not to make what he did any less severe – but for him to be able to go forward in life.’

LK. ‘You said that he said sorry. Did you believe him? What made you feel it was genuine?’

JN. ‘It was the way he said it, the way he looked at me. He had tears in his eyes. We had proper eye contact. He wasn’t looking at the ground when he said it. We sat opposite each other. He looked straight into my eyes and said ‘When I say sorry I mean a proper sorry’. He said ‘I won’t do this again. I do realise…’ And also I had the opportunity to make him think about his family as well. It wasn’t just my family he affected. His Dad had to get a phone call that night saying ‘Your son’s in custody for rape.

His step-mum was at the meeting and that was quite good. His step-mum hadn’t been around at the time. You are allowed to have a support with you, and they have to go through the preparation with you. They have to be at every meeting so that they know the structure of the meeting. They are not allowed to have an input unless you ask them. What was really good was that soon after we started the meeting the young person started breaking down in tears so I gave him the opportunity to have a break. But his step-mum looked at me and said ‘No. He needs to hear this. He needs to stay in this room, and face up, and listen, to what he did to you and your family.’ I think it helped her. She was able to take it back to his family, and tell them how it had affected me. So I think it did his family good as well’.

34 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 35

LK. ‘The last stage, perhaps, and then I believe you are willing to answer questions’.

JN. ‘Absolutely. I led the meeting, because it was me who called it. I was asked if there was anything else. It was the only time I got a little bit tearful. I looked at him and said ‘What I am about to say to you a lot of people are not going to understand. Hatred eats you up, and so I want you to know that I forgive you for what you have done to me. I want you to go on in life, and to have a successful life. ‘The Youth Justice Board asked the Aim project to write a report, and I think that’s the thing that he and his took away from the meeting, and that his step Mum took away from the meeting. That he’s forgiven, and if he had any guilt it lifted some of that. He has said now that because I said that, because he saw me, and knows I am ok, and that I’ve got a life, he can go on and he can have a life’.

LK. ‘Thank you very much. Since that time, has it changed how you feel about the events?’

JN. ‘I left that meeting feeling absolutely on top of the world. For me it was closure. It has let me move on. I know what he looks like now. He may move back up to the area. It was always a worry of mine: am I going to look over my shoulder and see him? I don’t have that worry any more. I’ve seen him. I do believe he has moved forward. I do believe he’s done some good work. And it was my closure’.

LK. ‘Thank you so much for telling your story, and for having the courage to share it with us’.

JN. ‘I just want other people to have the opportunity because I know I was very, very lucky.’ Lord Corbett thanked Jo very much indeed, and said how brave she was. He wondered why it had taken so long to get this meeting.

JN explained that she had been offered the opportunity after a year but then no-one mentioned it again. There had been a very negative response, especially regarding this particular crime. She had had to fight for it herself.

35 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 36

36 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 37

2011

18 January 2011: The Archbishop of Canterbury

Speaker: The Most Revd & Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

Response: Juliet Lyon CBE, Director, Prison Reform Trust

Lord Corbett welcomed everyone to the meeting, expressing particular pleasure that Archbishop Rowan had found time to be with them. The Archbishop would speak for around 15 minutes and has invited Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust to respond. He would throw the discussion open to the floor.

Archbishop Rowan began: ‘I am very grateful for the opportunity to come and introduce a bit of discussion on what is at the moment a particularly timely subject. What I would like to do is to begin with some reflections on a couple of general principles around penal policy, to turn to a couple of thoughts about the current Green Paper and how it bears on these principles, and to suggest one or two of the areas of question which I think the Green Paper still needs to deal with, and which all of us interested in penal reform ought to be interested in if we are to give the kind of consolidation and support that the best ideas in that Green Paper require.

So I want to start by enunciating a basic political principle and a basic theological principle. As you will see they are not a million miles apart. My basic political principle is that the prisoner is a citizen. If we lose sight of the notion of the prisoner as citizen, any number of things follow from that, and indeed are following from that. The notion that in some sense, not the civic liberties but the civic status of a prisoner is in cold storage when custody takes over is one of the roots of a whole range of issues around the rights of prisoners, and indeed touches a little bit on the particularly neuralgic subject of votes for prisoners. But maybe more of that later on.

The prisoner as citizen is somebody who can on the one hand expect their dignity as a citizen to be factored in to what happens to them, and can reasonably expect that penal custody will be something which contributes to, rather than takes away, their capacity to act as a citizen in other circumstances. Thus issues around restoration, around responsibility, around developing concepts of empathy and mutuality are all part of what seems to me to be a reasonable working out of what it is to regard the prisoner as a citizen. I apologise if that is a little bit telegraphic, but those are some of the themes which, as Juliet will remember, I outlined a few years ago in a lecture for the Prison Reform Trust, especially around issues of mutuality, and the taking of responsibility for others as well as oneself. So the prisoner as citizen is my political principle.

My theological principle is a little harder to express in brief and snappy terms, but I will do it in what may sound a rather shocking phrase: the prisoner is gifted. That is to say, the

37 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 38

prisoner is someone who, in theological terms, has received dignities and liberties as a human being, a person, and someone whose gifts received from the Creator are given to be shared. When those gifts are overlaid by failure, by crime, by any number of distortions, then they need release – to use what is perhaps an appropriate term. Penal custody ought to have in view the question of how gifts are released for sharing. You can see that those two principles are in fact very closely allied. Because both of them presuppose that the restoration of an offender is something to do with the restoration of a capacity for relating, a capacity for taking responsibility, a capacity for self-understanding and the understanding of others. If there is any element of restoration in penal policy, that needs surely to be its direction. And that applies not only as we think about the general issue of restorative justice, and the restoration of relationship, but also has something to do with healthy relationships within penal institutions, with the working structures of a penal institution being so understood that they don’t simply turn still further on an erosion of civic dignity and human giftedness.

So those are my starting points and they relate a bit, again, to a point I made a little while ago, speaking to PRT, that at present we are in danger of perpetuating a penal philosophy and system which actually leaves everybody as victims. It leaves victims of crime as victims, their victimhood unaddressed and unaltered, and it leaves those under sentence as victims in other ways. We ought to want to move beyond a situation where claims around victimage are driving policy, but also a situation where the victimising of the prisoner by the denial of those basic civic issues is perpetuated. So that’s the broad framework within which I’ve tried to think about penal policy myself.

I want next briefly to turn to one or two things in the Green Paper, with which you’ll all be fairly familiar I am sure, which touch on some of the issues which I have mentioned and which are in tune with them, before moving on to a couple of areas where I’d like to hear more. One of the strengths of the Green Paper is the affirmation that custody needs a purpose. A very strong theme that comes through is that we have allowed ourselves to be controlled in our attitudes here by understanding the prior overwhelming need as the protection of the public. And early on in the Green Paper we read about how the protection of the public for short sporadic bursts, so to speak, by custody without purpose, doesn’t actually make anybody safer in the long run. And here there is an important balance to be drawn.

We all know the sort of argument that says: prisoners in custody have quite a comfortable and secure time. It ought to be made more uncomfortable. And at that point, of course, one needs to say: look, the punishment is custody. The punishment is not being made as uncomfortable as possible in custody. The punishment is to be deprived of liberty. But we need to balance that by saying: at the same time, the deprivation of liberty – the fact of custody – needs some purposefulness about it, if it’s not simply to be a temporary act of damage limitation, which in fact turns out as rather worse than a temporary act of damage limitation because most of the evidence suggests that it intensifies long term damage, both to the individual and to society.

So I welcome that concern about the purpose of custody. The stress in the Green Paper on work, on restorative strategies, on responses other than automatic remand, especially as

38 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 39

that applies to the young: all of that recognises very fully and very rightly that custody in itself is not the answer. We need to ask: what is the content? And I would want to underline the insight because it is one that has wide application: that if public protection takes over and drives nearly everything in the field of penal policy, there is a real difficulty, in many areas of civil liberties, human dignity and so forth, especially as that takes over beyond even detention as a matter of public protection – that seems to be then the default setting for a lot of other exercises of policy.

I mention only in passing, but not because I think it’s unimportant – quite the contrary – the welcome fact that this is a document that does take seriously many issues around the youth justice world, and particularly about the rightness of custody for the young generally.

So I believe there is much here that does do some justice to those notions of civic dignity and human giftedness with which I began. I won’t elaborate on that, because perhaps in the discussion there are specific areas of the text that we might like to reflect on. But before handing over for response and further discussion, I’d want to pinpoint a couple of areas in which I’d like to hear more. The Green Paper begins, very plausibly and perhaps rather predictably, by aligning what it says with the whole philosophy of the Coalition Government in terms of localism. There’s a great deal about how Westminster driven solutions are not going to help us here. Like a good many in this room, I suspect, I have some sympathy with what’s being said, and some sympathy with the localist agenda. It seems to me we need this spelled out and thought through with some care. Because all of us will be aware of how one of the most problematic areas of the penal estate and the penal system at the moment is the transfer of prisoners from institution to institution when there is a lack of parity of various services, pastoral, educational and relational and so forth. If an appeal to localism fails to recognise the importance of some sort of parity, some sort of proper expectation that in any institution certain basics, certain kinds of continuity are secured, then I think it will be a serious failing.

I am thinking here of a visit to one institution a couple of years ago where I discussed with some prisoners and some staff at length issues around two particular programmes which this particular institution was really very good at: programmes around family relations and programmes around anger management. It was perfectly clear that those in that institution were profiting very seriously, very extensively, from what was on offer, and equally clear that part of their daily anxiety was transfer to institutions where these services were not on offer, or not at the same level, or of the same quality or intensity. So localism may be a very good slogan to sail under generally but I would really want to push that question about parity, and about equality of expectation, especially as regards matters such as those I have just touched on. And if the prison population continues at anything like its present level of rather chaotic mobility, this is quite a central problem, I would suggest.

That takes me to one other area where I should like to hear more. And that is to do with the vulnerability in a lot of institutions precisely of these imaginative programmes of restoration which deal with the management of relationships, and which deal also with questions around the imagination. I know you are going to be hearing some discussion in a few weeks’ time about the arts in prison. I don’t think again this is a marginal or luxury item in our consideration. I was reading over Christmas an extraordinary collection of essays by American writers on drama in prisons, in various institutions in the US. It contained some of

39 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 40

the most moving pieces I have read in a very long time about precisely education in empathy, and the equipment of people to see themselves afresh in this context.

Now in a financial situation such as the one we are in, things like this are almost bound to look to some people like luxuries. I’d like to know what the safeguards will be of that kind of work which really does enable people within penal institutions to see themselves afresh in these imaginative or artistic ways, as well as in the more obvious ways of counselling programmes of a more traditional kind. I am aware, I hear it reported today, that support networks of various kinds, in this case a women offenders’ support network, and some programmes of mentoring in prison, are likely to be at risk as funding is squeezed. So those are some of the areas where I should like to hear rather more robust assurance in the Green Paper and discussion. These are questions touched on from time to time. But the emphasis tends to be, understandably and not entirely wrongly, on the use of existing mechanisms of control, rather than what might be said about mechanisms of opening up the prisoner as a person. ‘Understandably’ I say because that is in one sense how you sell some of this to a not always very sympathetic public, but also because inevitably prison is about the exercise of force and we can’t deny that. But how we put flesh on the excellent things said in general about restoration here, I will wait with interest to hear.

So, my intention has been to set out two principles, or what is rather one basic principle, from different points of view; to flag up my own major enthusiasms about the Green Paper; and to note one or two questions I would like to see asked and further discussed. I hope this afternoon may be an opportunity for some of that discussion to begin. Thank you very much’.

Lord Corbett thanked the Archbishop most warmly for his presentation.

Juliet Lyon began: ‘It is a great honour to respond to the Archbishop. Archbishop Rowan, you spoke of the things that matter. You allow people to think and give people a pause for reflection. You speak of principle and not of expedience. It has been so painful for many of the people in this room, who believe in the personhood and dignity of everyone, including those people in prison, and it’s very difficult to consider the whole prisons debate as one of expedience, or entirely one of budgetary considerations.

I appreciate that the Prison Service is in a position unlike any other public service where it cannot manage its own boundaries, where it has to accept whoever is sent to it by the courts. It can’t, as schools can, exclude pupils. It can’t use diagnosis, as the health service can, to exclude would-be patients. It has to take everyone. As a result it becomes more and more reactive, unable to reflect, unable to think, unable to plan. That’s where the Green Paper does offer an opportunity for consultation, notably a rather better opportunity than many of the other departments, in terms of time to reflect, and time to think about whether the government’s proposals are right. The strands that you have drawn attention to, on restoration and restorative justice, are clearly embedded in that.

The other thing that you won’t allow to happen, which people here might well appreciate, is that you won’t allow schisms to be created. For example, in relation to penal reform groups,

40 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 41

there’s the tendency to say: there are the groups that support victims, and there are the groups that love offenders, and there is no way that those two groups could have discourse. But actually of course there is far more that unites groups of that kind than divides them. It’s the false positions that are often pushed on us, by over-casual media reporting, or casual political statements, that are depressing, and in the end quite dangerous.

In preparation, I drew out a phrase from Solzhenitsyn when he gave his Nobel Prize address, which was in the Swarthmore Lecture given by Tim Newell, where he said: ’If only there were evil people, somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, and who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?’ I think that prepares us to think of things in a complex way, to encourage politicians to see things in the round, to see that there is more scope for consensus on prison reform than there is for division. That is helpful and appreciated.

I am glad you mentioned voting, because voting has swum into the news again today. I was thinking of what they said in South Africa about voting. The South African government, when they did enfranchise everyone in April 1999, said: ‘The universality of the franchise is important, not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts’. You have brought to us the belief that everybody does count, and that it behoves those who have the responsibility to translate that into policy, and then into practice, to think along those lines. If we were only able to think of prisoners as people, people amongst us, we wouldn’t get into the muddle and the predicaments that we do get into. So thank you very much for offering those principles and those reflections. They are badly needed.’

41 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 42

42 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 43

1 February 2011: Perspectives on ‘Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders’

Speakers: Eoin McLennan-Murray, President, Prison Governors’ Association Sue Hall OBE, Chair and John Budd, Vice Chair, Probation Chiefs Association

Lord Corbett welcomed everyone to the meeting, especially the three speakers. He noted that the last time he had met Eoin McLennan Murray, President of the Prison Governors Association (PGA), he had just been fired as Governor of Blantyre House, as a result of a ‘coup’ by the Regional Manager. This had led to an Inquiry by the Home Affairs Select Committee, of which Lord Corbett was then Chair. He was also delighted to welcome Sue Hall and John Budd from the Probation Chiefs Association, to discuss issues of immense topicality and high importance in the Green Paper. He noted that the group hoped to secure the presence of its author, Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke MP, to address a meeting in June or July.

Finally he apologised for the room change, which had been necessitated by the presence of 200 beds in the previously booked room, because of the proposed all-night sittings in relation to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Corbett then introduced the first speaker.

Eoin McLennan-Murray thanked the group most warmly for its invitation. He began: ‘I have been about thirty years in the Prison Service. I have worked in about ten prisons and they have all been very different: from maximum security to open, male, female, young offender – the complete gamut. I have been a governing governor of two prisons, for about ten years. One was Blantyre House, which was my personal career highlight, and the other was Lewes, in Sussex, which is wonderful place as well. About ten months ago I was elected as President of the PGA which is why I am here this afternoon. The PGA is a trades union. It is also a professional association. It was founded in the early eighties, and we represent in excess of 90% of the governors and senior managers in the Prison Service.

In terms of the Green Paper, ten or fifteen minutes is really not going to do it justice. So I thought I’d make a few general comments and put things in context a bit. Over the last decade and a half we have seen crime fall by about 30%. We have seen a corresponding rise in the prison population by something in the order of 25,000. So the population has shot up and the crime rate has fallen.

You might not be surprised by that because of the incapacitation argument. You have got people locked up in prison, and not out on the streets committing crime. So it makes sense in one way. However of that decrease in crime, only about 5% - a sixth of recorded crime - can be attributed to the rise in the prison population. So to get a 5% reduction in crime we have locked up 25,000 people: not a very cost-effective way of going about things.

43 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 44

Why are we in this position, with such a huge prison population and falling crime? Over the past ten or fifteen years we have seen the political parties vying with one another about who could be toughest on the criminal. We have seen some amazing legislation passed. It’s as if the populist vote is being chased by politicians. Unfortunately it reflects the lowest common denominator of public and tabloid opinion and so we have had some fairly bizarre outcomes. We have people believing that they are more likely to be a victim of crime today than they were fifteen or twenty years ago. So the perception of crime is far greater than the reality.

We then have this crazy situation where we are locking up hundreds, if not thousands, of men for life, on indefinite sentences, not for crimes they have committed but for crimes we think they may commit in the future. Preventative detention for public protection, an absolutely awful piece of legislation, has contributed to the increase in the prison population. So we are in this topsy-turvy world with low crime rates, a high prison population, and locking people up like it’s going out of fashion. I am really pleased that there are a number of elements in the Green Paper which address some of these issues, particularly on sentencing reform. Hopefully the awfulness of the indeterminate sentence for public protection will be addressed and reviewed, and that will be a wrong which is put right.

Just to turn back to the prison population: it is not homogeneous. Prisoners offend at different rates, depending really on how long they are serving. Short term prisoners, the revolving door men, they commit the volume crime, and they have the highest reconviction rates. They commit the nuisance crime, irritating, but at the lower end of the seriousness spectrum. Longer term prisoners do not recidivate at the same rate. Recent results published by the Prison Service show that if you are serving in excess of four years, reductions in reconviction rates have been in the order of 13%, which is quite a respectable achievement. Between two and four years there’s about a 10% reduction. If you are serving between one and two years it drops to about 5%. I guess you can see where I am going with this, because, in one year we don’t make people much better but we don’t make them any worse in terms of reoffending. But, with less than a year, we actually make people worse. We increase the likelihood of them reoffending by incarcerating them, particularly compared to community punishments, which have a much better outcome. I am sure Sue will say more about that.

So really this Green Paper, because it wants to reduce reoffending rates, should be targeting that fraction of the prison population – quite a large fraction - that commits volume crime, very petty crime. What we have been doing with those individuals is sending them to prison for very short periods of time, where we haven’t touched them, in terms of reducing their reconviction rates. The Green Paper offers a number of very helpful suggestions which are welcomed by most people, particularly those of us in the PGA, about diverting people from custody wherever you have the opportunity. For instance the mentally ill, people with learning difficulties, drug users: these are groups that we should be diverting from prison rather than getting them into the system.

The paper is quite aspirational. If you divert these groups and you stop them going to prison that is great. But what do we then do with them? There has to be something in the community that is going to support those individuals. The Green Paper is short on how we

44 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 45

are actually going to provide interventions on the scale to address the numbers of people that need them. I don’t fault or disagree with the sentiment. I am just concerned about the practicality and the do-ableness of delivering what is wanted there. For those people who do go to prison for a short time – and there will always be some, as Ken Clarke has made clear – they want prisons to be places of hard work and discipline. But how you inculcate the idea of work, if you have only got people in prison for a short period of time, is something the Green Paper does not address.

We in the Prison Service have spent a long time building and developing purposeful regimes. We understand the importance of having a constructive regime in a prison, and we try to maximise that wherever we can. However the Green Paper talks about a forty hour week. Our staff don’t work a forty hour week. Maybe prison governors do, but officers don’t. To have prisoners working a forty hour week would require an injection of resources because you need to supervise those individuals. You will only have the hard work and discipline mentioned in the Green Paper if you have the staff to supervise. It’s possible in some prisons to have a long working week. That’s easy to do in those prisons which are less secure, the open estate, resettlement prisons. But a lot of our prisons are secure closed prisons and it is very difficult to extend the working day unless there is an injection of resources. There are lots of practical issues that have got to be overcome, and the Green Paper does not address any of those.

If offenders don’t go to prison for six or eight months, and they receive a community sentence, it’s clear from the Green Paper that this is about punishment. And it is important that offenders are seen to be punished because that appeals to the public. It has that punitive element which it is believed is so necessary if the public are to accept disposals to the community. But I have not seen any research anywhere – and maybe people in this room will correct me on this - which says that punishing people will reduce their likelihood of reoffending. If they are thinking of just punishing people by making them work hard, painting things and doing things in the community – all very worth-while - there still needs to be an input of something else if it is to touch reoffending rates. There has to be some intervention, some intensive work done with people, or reoffending rates will not fall, and that target group, the volume crime people, will not reoffend at a lower rate. There has to be a balance between the punishment bit and the intervention. The Green Paper talks about those things but it does seem to emphasis the punishment more. We need to be very cautious about that.

I would like to finish by saying something about prison stability. The bedrock of everything we do in prisons is based on running a decent, secure, safe regime. Recently we have had a spate of prison disturbances, some of them quite serious. Probably the most serious was the Ford open prison disturbance. There isn’t a common theme that unites them. But I think that perhaps, in the current climate where people are very anxious, when prison staff are facing redundancy – we’ve always thought we had a job for life – facing the threat of privatisation, a pay freeze for public servants, prices rising, things are very difficult and people are very anxious. The anxiety that staff feel is transmitted to prisoners and it may well be that that anxiety lies at the base of these disturbances that we have been seeing. I really hope that isn’t the case, but there is a very sensitive dynamic in prisons in the relationship between staff and prisoners, and if things change and it alters, behaviours can change as well.

45 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 46

So what is in the Green Paper we welcome, by and large. Although it is aspirational, it may be good to aim high. But not enough attention has been paid to the detail about the practicality of implementing some of the things that have been suggested. And I think we need to be very clear about the role of punishment as opposed to the role of rehabilitating offenders, in trying to reduce reoffending. Thank you.’

Lord Corbett thanked Eoin McLennan-Murray and introduced Sue Hall. Sue Hall introduced herself as Chair of the Probation Chiefs Association (PCA) and also Chief Executive of the West Yorkshire Probation Trust. She also introduced her colleague John Budd as Vice Chair of the PCA and Chief Executive of the Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Probation Trust. She continued.

‘The reason that the PCA came into being is to try to provide an authoritative probation voice within public affairs. One of the unfortunate by-products of the merging of prison and probation in the National Offender Management Service has been the loss of a strong probation voice at the centre. We find increasingly in debates around how you manage offenders in the community that probation does not have a strong enough voice and there is not enough information or understanding about what we do and how we contribute. So I want to give a little bit of information around probation, and then I want to talk about what we know about what helps people stop offending, and how we find that reflected within the Green Paper.

There are 35 probation trusts, and approximately 20,000 probation staff, across England and Wales, and together we manage 239,000 offenders at any one time. That was our case load at the end of June 2010. So we are a major player at a local level in terms of managing adult offenders. We have a long history of doing so, and we are extremely experienced in the management of offenders. We have a budget of something like £900m, which is very small in criminal justice terms, but I think with that money we provide a good deal of value in the number of people we deal with.

What do we know about what stops people offending? I want to point to three main types of research that are done, which overlap with each other. The first lot of research is MoJ research around the effectiveness of sentences, and that looks at the reconviction rate of people on community sentences and custodial sentences. You will have heard Eoin quoting the rates for prisoners serving different lengths of sentence. Where adults on community orders are concerned the most recent results show that 36.8% were reconvicted within 12 months. The reconviction can be for any offence, from a very minor to a very major reconviction, so it’s a pretty blunt instrument. However it does show that over 63% of offenders on community orders do not reoffend within a year.

The MoJ in their last statistics bulletin (‘Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis’) published in November 2010 looked at cohorts of similar offenders subject to short prison sentences (under 12 months) and community sentences, and concluded that court orders were more effective by 7 percentage points in reducing one year proven reoffending rates for similar groups of offenders. That’s the first authoritative statement we have had from the MoJ that community sentences really do make a better impact on reducing reoffending than short prison sentences. So that’s one set of research that is around.

46 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 47

Another set of research is around evidence based practice: ‘What works’ research looking at which interventions make a difference? We now have really good evidence that cognitive skills programmes, particularly those that are mixed with skills training, if used for the right offenders, in the right levels of intensity, can make a difference in reducing reoffending.

More recently there is a very interesting set of research which we refer to as desistance research, longitudinal research which follows individual offenders across their criminal career and asks the question: when, how and why do offenders stop offending? And what that shows us is that those who have a history of offending don’t stop overnight. It is not a one-off event, it’s a journey. The sorts of things that can influence offenders to stop offending – and some of this may seem like absolute common sense to you – is getting older and maturing, forming strong and intimate bonds with their family. It’s recovering from addiction, having steady and consistent employment, having hope and motivation for the future, having something to give to society. It’s having a place in a social group where they feel connected. It is not having a criminal identity – moving out of having a view of oneself as a criminal to having a view of oneself as an ex-criminal, and being believed in. And if you bring all those things together, effectiveness of sentencing, effectiveness in intervention, and what actually happens in people to stop them offending, what that tells you is that if you want a criminal justice system that really makes a difference, one that really rehabilitates and reduces reoffending, what you would do is design a system that had the offender at the centre, which looks at their specific circumstances, which helps to build a stake for them in society and which also involves work with their families and within their communities to enable community integration. As Eoin said, it’s not just about punishing offenders. It’s about having that whole picture.

There are some promising things which are happening, and have been happening over the last few years, around work with offenders. They are referred to in the Green Paper, which provides a fair analysis of where we are with the research at the moment. One of those initiatives is the Intensive Alternative to Custody pilots that are happening currently in five trusts in Great Britain, two in my own trust in West Yorkshire. These are targeting offenders absolutely on the cusp of going into custody and replacing short term custodial; sentences with very intensive alternatives, where people have daily contact, where they have access to a whole range of support, and also to programmes which tackle their thinking and their cognitive skills.

The other promising initiative I would like to mention is Together Women, which looks at the one-stop-shop approach to dealing with women offenders, dealing with all their needs. Both of these are cited in the Green Paper, but sadly, both initiatives are currently at risk because of the funding cuts. So whilst they are seen as working, the Green Paper in itself does not recommend particular funding to sustain either initiative.

The Green Paper I feel has been disappointing. We support the notion of reducing reoffending; we support the notion of rehabilitation; we certainly support the idea of reducing the prison population and working with people in the community. But what the Green Paper does not provide is a vision of how we make that happen. It proposes two mechanisms, one is competition and the other is payment by results. But it doesn’t clarify how that will build the sort of holistic, integrated approach to dealing with offenders that experience shows us will work. There isn’t a vision within the Green Paper about where accountability lies for making that happen. I would just like to give a couple of quotes, and then open it up for discussion.

47 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 48

In terms of competition, the Green Paper talks about probation trusts having an important and continuing role to provide local strategic leadership for managing offenders, but it also talks about everything we do, with very few exceptions, being competed over the next four years. The only things that are reserved to the public sector are professional advice for the courts and potentially some of the highest public protection cases. Everything else is potentially up for competition. There is no clarity about who will commission the services, whether it is police and crime commissioners, whether it is local authorities or probation trusts. It’s not clear who is going to hold the ring in pulling all this together. The Green Paper talks about the transition of the public sector to a payment by results model. The evidence report that comes with the Green Paper has a very small section on some payment by results models that have been tried internationally. It’s a very thin basis on which to build a system of funding all the work that we need to do with offenders.

What I am left with, I suppose, on reading the Green Paper is a lot of questions. Are we going to end up with a system that is being competed, with lots of providers in the system, with nobody clearly holding the ring; a rather fragmented system? Are we going to end up with a new commissioner coming in who will manage local criminal justice? Would that be a probation trust or will it be someone else? Are we going to move to a system of payment by results that is very large scale, and actually how will that work? Where will the cashable savings be made which will enable the funding of the payment that will go to the investors who provide the money for the projects?

What the PCA would say is that in the probation trusts you have got ready-made bodies that are able to make the will of the Secretary of State work on the ground. We are well embedded in communities; we are well embedded with community safety partnerships, and with local criminal justice boards. We work with our police in terms of integrated offender management. We would be a good mechanism for commissioning services on a local level to fulfil government policy. Our fear is that the Green Paper is not forward thinking enough in terms of how the criminal justice system will work in the future.’

48 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 49

15 March 2011: Toe by Toe: empowering prisoners to rehabilitate prisoners

Speakers: David Ahern, Chief Executive Officer, Shannon Trust, with two prison mentors

Lord Corbett welcomed everyone to the meeting, especially the three speakers. He introduced the theme of the meeting by saying that it was based on a simple concept that had proved of immense practical benefit to countless prisoners. He noted also that, although the Prison Service had not been very good at spreading good practice in the past, it was improving. He was very pleased to introduce David Ahern, Chief Executive of the Shannon Trust, and his two fellow speakers, Scott and Mike. He was also especially pleased to welcome Brian Hirons, Head of Spring Hill Prison, to the meeting.

David Ahern began: ‘I would like to thank you on behalf of Shannon Trust for the opportunity to address the group about our peer mentoring programme and how we have managed to mobilise many willing and able prisoners to reach out and engage with some of the most marginalised people in the custodial system, prisoners who cannot read, or who struggle to read.

During the talk I will outline the work we do and the impact our reading plan has had to date. I will then hand over to Scott and Mike, who are serving prisoners and peer mentors at HMP Spring Hill. I would like to say a big thank you to Brian Hirons, who has gone to huge lengths to enable Scott and Mike to be here, and who has accompanied them down for the day. They will give you a first-hand account of the practical issues of being a peer mentor and the impact it has upon them and the lives of prisoners who cannot read. I will then finish with some of the challenges we face and the opportunities I believe the future presents.

Shannon Trust runs the Toe by Toe (TxT) reading plan, a peer mentored reading programme where prisoners who can read teach those who cannot. Using prisoners to engage non- reading prisoners enables us to reach many individuals who believe they have been let down by our educational system, or those who are too embarrassed to admit they cannot read. Around forty per cent of prisoners have a reading age below that expected of an eleven year old. In 2010 this represented over 50,000 prisoners entering the custodial estate. In the same year, 7,000 of our reading manuals were ordered by prisons to teach prisoners; we also trained some 1,500 prisoners to be peer mentors. To deliver our reading plan, we have a field force of 150 volunteers who work with staff and prisoners to engage and teach non-readers. TxT is currently running in 160 prisons throughout the United Kingdom. I believe we are a good example, in political parlance, of a ‘big society’ charity: with a staff of eight, we support 150 volunteers, who work with prisons to make our reading plan accessible, to thousands of non-reading prisoners and peer mentors.

I would like to read to you a letter received last year from a serving prisoner. We receive many letters expressing similar sentiments but this one is particularly interesting in that it is an account by a prisoner mentor that captures the impact of peer mentoring and the journey of one learner:

49 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 50

Wearing my Toe by Toe tee shirt with pride I found myself being approached by another inmate. What was to follow made a massive impact upon me. Sheepishly steering me towards his room, it was quite obvious that he was not at ease and unsure of himself. Initially I thought he must be in debt or some other problem. Entering his room, with a sigh of relief, he asked me if I could read a letter which he had received from his wife. He asked me not to say anything, I gave him my full assurance, which put him at ease and I read the letter to him. He then rummaging through a box and produced some 30 letters from his wife which he had received in the last four months. All were unread.

Having promised I would not tell anyone, I continued to visit him some 4-5 times a week. He did not want certificates as the thought of others knowing he had reading difficulties really worried him. He believed his prison credibility would in some way be tarnished.

Completing the red book, watching him read his letters from home and respond to them was one of the biggest buzzes I have had. He now reads to his daughter on visits, he has completed Level One literacy and uses the library. I now see him moving from wing to wing with red books, he is now a mentor. Prison credibility is the last thing on his mind. He has completed a mock exam in literacy Level Two.

I ask that nobody at Shannon Trust, the supporters of the little red book, ever underestimate the magnitude of the power that is contained within the concept and delivery of Toe by Toe.

Could I ask you to hold the impressions this account brings to mind. Be it around the isolation of being unable to read in prison - that secondary incarceration; the challenges and embarrassment that have to be overcome to start the learning journey; or perhaps the distance travelled to have the confidence, sense of self-worth, and self-awareness of what life could be.

I would now like to hand you over to Scott, who is a TxT mentor. He has taught a number of prisoners to read, but also has considerable experience of peer mentoring in other areas of prisoner support.’

Scott began: ‘I am a serving prisoner in Spring Hill open prison near Aylesbury. I entered the prison system back in December 2009, although I must concede it was not my first custodial sentence, having served three other short term sentences on and off since 1991. What I can say with all sincerity is that this sentence will positively be my last. Why can I be so sure of this? Well that is simple. For the first time in my life I was given support and guidance, which I truly needed. More so because most of that support came from my fellow peers.

The moment I arrived in reception at HMP Bullingdon, I was introduced to a RAPt mentor. RAPt is the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust. I was on my knees, literally, washed up, and licked by the illness which I now recognise as alcoholism and addiction. The mentor inspired me, and I realised that I wanted what he had found in his life: serenity. I was told that I could find a new freedom and a new happiness in my life, but I should not regret the past or

50 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 51

shut the door on it. If I comprehended the word serenity, I would find peace. This was sufficient for me to get help, and I enrolled on the RAPt treatment programme for alcohol addiction. In therapy I found myself once more. I also found the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous, and today I live by our twelve step principles. I have been sober and clean for fifteen months.

I soon knew that my experience could benefit others. The feelings of uselessness and self- pity disappeared. I lost interest in selfish things and gained interest in my fellows. I became a RAPt peer mentor myself, and a vulnerable prisoner mentor. I slowly realised that most of the guys I came into contact with had other issues apart from addiction, such as poor literacy, numeracy and communication skills. I was approached and asked if I would like to become a TxT mentor, in addition to my other mentoring roles. I completed my training and took on two learners, who both completed the main TxT training manual. One of these guys had addiction issues also, and once his confidence had been restored through being able to read write and communicate efficiently, he went on the RAPt programme himself, and I believe he remains drug-free to this day.

As for my other learner, he followed me to Spring Hill, where I continue to mentor him. He had recently completed his Level Three examination in literacy and communication, and this is amazing considering that back in 2010 he was borderline illiterate. Today, some twelve months on, he is hopefully on his way to a mid-range A level equivalent qualification. A few weeks ago he told me that I had helped him get his life back, and by God could I relate to that statement. With enormous pride and gratification, the peer-to-peer circle was complete. Today I am still a RAPt peer mentor, and I continue to mentor for TxT and Aim Higher. In fact I commence a community work placement with Aim Higher tomorrow. This is another educational project which I strongly believe in, and which I have seen working with real results.

At this point I would also like to acknowledge and thank Mr Brian Hirons, the head governor at Spring Hill. He and his team have been extremely pro-active and supportive of many peer- to-peer projects and initiatives. The Prison Service should take a long hard look at what is being accomplished at Spring Hill, as in my opinion it is nothing less than a pioneering prison model in the peer-to-peer development arena. I cannot stress enough the importance of the peer-to-peer relationship. I have built some solid relationships and friendships as a direct result of working as a mentor in my various capacities, as well as being mentored myself. My whole attitude and outlook on life have changed. I now intuitively know how to handle situations which used to baffle me.

Today I have something which was lacking in my life. I see it in the eyes and smiles of everyone I have mentored. I would like to finish with this thought. Man can live for about forty days without food, about three days without water, about eight minutes without air, but only one second without hope. Thank you for listening and allowing me to share my experience’.

Scott was warmly applauded. David Ahern continued: ‘I will now ask Mike to tell you about his first-hand experience of managing and co-ordinating the delivery of TxT at Spring Hill’.

51 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 52

Mike began: ‘I am a serving prisoner, and arrived at Spring Hill in December 2010. I hope to be departing in July 2011. This is my first time in prison, and having had no previous convictions of any kind, I have every intention to reclaim my previous law-abiding life. My working life has been spent in management at all levels, so I believe I have a wide and experienced view of other people and what makes them motivated, or more importantly what makes them despondent, and without purpose.

On the very afternoon of being sent to prison from court, it became clear to me that prison has a problem with literacy. At Spring Hill, which is an open prison, I have the opportunity by virtue of my employment within the prison to see and meet all new prisoners as they arrive, and to see their educational assessments. Part of their induction is to attend the Job Club where I work, and complete a simple questionnaire, which demonstrates their individual learning style, be it visual, auditory or kinaesthetic. The questionnaire is not complicated and the wording is deliberately easy. However some prisoners cannot even start to read it. They ask for help with the simplest of words, or tick the same as their more able colleague who is also completing the form.

Within the office are computers, for men to use for various training purposes, one being the driving theory test. I have had men asking for assistance, not because they have got bad eye sight and cannot read what’s on the screen, but because they simply cannot read. One example is: ‘what does stationary mean?’ One man even had a problem with the word ‘into’, although he was classified, according to the Education Department of the prison, as Level One, which begs the question of how they do the assessment.

Many in their hut environment live as a community, with a good deal of mutual assistance and understanding. They may be in prison but their humanity and care for their fellow man still holds strong, in the main. Men ask other men to read letters from home, and even write replies, taking dictation from the man who cannot read. Men ask others to help them with their weekly canteen sheets because they simply cannot read them, so if they want a chocolate bar they don’t know the brand names on the sheet.

The system is compounded by the education system I believe, in that some men who are obviously illiterate, or so close as to make little difference, are scored as L1, which means a learning age of 11-13, or L2, which means the equivalent of GCSE level A-D. The gives the affected man a false understanding of their own literacy, and also raises aspirations which can be so quickly, and morale-sappingly, destroyed.

Spring Hill is, from what I understand, forward thinking and with pro-active management, looking towards the need of the prisoners, with an approach that is very ordered, disciplined, and always fair. This is supported by a prison population that is supportive, and very helpful towards their fellow prisoners. On arrival at Spring Hill I expressed my concern about the poor standard of education amongst prisoners, and the knock-on destruction of hope, low self-respect, poor self-esteem, and lack of self-worth. And as would happen, I was asked to introduce TxT into Spring Hill, and also take over as facilitator for the other prisoner-to-prisoner mentoring programme Aim Higher, along with my duties as orderly in the Job Club. I have been told that I am the only prisoner facilitator in the country for TxT. In other prisons the role is undertaken by paid staff.

52 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 53

Both programmes have been a real and meaningful eye-opener for me. I have discovered the real desire of many prisoners to help others less fortunate than themselves. That help is sacrificial. Spare time is highly valued, and yet mentors, who are volunteers, are giving up their time five days a week, Monday to Friday, to help other prisoners with their literacy. The Aim Higher programme can also involve weekends. I have seen personally, as a mentor, the restoration of hope in men’s faces. The knowledge that, with a little effort, they can change their future for the better, and in doing so can improve the lot of their families and loved ones.

This is not emotional rhetoric. It is a reality, happening at Spring Hill now, regularly. Prisoners are doing it with the support of management, because they see an obvious need. These programmes, with prisoners being empowered to assist prisoners, work. They cost the Prison Service nothing in resource. Aim Higher, for example, is operating in five prisons and has been working for four years. In all that time, not one mentee has been reconvicted. Why no reconviction? The answer is simple. Hope has been restored, and the realisable availability of a meaningful and productive future is at hand. I don’t have figures for TxT, but for me it makes total sense that a man or woman who cannot read, who cannot understand the written word, cannot develop, and therefore cannot fit into a society which demands the need to communicate as a rite of passage to personal development. Being able to read is not a privilege, that concept died out in the Middle Ages. It is a right, a human right. Missing out on the written word is missing out on life itself.

Thank you for your time. Before I close I will give you a situation that has happened during the last week at Spring Hill. One of the TxT learners came to me full of excitement. As well as improving his understanding of written English, he had learned to improve his pronunciation to such an extent that for the first time he could properly pronounce the name of his one and only daughter. Within minutes, his mentor came along. He was equally excited, but also quite humbled, that he had helped a man in this way. Both men, previously unknown to each other, had created a real bond, a real teacher to pupil, mentor to learner relationship. Both had benefitted from it. That’s just one minor example, among many, of prisoners helping prisoners to improve towards a better future, and life with real hope. The prisoners themselves are a resource that the Prison Service would be foolish to ignore or dismiss. Used in this way, they can do nothing but improve our society.’

Mike too was warmly applauded. David Ahern concluded:

‘The impact of learning to read goes beyond learning a new life skill, important as that may be. For many, it is the beginning of a journey of emotional and social engagement. When non-readers engage in the reading plan we see self-esteem and self-confidence rise, and improved relationships with staff, prisoners and families. For many it is the dawning realisation that life can be different and it is within their gift to do something about it. I genuinely believe that Shannon Trust is in the business of changing lives.

On the 18th January this year, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed this group. Proposing that the restoration of the human condition is central to the journey of rehabilitation, he said: “The restoration of an offender is something to do with the restoration of the capability of relating, a capacity for taking responsibility, a capacity for self-understanding and understanding others”. This is a theme that resonates with our experience and also with the accounts you have heard from Scott and Mike.

53 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 54

The government’s Green Paper states that prison must have purpose. We embrace this idea but we are concerned that, with decreasing budgets and staff reductions, many may get left behind in the rehabilitation revolution. If the basic literacy needs of tens of thousands of non-reading prisoners go unaddressed, they will be unable to take part in the offending behaviour programmes they so desperately need. Prisoners need basic literacy skills to take part in education and meaningful skills training. For those that cannot read, there is a real danger they will be channelled into low skill activities that do little more than keep them busy. For this needy group of prisoners, the rehabilitation revolution is likely to pass them by, with all the consequences for our society this likely to entail.

I believe everyone in this room recognises that the challenges facing the Prison Service today are many and complex, and in some cases unprecedented. But I also believe this is a time of great opportunity to challenge the old ways of doing things and embrace innovation and things that work. Within the prison system there is a huge, low cost resource that is under-utilised and not fully recognised for its potential. There are literally tens of thousands of able and willing prisoners, with time on their hands, who would like to make a difference, and bring purpose to their time in prison. Peer mentoring offers something unique to prisons that only prisoners can deliver. For prisons to be places of purpose and rehabilitation, particularly for those most likely to re-offend, we need to exploit the resources that will best engage these individuals and meet their emotional and learning needs. Peer mentoring programmes have an important contribution to make in this process, but if this is to be fully exploited, peer mentoring will need to be recognised and embraced, for the potential it has to make a significant contribution to the rehabilitation revolution’.

54 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 55

10 May 2011: Nick Hardwick CBE, Chief Inspector of Prisons

Lord Corbett welcomed everyone to the meeting. He welcomed and introduced the speaker, a previous chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and now Chief Inspector of Prisons, as an old friend of the group. There was a lot going on in penal affairs, and he was hopeful that when the Minister came to address the AGM on 28 June he would be able to update the meeting on progress. He warned the speaker that there would be a vote coming up, unfortunately.

Nick Hardwick began by saying how pleased he was by such a large attendance. He continued: ‘I have been doing this job now for coming up for a year, so this is a good time to be here. The problem is to pick my topic: there is a wealth of things I could say. I wanted first to say something about the inspection process and what I think are some of the risks and opportunities of an independent process. And then I wanted to make a few brief initial observations that have struck me in my first year, some of which I am sure Ken Clarke will mention to you when he comes to speak to your AGM. You have had some of my predecessors to speak here before. One of the things people have said to me is that I have a very hard act to follow, and that is true. Dame Ann Owers, Lord David Ramsbotham and Stephen Tumim are indeed a hard act to follow.

A lot of my first year has been tied up in trying to defend and sell the inspectorate and get it through what has been a very stormy period. That’s for a number of reasons: first of all obviously there is the funding question, not just for the inspectorate but also for the institutions we inspect. Increasingly the gap between what we expect youth custody and other forms of custody to do, and what they have the resources to do, is getting greater. That creates a dilemma for us: how reasonable should we be? I will say a bit about how we have tried to address that.

The other thing is that I am sure there are a number of people in this room to whom I have cause to be grateful for getting rid of schedule 7 of the Public Bodies Bill. I do think that was a threat to the independence of our inspectorate and others. Even if I had not allowed it to affect what I did, the perception would have been that if that was hanging over our heads, and that was a pressure that we had somehow to address. I am very pleased that has been got rid of – I know that was a threat to the IMBs too – and I am very grateful to the people who helped us with that.

Two other things related to that: as you know, a couple of years ago, the idea was that all the criminal justice inspectorates should merge. I think that’s off the main agenda, but it bubbles along under the surface and it’s something we have to watch. What goes along with that is an understandable rhetoric around the idea that in these straitened economic times, inspection needs to be ‘light touch’, and that you need to make sure that the centre is not over-prescriptive on what the operational field is doing. That’s a theme in the Green Paper. I’ve got two things to say to that. One is that inspection means different things in different places. I think I’m one of the relatively few inspectors who actually goes out and

55 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 56

inspects, as in ‘looks at things’. We’re very clear that we do our statutory remit, which is about the treatment and conditions of prisoners. What we are looking at is outcomes for prisoners. Our starting point is not how efficiently the Prison Service is run. Our starting point is: what is actually happening to prisoners, and is that in line with the expectations we have about how they should be treated? That differentiates us from some of the other criminal justice inspectorates in terms of what they look at and how they look at things.

I also think that there would be a real risk in reducing our inspection input into how prisons are run. What prisons don’t have are the normal correctives of the market – people can’t take their business elsewhere if they don’t think they are getting a good service – and you don’t have the same kind of democratic accountability simply because what is happening is so invisible. So I think it’s important that you have a rigorous independent inspection process.

We have been reasonably successful over the past year in tackling the legacy I inherited. What has been key to that is the decision the last government took to sign up to the UN optional protocol for the convention against torture, (OPCAT). That creates a legal and international framework to the work we are doing within the inspectorate. What OPCAT requires is that each of its signatory states sets up a national mechanism to carry out a programme of regular preventative inspections of all places of detention. We obviously do that in the places we inspect – prisons, police custody, immigration removal centres – but we also coordinate the network of inspectorates - HMIC, CQC looking at mental health provision, and the whole range of agencies looking at detention facilities throughout the UK.

What’s important about the OPCAT process is the word ‘prevention’. What the UN has recognised, and I think is absolutely right, is that the sort of inspection we do is preventative. I don’t see my job as going into prisons and catching someone out doing something wrong. I see my job as running an inspection programme that prevents ill treatment and things going wrong in the first place. I think the system I have inherited does that very well. One key element of that is its independence. I can decide where we go, when we go, who we’ll talk to, what we will see while we are there. I decide what I’m going to publish and when. It’s also key that I have the power to make recommendations. They are not binding on the institution, but the Prison Service does have to tell us whether they accept our recommendations, and if they do accept them, how they are going to implement them. And it’s key that part of our inspection methodology involves talking privately to prisoners. Part of the way we inspect is that we survey prisoners regularly. We talk to prisoners in groups and we talk to them individually.

All of those processes, which are inconvenient, and which I think are not necessarily consistent with contemporary thinking about how inspection should be run in other processes, those elements are key to the success of the inspectorate and how we operate. One of the surprises to me is how much notice prisons and the Prison Service appear to take of what we say. It does work. I can think of some random recent examples. We went to Bronzefield, which was a reasonably well run prison. The big hole was healthcare, which was a blind spot for the prison. Considering how well the rest of the prison was run, the healthcare was very poor. We said that, and within days they had made significant changes to the staffing, and renegotiated the contract with the provider.

56 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 57

We were in Risley Prison a couple of weeks ago. The last time my predecessor was in Risley it had been grim. It had been filthy, and staff relationships with prisoners had been very poor. I couldn’t compare what we saw this time with what we had seen before, but the inspectors told me it had been transformed. Those responsible had gone through what the inspectors had said, point by point, and addressed those points in a thoughtful way.

At this point there was a division in the House of Lords, and many members left the meeting, including the Chair. Claire Perry MP then took the chair, and the speaker continued.

The point I was trying to make about the inspection service is that I think it’s continuously under threat, partly deliberately, because it’s inconvenient, and because people want to modernise the process, and because money is short. Part of the point of me speaking to this audience, particularly when you’ve got Ken Clarke coming, is that I think people who value the inspectorate need to be active in protecting it. I don’t think it’s ever a done deal.

The second point is that the striking thing that comes out of the work we do with OPCAT, and the partnerships we have with other agencies, is that there are lots of places where people get taken where there isn’t an effective inspection regime. I think we are going to get agreement to inspect court custody, which will be a good thing because if we look at police, courts and prison custody we can look across the piece at what’s happening, and things like diversion are very important. I think there are issues around how secure training centres are inspected and I hope there may be some possibility of our joining with OFSTED to do that, because I think we would look at different things and with a different perspective. And I think there are some issues around how places in which people with moderate mental health problems or frailties, or learning difficulties, are in effect detained. There are some real problems about the effectiveness of the inspection process and the way in which outcomes for those individuals are protected and focused on, in the same way that we would focus on outcomes for prisoners. So I think there is a big job to be done, about safeguarding the inspection process within the criminal justice system but also addressing the gaps in the overall inspection regime, where people are vulnerable, out of sight, and don’t have the sort of protection that we are able to provide at the moment.

I also want to share some observations from the first year I’ve spent inspecting. I have probably spent about 50 days in prison. Compared with other people, that’s a pretty limited experience. But the first thing that was really striking was the inconsistency amongst prisons. I think that Ann Owers would say that prisons are safer now than they were when she took up her role. But you can still walk into prisons which are alarming in terms of their lack of safety. I remember Cookham Wood as a really frightening place. I think that the staff there were frightened of the young people. They just about kept the lid on it most of the time by running a very hard line regime. And what was making life worse was that the recruitment freeze that was then going on meant that they couldn’t recruit suitable staff to fill vacancies, so they were filling vacancies with staff drafted in short term from other institutions. There was huge churn, staff did not have any relationship with the young people, and that was adding to the insecurity of the institution. They did fix that – that was something that came out of it – but it was a frightening place. Young people were frightened to come out of their cells at meal times.

57 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 58

You can look across other individual institutions that seem to be similar in terms of the people they are holding, the reasons why they are being held, the size, the scale, and there are big differences in performance and outcomes for the people who are there.

The second thing that really surprised me is the whole question around rehabilitation. We went to Bure Prison in Norfolk, a sex offenders’ prison, which is very well run. One of the things the inspection team leader said to me, that made it well run, and that was exceptional, was that it was the Governor’s vision that every member of staff who worked there would see it as their job to make the prisoners less likely to offend when they were released than when they came in. And I thought ‘hang on a minute, I thought that was what most people thought their job was’. We felt the prison was pretty good because most staff at Bure felt that, but that was exceptional. Now that strikes me as extraordinary, because wherever you are on the crime and punishment spectrum, surely everybody wants prisons to make people less likely to offend when they leave than when they go in. And I don’t think that they do. For a lot of prisons, if you say the purpose is that people are there as a punishment, and so that the public are kept safe, too often that’s where it stops. But you do those things, and you do the work in prison, to make it less likely that they will offend when they leave. My impression is that that is too often an afterthought.

We went to Peterborough the other day, where they are doing the payment by results thing. They have got a new governor at Peterborough, doing a good job, and they have a lot of resettlement resources there. But my impression was that the prison was hosting that. It wasn’t that it was part of what the prison was dong. They were making space for these activities to go on. One of the good things at Peterborough, almost uniquely in my experience, is that they had a very good personal officer scheme – you don’t often see that – and they had this fantastic array of resettlement services. But there was no sense that these two things needed to be joined up. There was no sense that one of the things a personal officer should be doing was encouraging and working with prisoners as they engaged in the resettlement activities that were on offer. I slightly exaggerate, but not much. That was how it felt. And it does seem to me that we have made some of this too complicated. It must be the case that if somebody when they leave prison has a job to go to, or the education to get a job, a roof over their head that is reasonably stable, if they’ve got contact with a relatively supportive family, and if they are having something done about their drug problem and they are maintaining that, then they are less likely to reoffend than someone without them, and I don’t think we need a great research project to prove that. There is a degree of common sense about it. Just putting those basics in place too often doesn’t happen. The whole resettlement thing is the poor relation, and something that needs to be addressed.

I’m encouraged by lots of what’s in the Green Paper, but I think that a culture shift is required as well: There has been a culture shift within the Prison Service around the decency agenda, and about safety. But I think there needs to be a culture shift around rehabilitation and resettlement, so that everybody does see it as their job to make people less likely to reoffend. One of the things that is missing in the Green Paper is something about family. Families are seen too often either as a kind of problem, bringing trouble into the prison, or as a ‘nice-to-have for prisoners that’s inconvenient to organise, but we ought to do it’. But one of the important ways to think about prisoners’ families is as a resource. Who is it that more often than not gets little Johnny a job? It’s his Uncle Joe down on his building firm.

58 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 59

Who is it that fixes a roof over his head if his Mum won’t have him back? It’s his sister. Who is it that gets on at him about going to his appointment at the drug rehab or whatever? It’s his Grandma. So I think it’s important, in a sensitive way, and it doesn’t work in every case, that we see families not merely as a luxury item for prisoners or a problem, but as a resource that will share some of what prisoners should be doing, and will help with the resettlement process.

I just want to make a couple of other points. One of the other things that has really surprised me in this first year, that lots of people ask me about, and to which I don’t think there is a clear answer, is the issue about drug supply in prison. How is it that in one prison we visited recently more than one in ten prisoners said they developed a drug problem while they were in prison? If you try to explain that to people outside prison they just don’t understand it. There are these places with great high walls, barbed wire on the top, people are searched as they come in – how can this be? You can take a view about drugs and society, or whatever, and it’s a different debate. But the problem in that prison was that the whole conversation is about drugs. Family visits were about drugs, searching policy was about drugs, bullying policy was about drugs. Drugs dominated the agenda in prison. The idea that people are turning their backs on it because it makes for a quiet life is quite wrong. It is an incredibly disruptive thing for both the individuals and the prison as a whole. You ask people about why this is happening and there is a kind of shrug: nothing can be done about it. And I don’t think that’s right. That’s certainly an issue that we are going to look at.

The final thing I want to say is that I think that the other danger, and the danger for Ken Clarke’s proposals, is that even if he is able to do everything that he sets out in the Green Paper, the money is going to reduce at a much quicker rate than the numbers in prison. The obvious but not correct way of dealing with that is that people are banged up for longer in their cells. I had not understood until I started this how much of the day prisoners spend locked up in a double cell that is effectively a large toilet. If you have a shared cell, a bit wider than my arm span, maybe twice as long, with two people in there, having their meals there, a table that one person can eat at, the other person is eating off their knee beside the toilet. If they are unlocked for six hours a day then they are in there for eighteen hours a day. Of course if that’s the case you can’t be doing anything else useful with them. What I observe is that gradually the amount of time people are spending in their cells like that is getting extended. Sometimes in big chunks but sometimes drip by drip. You speak to the governor and they will give you a figure for the amount of time they spend outside their cells. We go and calculate it, we go and look at it, and it’s almost always less than the official figure. That means that the opportunities to do anything more purposeful and useful with people are reduced. Prison capacity is not simply a question of the numbers of people you can fit into the prison, and how many beds you have got available. It is also a question about whether you can do anything useful with them while they are there. The extent to which prisoner numbers are outstripping prison capacity, in this sense, is getting greater. That’s the real threat to some of the things Ken Clarke wants to do. I think I will stop there.’

At this point Peers were once again called to vote, and many left the meeting.

59 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 60

60 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 61

21 June 2011: Arts in prison

Speakers: Tim Robertson, Chair of the Arts Alliance and Chief Executive of the Koestler Trust, and Two former prisoners, Francesca and John, talking about how the arts have impacted upon their lives.

This meeting was organised by the Arts Alliance, the national body for the promotion of arts in the criminal justice sector. The Alliance is facilitated and supported by CLINKS.

Lord Ramsbotham welcomed everyone, in his capacity as Vice Chair of the Penal Affairs Group, to a joint meeting with the Arts and Heritage Group, whose Chairman, Lord Crathorne, was sitting next to him. There had been a suggestion that the issue of arts work with offenders deserved an All Party Group of its own. However it seemed more sensible if these two groups came together to share experiences. He hoped this was something that could be repeated.

The Arts and Heritage Group would be invited to visit the annual Koestler Awards Exhibition on the South Bank. The exhibition was traditionally curated by different groups, and this year it was to be curated by the Magistrates’ Association in celebration of the 650th anniversary year of the first Justices of the Peace. It would be interesting to see what art the magistrates had chosen, to meet some of them, and some of the artists.

It was interesting that this meeting took place on the day of the publication of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, in the context of what Kenneth Clarke had called the ‘rehabilitation revolution.’ The purpose of the evening’s meeting was to hear from Tim Robertson, and his colleagues. Tim was Chief Executive of the Koestler Awards Trust, and Chair of the Arts Alliance, a confederation of all the organisations bringing the arts to offenders, to represent collectively to government what they did, and to act as a conduit to take government policy back to the organisations The government had created the Arts Forum, representatives of all the ministries involved with the arts, the Arts Council, and funders, and the prison and probation services. There was a great deal of dialogue to ensure that the issue was brought before government, and not just left to take its chance. He then welcomed and introduced the first speaker.

Tim Robertson began: ‘Thank you very much. Lord Ramsbotham gave me my job at the Trust and then promptly left and went to join the House of Lords. I hope that was because he thought it was in good hands…. It is very good to be here. It is probably strange for some of you who come from a prisons and penal affairs point of view to be looking at the world of the arts, and for those of you who come from an arts and heritage point of view to be looking at prisons. Those of us who inhabit those two worlds will have found that there is great creativity in prisons and amongst offenders, and that strangely enough in the arts there are also prisons everywhere: containments and structures of various kinds which both enclose and often strangely stimulate the best in creativity, and perhaps the best in humanity in all of us. All I am going to do today is to briefly set out a little bit of context. Then I have sitting alongside me two ex-prisoners who have had involvement in the arts.

61 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 62

The arts have played a big role in their resettlement. You will hear from them, and the bulk of the time we will leave for your questions and discussion.

So just to set out the facts: where do offenders take part in the arts? All prisons have education departments. Most of those have visual art classes, and usually creative writing classes, sometime music workshops as well, working towards formal qualifications, funded through education funding. Some prisons and other criminal justice settings will have art therapies of various kinds, including NHS funded provision where the art is particularly looking at the therapeutic and psychological benefits. Offenders will, like all of us, produce art from their own initiative. In the Koestler Awards the biggest numbers of entries are in paintings, and secondly in poems. Many of those are poems written by offenders in their prison cells, with entry forms signed by a prison officer. And then there are traditional prison craft forms, like soap carving or matchstick modelling.

Then there are many projects that are run in prisons and other criminal justice settings by arts companies, both by national arts companies that go in and do this as part of their outreach programmes, and also by many specialist organisations, specialising in art with offenders. It is those organisations that make up the bulk of the membership of the Arts Alliance. So for example in the field of theatre there is Clean Break women’s theatre Company, one of whose users is here to speak with us tonight. There is Safe Ground, theatre in prisons and probation, Geese Theatre Company, and many more. In creative writing there is the Writers in Prison Network, which sends writers into prisons on three year residencies. There is dance, of which the biggest provider is Dance United, which runs a remarkable academy with young offenders which has had extraordinary results. In music there is Good Vibrations, which runs Balinese gamelan projects in prisons, there is the Irene Taylor Trust, and Changing Tunes, and many others. In the visual arts, both the National Gallery and the British Museum, and many local museums and galleries have run projects in criminal justice settings.

The Koestler Trust is a bit of an overview organisation. Our awards stimulate and motivate offenders to take part in the arts. We get about 6,000 entries a year and we then try to get that work out and seen by the public through our exhibitions, in London, and also in Liverpool, where our last exhibition was opened by Lord Dear, and also in Edinburgh, where our exhibition has twice been opened by Veronica Linklater – good to see them both here.

There are two main rationales for doing arts with offenders. One of those is a social benefit model, about reducing reoffending, about the benefits of arts for offenders. The other is best described as a human rights model. Just to come to the social benefits model first, unquestionably participation in the arts has benefits for offenders in terms of raising their self-awareness, their self-esteem, their knowledge and skills. In many ways, as many of you who have tried to structure the rhyming pattern of a sonnet or to get your colours right for water colour will know, the arts take hard work and discipline. They are often closer to old fashioned punishment view of criminal justice than many people will think. They offer hope and a positive future for offenders, and a role in reducing reoffending. The Arts Alliance has done a collation of the research on this, which you are welcome to take away with you. For example the reoffending rate for the young people who have taken part in Dance United Academy is 33% below the national average, the year after they have left the academy. As for Changing Tunes, which runs music projects in various prisons in the south-west of

62 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 63

England particularly, the reconviction rate for those who have graduated from their projects is 74% below the national average.

The human rights model looks at the arts rather differently. It says ‘we don’t mind what the benefits are. They may be difficult to prove anyway. It is a right for everyone to take part in the arts and in creativity’. And in a way the rehabilitation of offenders depends not just on them changing as individuals but also on us changing, on social and cultural attitudes to offenders changing. They can reform themselves and have all the best skills and all the correct attitudes that we might want them to have, but if society does not make its educational, employment, community, family and other opportunities available to them, because it caricatures them as monsters, as some sections of our media would do, then they can’t rehabilitate. So there is an issue about how we change the view of who offenders are.

Many organisations like Clean Break and Pimlico Opera, who perform work with offenders, help in that role. Southbank Centre over at the Royal Festival Hall, who are partners with us in the Koestler Trust, gets the art of offenders seen every year in a national exhibition and programme of events which is attracting 15,000 visitors a year. The visitors book has page after page of people writing ‘I had no idea that prisoners had this level of skill, and I am terribly moved by their stories’. The arts have a role in making human beings, rather than caricatures, of offenders.

Just to whizz through a few issues. Sorry to be predictable, but funding is a big issue for all of us in these difficult times. We are nearly all charities, and all depend on a whole range of funding to do our work. We also depend on funding to the prisons. We have sometimes ended up with extraordinary situations where Arts Alliance members have had a fully funded project which they can’t take into a prison because the prison does not have the staff to get the musical instruments in and out and do the security clearance and so on. The policy changes which are at this moment being discussed in one of the Houses here I think, and all the localism, and sentencing changes, will affect our work. We are only just beginning to work out how those will affect us.

We live in a multi-cultural and complex society so diversity and inclusion, and how those are reflected in our work, are challenges for all of us, as is the IT and digital revolution. Prisoners are not allowed access to the internet, which is the driving force for much change in the arts field. There’s an issue there about how we keep them up with that. The research evidence remains a challenge, as I discussed. PR and media perceptions of the work that we do often caricature us as arty types who are a bit naïve about working with prisons. And both within the arts and within criminal justice there is a need for us not to be seen as peripheral but to establish ourselves as central. The arts that are produced by prisoners, and by many other groups on the edge of society are often the some of the most radical, interesting, amazing, imaginative and inspiring things that are happening today. They should not be seen just as little outreach projects, but really should be in the main gallery space and celebrated as a central part of an artistic programme. And vice versa, the arts are often seen as an add-on in prisons and in criminal justice settings, whereas I think we can be one of the central driving forces for change, both in offenders’ lives, and of course so that there are fewer victims, and society becomes safer for all of us.

63 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 64

On my left I have Francesca, a user of Clean Break women’s theatre and education company and next to her is Rebecca Manley, one of the Theatre Education Managers at Clean Break. Then meet John who is a former Koestler award winner and currently on the Koestler mentoring programme, and next to him is his Koestler mentor, Joanna Trench.

Frankie, could you say how you came to Clean Break?

Francesca: I came to Clean Break after a long journey. I was sentenced to prison ten years ago, and came across the organisation after I was sentenced. I really liked the idea of an environment where women could get involved with the theatrical arts and at the same time share common ground. However after hearing about Clean Break my life took a turn for the worse, due to drug addiction. It has taken me a further nine years to arrive. But I never lost sight of that goal. I left the rehabilitation centre in 2009, moved to London with my daughter to start a new life, and I finally had my assessment at Clean Break. It has been a slow and difficult process to conquer my fears. I knew I wanted a new life and to change. I just needed to feel listened to, and at Clean Break I have been.

Tim Robertson: Can you say what you got out of Clean Break?

Francesca: From Clean Break I have got a life I never knew existed. I’ve been valued and treated with respect, and ultimately not judged. I started with zero confidence, but I knew I was in the right place. Arts and theatre were really important to me. I could express myself in a safe place, and gained skills that will carry me through to change my life. I have completed Performance Level 2, Writing for Theatre, Backstage Theatre, Costume, Dance and Self Development. I am currently on a full time work placement with the National Youth Theatre as Deputy Stage Manager. The production I am working on is specifically for young adults who were out of education, training and employment. This has now become my chosen career path, to work with vulnerable adults in community based theatre projects, and I hope to go on to study Applied Theatre at university. My experience has enabled me to develop a deeper level of empathy and understanding towards others involved in destructive life styles. I want to assist young adults to make positive changes in their lives. Clean Break has allowed me to find my voice. I have spoken to groups of police officers about my story, and now I’m here today. So thank you for this.

Tim Robertson: John, would you say what your involvement on the criminal justice system has been?

John: in 2007 I was sentenced to five years in prison for a series of robberies. I spent two and a half years in prison, but I was lucky enough to make my way to an open prison.

Tim: what was the prison you were in?

John: I started off in Feltham, where I spent nearly 18 months. The Kings Fund, which is a charity as I’m sure you know, wanted to refurbish the healthcare wing, which was a really dire place, full of violence. They came to me and asked me to paint six paintings for them. As a result they down-graded me to a Category D prisoner, which meant I could then go on to an open prison, which gave me the freedom to work in the community and to study.

Tim: Just explain about these paintings, which went into the new space. What were the paintings of?

64 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:43 Page 65

John: Four of them were graffiti-style paintings, and two of them were sort of abstract expressionism.

Tim: So you moved from Feltham to a Category D open prison: where was that?

John: That was Hollesley Bay in Suffolk. They asked me to do a further six paintings for the visitors’ room, and then I managed to find my way to Latchmere House in Richmond. Along the way I had been in contact with the London art schools. Once I was at Latchmere House I started a Higher National Certificate in Fine Art at Kensington and Chelsea College which I passed with distinction. I was voted the student of the year for the whole of the borough. And then I got into Central St Martin’s School of Art and Design to pursue a BA with honours in Fine Art, which is what I’m doing now.

Tim: John, if you hadn’t had art, what’s your guess about where you might be now?

John: Well, that time back in Feltham, when I was asked to do these paintings for the healthcare wing, when I saw that art could be a viable option for me as a career path, as an education and to study, that gave me belief, because without that I would have come home to nothing. It worked out really nicely for me because when I did finally get released I still had a couple of months left of my course, which gave me focus, so I went straight into doing art, and from that I went on to doing a degree.

Tim: And were you part of art classes as well while you were in Feltham?

John: I did some art therapy in Feltham, and when I was in Hollesley Bay I was doing community work with Downs Syndrome and autistic adults, and I ran art classes with them.

Tim: And did you enter the Koestler Awards?

John: I did and also I did a lot of poetry and some of that was published. I now write quite a lot of poetry and we have our own event in Bethnal Green, so we’ve been very busy.

Tim: The Koestler mentoring? How was that and how did that come about?

John: That’s really helped. Joanna here knows vast amounts about art. We go to galleries together, and not only does she support me emotionally but she helps me understand certain things that some tutors might not. She’s been a huge help to me.

Tim: And how’s it been at St Martin’s?

John: St Martin’s is a different level of education from the last college I was at. It’s been really good. I’m looking forward to starting next year in the new building, to carrying on, and hopefully doing well and getting a good grade.

Tim: Can I ask both Frankie and John if there is anything you would want to say to Parliament. The whole of Parliament is sitting here before you. They are terribly powerful people. Do you have a short message to them?

John: I’d say, there’s a huge amount of talent in prisons. There are a lot of really talented people that I’ve met, and it’s been a pleasure to meet some of them. I won’t forget them.

65 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 66

Frankie: I would like to say how beneficial Clean Break has been. It’s enabled me to turn my life around, to get my drive and determination back, and to want to change. So many creative people get overlooked when they are stuck in the system.

Tim: I just want to correct one possible misconception here. It’s not the aim of either the Koestler Trust or Clean Break to make all ex-offenders into professional artists or theatre practitioners. Many of our Koestler mentors are doing perfectly ordinary non-arts jobs, but as for most of us they are doing their painting or their poetry as part of what makes them human, what keeps them growing, what keeps them alive. We happen to have two exceptional examples here’.

Lord Ramsbotham asked Tim Robertson to explain where mentors fitted in to the awards scheme.

Tim Robertson began by noting that this year saw a record 6,000+ entries to the Koestler Awards, from prisoners, offenders on probation, and secure psychiatric patients across the UK. These were judged by panels of artists: for example Grayson Perry, the Turner Prize winner, had been judging at their building at Wormwood Scrubs that day. Winners were invited to express an interest in the mentoring scheme. They would then be matched them with one of the volunteer mentors, who were experienced artists, musicians, or writers. The mentors were vetted, trained and supported to work with the award winners for up to a year after release, so that they were standing on their own two feet in the arts. The Paul Hamlyn Foundation had sponsored the pilot of the mentoring programme, and Queen Mary College, London University, was doing a big evaluation of it, with a control group of people being released from prison without mentoring. Results were due in about a year’s time, but the interim report was looking good.

Lord Ramsbotham noted that the Arts Alliance aimed both to get the arts embedded in the syllabus of every prison and every probation area, with the aim of enhancing offenders’ self– esteem, and also to lobby for some stability in contracting arrangements for organisations providing arts activity in these settings, to allow them to invest rather than being at annual risk.

66 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 67

28 June 2011: The Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke MP, QC, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Geoff Dobson, Clerk to the Group, opened the meeting and welcomed everybody. He said there had been just one nomination to the chairmanship for the coming year, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, and that he had therefore much pleasure in handing over to Lord Corbett.

Lord Corbett thanked the meeting, and then proposed that the meeting consider the election of Vice Chairs. Claire Perry MP and Lord Ramsbotham had both indicated their willingness to continue. Baroness Stern, who had undertaken the role for many years with great commitment, had indicated that she wished to stand down. Lord Corbett extended the grateful thanks of the meeting to her for all she had done. Paul Goggins MP had indicated his willingness to be nominated as Vice Chair for the coming year, at which the meeting expressed its satisfaction. The Group’s Secretary, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts had indicated his willingness to stand again. The meeting was content, and all were duly elected.

The accounts were audited as part of the Prison Reform Trust’s accounts, and it was agreed they could be taken as satisfactory. A report on the work of the group, entitled ‘Too Many Prisoners’, was sent out in 2010 to MPs and Peers who had asked to be on the extensive mailing list, and a letter was sent out in April giving details of meetings in the past year. Lord Corbett thanked officers and members of the group for their support, and also he particularly wished to thank the Barrow Cadbury Trust for funding the secretariat. Anna Southall and Sara Llewellin, from the Trust, were welcomed to the meeting, and asked to take back the meeting’s grateful thanks for their support.

The Prison Reform Trust provided the secretariat, and Lord Corbett recorded the meeting’s thanks particularly to Geoff Dobson for his diligent work, to the chair Lord Woolf and to the Director Juliet Lyon, who was present. Thanks were also recorded to Julia Braggins for preparing the notes from meetings. The Group had a mailing list of about 200, 100 from each House, and he knew that the notes were extensively read and drawn upon.

There being no other business, Lord Corbett declared the AGM over. He had great pleasure in introducing the Secretary of State for Justice, and the group appreciated his making time to be there. Group members very much liked the ambitions of his policies, the emphasis on preventing reoffending, and the changes that involved, in both the sentencing system, and in what went on in prison. He knew that in this room, and well beyond these walls – though not yet in the offices of the Daily Mail or the Sun – people understood that an awful lot of money went into a criminal justice system that did not get decent results. Research over the last year or so had shown that we could do a lot better with less money, without threatening the safety and security of the citizen.

Kenneth Clarke MP, Secretary of State began by thanking the chair for inviting him and saying how glad he was to be there. He said he was not going to talk for long because he preferred to answer questions. He continued. ‘We have produced this monster bill, a real

67 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 68

leviathan of a bill. People with an interest in the subject will be reasonably familiar with it. We spent a long process going through consultation on the Green Paper. We responded to that last week and I made a parliamentary statement on it then. We’ve had parliamentary questions again today, and we’ve got a second reading of the bill tomorrow – and there’s an awful lot of it. So what I will do is just briefly touch on where I think we are, and then answer questions, and try to explain why we’ve reached the decisions that we have.

The criminal justice sentencing part of the bill I believe to be a very balanced package of radical reform, and I believe it is quite essential to introduce something of this kind, in order to get the system functioning properly again in the public interest. I wish I had been able to pass a bill of this kind twenty years ago when I was at the Home Office. At times I’ve disapproved very strongly of what happened in the intervening period. But I think we are now driven to doing something very radical about what we have. It coincides with my own particular views. I’ve always been liberal on economics and liberal on social policy. Free market economics combined with enlightened social reform, that’s always been my credo, and we are driven to both on this occasion.

One of the drivers is that we are in the worst financial crisis that anyone alive can now remember, and the whole prison management and prison system has exploded beyond any ability of the economy to afford a continued surge in it. Meanwhile this rapidly expanding prison population is not serving some of the key social purposes it should have. Plainly prison exists primarily as a form of punishment for serious criminal behaviour, retribution on behalf of the public and so on, but it is supposed to combine that with some reformative quality as well, and the central feature of what I have set out to do is to tackle what I think is the worst failing of the present system, both the prisons and the youth services actually, which is the scandal about reoffending rates. You won’t reduce crime if you don’t reduce the number of people coming out as slightly toughened up criminals who are about to commit some more crime when they finish their sentence. The figures are truly disgraceful, with the proportion of people sentenced who are actually serious recidivists steadily rising all the time. We know that half the people in prison at the moment will reoffend, be caught and convicted within twelve months of release, and three quarters of them will go on to commit more crime.

All this we have tried to tackle in the criminal justice part of this monster bill. The legal aid bit is quite formidable as well and I will answer questions on that if people want to ask me. I hope you are familiar with most of the things we’ve put forward. The thing I would expect to get most support for from the Prison Reform Trust is the moves we are taking on indeterminate public protection sentences. Many of you here who are, will be familiar with David Thomas’s book on sentencing, the bible on sentencing for practitioners. He described the IPP sentences, which were brought into effect in 2005, as ‘an unmitigated disaster’. They have never worked as parliament intended, creating a flawed system, not well understood by the public and vulnerable to legal challenge. We will replace them with a tougher determinate sentencing framework.

Other obvious problems we are tackling: we have far too many people on remand awaiting their trial in circumstances where they are not actually going to be sent to prison when they are sentenced. In principle we are changing the situation so that it’s not possible to remand

68 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 69

in custody someone who is plainly unlikely to get any kind of custodial sentence when he comes before the court, and either pleads or gets convicted of a criminal offence. However we will make an exception for domestic violence cases.

I said I wouldn’t talk for long. The balance of the changes is genuinely reformative, getting rid of some of the worst features of the present system. There is a whole lot of other stuff which reverses a lot of the other bad effects of 21 criminal justice bills in 13 years, by simplifying the system, restoring some discretion to the judges where it was quite ludicrously taken away and also we have plans for community sentences and those who administer them. I don’t think we can get rid of all short term sentences. I think that sometimes there is no alternative. Community sentences don’t carry adequate public confidence, and I have to admit that I share some of those doubts about them in some cases, so we are going to try to make them more effective. Unpaid Work is one of the best things, in the right case, because you combine a punitive element – doing work which you are not paid for – with some restorative effects as well, getting people into the habit of working, discipline and doing something that makes them realise that they can do some good for the community in which they live. It is not properly organised at the moment. People can spend years putting in the necessary hours. It isn’t supervised as strongly as it should be in some places – people come when they feel like it – so we are trying to tighten that up. We’re making more use of technology, tagging, curfews and all that kind of thing.

Otherwise we’re trying to make community sentences less prescriptive. Parliament has taken a constant joy in passing criminal laws every year, making it ever more clear what people are meant to do, so all professional judgement has been subordinated, in the probation service and elsewhere, to a rather ludicrously mechanical exercise. The same is true for how you recall people from licence and how you manage licence. We have got to have a service which is allowed to get on with its job. And we will also have some reforms sooner or later which will improve the quality of the support we give to community sentences and elsewhere.

Then there is the question of what happens in prison itself. There is a lot of very good work done already. It’s not an easy job. But there is a limit to what they can do. Prisons are grotesquely overcrowded, which cuts down one’s ability to do what otherwise one would like to do. Although there are some very good exceptions, the regime is one of bored idleness for a very large amount of the time, which doesn’t do anybody any good at all. We therefore have a programme of trying to get organised work and training into prisons. There are fewer of the old prison workshops than there were twenty years ago when I used to lead on prisons. Accommodation needs have closed quite a lot of them down. Although we have some good companies going in to run training, and some very good examples, they are very rare. By and large, we want to develop prison industry, to develop arrangements with outside private employers so that you have a sensibly structured ability to provide worthwhile employment experience for people in prison; to pay them, whilst making sure you don’t put competitive firms outside out of business. Again, we want this organised properly, so we have a means of getting people into some disciplined work, and some training. And we are about to activate a Conservative Act, which has never been activated, to pay prisoners, then make deductions from their pay, to the costs of victim support of one kind or another. We’re very keen on that.

69 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 70

I don’t underestimate the difficulties of all this. In public speeches I try to avoid overselling this, because it’s hard work. I’ve tried it before, and getting it properly organised will take some time to spread through the system. But we are going to put a real effort into it. I visualise that one day we will have a wide range of availability of places and a serious working environment inside for all those prisoners who want to do so. The experience from abroad is that prisoners actually have to go on a waiting list to get in, because for the sensible ones it is so much the sensible thing to do with your time, rather than hanging about on the wings.

The other thing we are going to tackle is to try to stop the ready availability of drugs in the prison system. I try to avoid overusing the word ‘scandal’, but it’s one of the most extraordinary features of our system. We are trying drug free wings, and we are also trying a much bigger drive on rehabilitation in prison, working with our colleagues in the health department as well, with the aim of doing something about the drug situation.

That’s part of the other major feature of our reforms. We’re concentrating on reoffending, concentrating on the rehabilitation of offenders, trying to do something to cut back on these appalling rates of further criminal behaviour. The main innovation is the contracts, on a payment by results basis, with public sector prisons, private sector prisons, community sentence providers, acting - as they’ll have to, to deliver - in consortia, in collaboration with voluntary bodies, community bodies and so on, entering into contracts whereby the reward, the payment, will vary. There will be a return on the ethical investment for those who can demonstrate results, by way of reducing reoffending, and as they share the risk, a loss for some of these investors if it turns out that they make no material difference to the group of people they take on. It’s pretty straight forward, crude really, but a big improvement on trying one thing after another, and also the only way of proceeding at a time when finances are rather tight. Indeed I want to reduce the pressures on the system. There’s this idea that I am aiming at reducing the prison population. Much though I might quite like to see it, I have no means of controlling the population. It is the judges who will determine what the population is. But I would like to stop the remorseless growth, and ease the pressure, because it leaves you more room to do things like rehabilitation and payment by results. You’ve got to have some cash up front, some cash savings, to be able to pay for results.

Finally, we’ve got to keep the costs of the prisons down. Like every other public service we’ve got to save on costs. I’m afraid I am one of those who believe in competition. Not in aid of choice by our residents but choice where the government’s concerned. We have a tendering process, whereby we test the costs and the quality of the regime. We want to pay for a combination of quality and cost, not necessarily for the cheapest bidder. We have a programme of steadily going out to tender to groups of prisons, and awarding the contract to the person who produces the best overall value for money for the public. The last government was going through the motions, but we are doing it seriously. The other thing I like about contracts is that you can stipulate the quality of the regime, and impose penalties if people do not deliver what they are supposed to be delivering. I’m also looking for innovation, so it’s likely to be an advantage to a bidder if they can demonstrate the likelihood of introducing this working environment, or the likelihood of an element of at risk reward for reoffending rates into the contract and so on.

70 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 71

So, I’ve been as short as I can. I’ve left vast swathes of the Bill out, and of course the Bill is parked alongside some of the management changes we are making to alter the whole approach to crime and punishment, particularly so far as prisons are concerned. The aim remains to protect the public, and also to satisfy the quite legitimate public expectation that we are going to punish serious offenders. But there are more intelligent ways of doing it than the way in which we have been doing it in the recent past, in my opinion, and we hope to be able to make considerable advances over the next few years as we roll this programme out. What we are actually doing is making a serious and determined effort to introduce some positive policies on criminal justice that will deliver a better criminal justice system. I’ve left out the courts, legal aid, and all the other things. But we have taken on a most enormous agenda, and it’s quite important to push it on.’

71 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 72

72 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 73

18 October 2011: Community justice

Speakers: Lord Dholakia, Enquiry Panel Chairman John Thornhill, Magistrates’ Association Chairman and Enquiry Panel Member

Lord Ramsbotham said that there were two speakers for this evening’s meeting, neither of whom needed much introduction. He invited Lord Dholakia to speak first, as the leader of the Enquiry.

Lord Dholakia began by explaining the background: ‘The Magistrates’ Association approached me about six months ago. They felt that after 650 years of the magistracy in this country, during which it had evolved in its role and functions, it was necessary to look again at the issue of summary justice. I felt this was the right thing to do, for a number of reasons.

First of all, I have always believed that the role of the magistrate is very much underestimated in public discussions. The way that criminal justice impacts on the magistracy and on magistrates is very important, because that determines what they do, and what they don’t do. Secondly, the discretion they often use in reaching their verdict is an important factor. Third, how does the community convey its confidence, or lack of confidence, in the magistracy? And therefore we embarked on what we called a public engagement programme. All of us could sit down and write our own views and say what we think about the magistracy. But I think it was necessary to approach people in various parts of the country to seek their views.

So the first thing we wanted to do was to gather an understanding about the future of summary justice, and the second thing about the role of the magistrates in the changing situation. Nowhere was this more important than in the recent riots in this country. Suddenly you saw the role of magistrates highlighted. Are they sentencing too harshly? I understand why, when I was driving in my car, I heard the Chairman of the Magistrates’ Association on the radio putting his own point of view. But unless something like this happens you very seldom hear about the magistracy.

So we hope that at the end of the consultation period we will be able to produce a report which will form the basis of discussion with various criminal justice agencies, and with the government. I hope there will be some debates – looking at people like Paul Goggins and others in the Commons, and some of us in the Lords – to be able to raise awareness of this particular report.

What are the questions we will be putting to those we are consulting? The questions are straightforward. Does the public still support the concept of ordinary – not legally qualified – citizens being involved as members of the judiciary in the delivery of justice? Does the public have confidence in magistrates? Do magistrates provide a good quality of service? What do we mean by ‘local justice’? Is this still a meaningful concept? Restorative Justice: what is the role of the magistrates? Should magistrates be involved in pre-court, or non- court decisions? Should magistrates be involved more fully in the administration of

73 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 74

sentences - for example to play a part in helping achieve the aim of the sentence? Should magistrates be more involved in the rehabilitation of offenders, something about which I always keep harping. Is the makeup of the magistracy properly reflective of the society in which we live? And should the magistrates’ court be more open?

So, you may say, how did we go about it? So far we have visited Swansea, Oxfordshire, Trafford, Barnsley, and London. This weekend it’s Shropshire, followed by a visit to Leeds. Each of the consultations has been attended by anything from 25 to about 1800 people. Who are the participants? First of all we invite all the criminal justice agencies, and others active in the local area, to come along. We also bring in the general public, people who are interested. For example this weekend one of the initiatives being taken is to involve local television, to project what we are trying to do. What have they so far found? Obviously we haven’t started writing the main report, but just to give you some idea of what is coming through: we are talking basically of 30,000 volunteers in this country involved in this process. What do the public think about it?

One of the major things that came out was this. I had expected magistrates to get a lot of flak, ‘they don’t represent public opinion, they don’t represent us’, but no. Offenders, victims, the general public came along, looking at the role of magistrates, looking at their effectiveness, and nowhere did we find any complaints that magistrates were not performing their task adequately or that we should get rid of them. Secondly, as to powers: have they got enough powers when it comes to sentencing? Should their powers be restricted to what they have now, or should it be extended? As to the latter, this wasn’t about being more punitive, but many felt that the period in prison was so short that they hardly received any probation or other support. So would it help them to have a longer period in custody?

The third thing was the need to get involved in some of the pre-court situations. Should magistrates be involved in visiting local groups, in providing what are commonly called outreach programmes, explaining their roles in the community? What about their post-court responsibility? Should they take part in restorative justice? Should they take any role later on, to see how rehabilitation works in relation to individuals? Those were the areas that came through in discussions with local communities.

They were very keen on ensuring the representative nature of the magistracy. Quite often people talked about the importance of having a magistracy that was diverse, yet the impression being given repeatedly was that we do not necessarily represent everyone in local areas. There were a number of reasons: unemployment, people not being able to get time off work, and so forth. And then looking at the role of our magistracy liaising with other agencies: at one time magistrates were very keen on their liaison and information service. Now that work has very much come to an end, but how much is to be gained by working with the probation service in relation to the sentence that is being passed.

So these are some of the issues that have come out. We hope to complete this work and I hope the report will be ready by about April next year. These were just my observations from the meetings. Some of my colleagues here have been involved in these discussions too, and I am very grateful to them. Can I now ask John what his observations were?

74 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 75

John Thornhill began by thanking Lord Dholakia and saying that there was a fair measure of agreement between them on progress and objectives. He continued: ‘You will know that we are celebrating the 650th anniversary of the 1361 Act, where our Plantagenet forefathers believed that there ought to be ‘those worthy who could keep the Sovereign’s peace’ following the period of the Black Death and the upheaval in the country, and to ‘keep that peace in the communities of the land’. The two inherent principles of the 1361 Act are still there today: that is, keeping the peace, and keeping the peace in local communities.

Of course one of the problems is: how do we define a local community now? That’s an issue we have to tackle, and that was part of a debate we had last Friday: is ‘local’ what we used to think it was? Or is that something broader now? Does local mean ‘the whole of a county’ or just a small urban area? Those are issues that we have got to tackle. But if we work to the two abiding principles of the 1361 Act, then we are asking the questions: how can we still achieve those in a modern society – and one that has modern technology? Do we really need to bring the offender a long distance to a court room to dispense justice, or can we use the modern technology to dispense justice equally effectively? There may, of course, be occasions when that is necessary.

The real issue is: do we still need magistrates? For someone like the Chairman of the Magistrates’ Association to ask that is in a sense dangerous. But I do think this is a question we ought to be asking, and to be asking openly and generally. I have to say that, from what I’ve heard at the public forums we’ve attended, I’ve been very heartened by the measured response. It was interesting to note in one event that both a defence solicitor and an ex- offender said that in their time in their different criminal careers, they had seen a significant development in the way magistrates’ courts, and magistrates themselves operated, to become, as both put it, more professional. What we don’t want is to lose that very important element, which is that magistrates come from the local community, are members of those communities, and are not professional judges. But I do believe that the offenders have a right to expect us to behave in a professional manner, and that is very different.

Magistrates come from a wide range of backgrounds. On my bench we had a river pilot at one time. Recently I was stuck coming back from an event in Cardiff, the train was cancelled at 10.30 at night and I was coming back to London. We got as far as Bristol Parkway and there was a high speed train sitting at the platform. A couple of my fellow passengers were a little bit disgruntled at this point, and said ‘Why don’t we hi-jack it?’ The thought of a member of the magistracy hi-jacking a train… But I said ‘I know a man I could ring. A fellow magistrate is a driver of one of those trains, and he could tell us how to drive the train back.’ So the broad spectrum that magistrates’ experiences bring to the magistracy is valuable. Whenever I am sitting in court, I never ask my fellow magistrates what their background or job is because I don’t think that’s relevant. Their experience will bring to that court a very important factor, as well as the local issues. We believe that as members of the judiciary we still have a role to be part of local communities, to understand what’s happening in those communities, to appreciate why offences are being committed in those communities, and to maintain those very important links. We do that, we hope, through our work with probation, and the police, and other agencies in the criminal justice system, always of course maintaining our judicial independence, because that’s vital. I think that’s what the public expect. I think in many ways that’s also what has come through in the public forums that we have had: that there is an authority figure, independent of all the

75 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 76

others, to balance all sides of the story, and make that decision for the benefit not only of the offender and victim but also for the local community. That’s why we have asked the question: should that local justice still pertain today?

We have links with probation, and we would like to see those links strengthened. We used to have links through what were called probation liaison committees on each bench. We would like to see a statutory requirement for that, and some of your colleagues are kindly working with us to put a proposal as an amendment into the Bill. We believe it is right. Probation staff work in communities and if they can work with us, we can understand more about the community and therefore the role and place of that offender in that community and why they have committed those offences. I was talking to Lord Bradley earlier. Recently I had a statement in a report that said that the offender had a mental health problem. I know that is an issue dear to Lord Bradley’s heart. What we want to see is, if we have that closer relationship while still maintaining that dividing line, we won’t just receive it as a mental health problem, we will receive more information about why the offender has that mental health problem, so then we can craft a sentence that meets the needs of the community, that recognises the offence committed in that community, and that also meets the needs of the offender.

We often talk about consistency in sentencing. In one sense I don’t have too much of a problem if there is a measure of inconsistency, because what that shows is that we are responding to the local community. I remember many years ago in Liverpool we were having some problems on the terraces at local football matches. I won’t tell you which team it was because you will then know which team I support, but it was the other team – that’s all I will say to you. It was right to say then ‘Let’s use the sentencing guidelines that we have, but appreciate that in these circumstances it might be appropriate to respond to the needs of the local community and go to the upper end of the sentencing guidelines’. We were interested to hear many of the people who have spoken to us about the magistrates’ role at the lower end, too. At the moment there is a concern about out of court disposals. There is rightfully a place for out of court disposals, but are they sometimes being used inappropriately, for offences that should have come to court? Is there a role that the magistrates can play, either in gate-keeping, or by being responsive to the needs of the local community?

You will have heard of the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre. It’s just up the road from my court house in Liverpool. I think it’s outstanding, but it’s something that we all know, in this room, we cannot repeat. The cost is just so prohibitive. But what we need to do is say: that is what community justice is about. So how can we achieve some of the important underlying concepts of the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre? Out of that, the problem-solving courts have arisen. In the problem-solving court, the offender comes back every five or six week to meet with the bench of magistrates who imposed the sentence, and a great discussion goes on. When the offender says, for example, ‘I’ve reduced my cider drinking from three bottles to two bottles a week’, for that individual, that is a success. And if the magistrates who imposed that sentence can be seen to recognise that success, then we are building those relationships which we think are vital. That is why we have gone out to ask: do you think those are the sorts of activities which should continue, and if so, is the magistracy the vehicle to continue them?

76 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 77

I can remember going to Leeds when we were looking at the Drugs Courts pilots. There, offenders were coming back to talk to the magistrates and it was quite fascinating to see the openness of the debates. One who was coming back quite a lot was bringing photographs of the grandchildren. But it was done in such a way that it was obvious that the offender understood that it was members of the judiciary they were talking to. There were two offenders there: one had a problem with benefits and the other had a problem with housing. We all know that that is often part of the underlying reasons for their behaviour. Now nobody seemed to be able to tackle that. But in the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre Keith Fletcher would have said ‘Go down and speak to….’ We need to take that from the North Liverpool Justice Community Centre, because they believe that justice is part of their community and is delivered by the people who know and understand the community.

So that’s what some of us believe quite strongly, and that’s why we went out to the public to see what they felt. I have to say, and I think Lord Dholakia would agree with me, that we have been heartened by the responses we have got. So we hope to build a future for community summary justice based on some of those principles that we know a large majority of professionals in the justice system, and a large majority of members of the community, and ex-offenders, believe are valuable, not only to them but also to society. I’ll stop at that and answer any questions I can.’

77 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 78

78 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 79

22 November 2011: The Sentencing Council - 18 months on

Speaker: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Leveson, Chairman of the Sentencing Council

Lord Ramsbotham opened the meeting on behalf of Lord Corbett, who was unwell and had sent his apologies. He was sure the meeting would send Lord Corbett its very best wishes for a speedy return to good health. He noted that there were three further meetings planned, all to be held in that room: on 24 January 2012 there would be a presentation on the multi-faith prison chaplaincy and the community chaplaincy; and on 6 March 2012 Professor Alison Liebling would be coming to talk about public and private sector prisons. He drew members’ attention to Professor Liebling’s recent report on prisoner-staff relations, a follow-up to her previous work in Whitemoor in 1998. Then on 24 April there would be a meeting entitled ‘Working in Prison’, with Eoin McLennan-Murray of the Prison Governors Association and PJ McParlin, National Chairman of the POA. Alun Michael MP requested that they also be invited to give their views on the report of the Justice Committee on the role of the prison officer.

Lord Ramsbotham then introduced Lord Justice Leveson, who would be speaking in his role as Chairman of the Sentencing Council. He noted the appreciation of the meeting, since Lord Leveson had cancelled many other speaking engagements in the light of his current involvement with the inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the press. He further noted that it would be inappropriate to ask any questions about that inquiry at this meeting.

Lord Justice Leveson began: ‘Thank you very much for inviting me to speak to you today. Although I withdrew from almost all speaking commitments as a result of the new responsibilities that I have been given, the importance of this group and the concerns that I have in relation to criminal justice in general and sentencing in particular caused me to decide that I would stay with this one: I hope that you feel that the result is worth it.

When the Lord Chief Justice asked if I would accept appointment as the Chairman of the Sentencing Council, I said that I would do so enthusiastically. I expressed myself in that way because I believed that the Sentencing Council, which has a wider remit than the structures that came before it, had a significant opportunity to contribute both to the law and practice of sentencing and also to the wider public understanding of issues of sentencing.

Eighteen months on from the creation of the Council, notwithstanding my other duties, I remain just as enthusiastic about the Council’s contribution to the criminal justice system. What grounds do I have for such enthusiasm?

I would suggest that you need look no further than the Council’s first annual report for 2010/11 which we published last month. The Council had an extremely busy and productive first 18 months and shows no sign of slowing down. From draft guidelines and consultation exercises, to issuing definitive guidelines for use by the courts; from launching the Crown Court Sentencing Survey, to running a sentencing competition for students; the Council has achieved many milestones across the wide remit of its work. And it is this very breadth of the Council’s work which so encourages me and maintains my enthusiasm about the Council’s future.

79 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 80

Let me begin by clarifying the Council’s remit and its role within the criminal justice system for those of you who do not know. The Council has three principal aims which are: firstly, to promote a clear, fair and consistent approach to sentencing by developing new sentencing guidelines; secondly, to produce analysis and research on sentencing including assessing the impact of guidelines on sentencing practice; and, thirdly, to work to improve public confidence in sentencing by promoting awareness and understanding of sentencing and considering the impact of sentencing decisions on victims.

I want to take you through the Council’s achievements across all three of those aims but in particular I want to focus today on the last of them – improving public confidence in sentencing. This is perhaps the Council’s biggest challenge as it is often a matter of changing often firmly held views about the way in which criminal justice operates. It is one thing to draft and publish a piece of work, confident in the belief that the courts will duly accept and implement it, following, as they must, the law. It is quite another to alter the understanding and the mind- set of the general public through the same piece of work. However, I am determined to make a difference and the whole Council shares this ambition.

First, let me just set out how the Council has gone about promoting a clear, fair and consistent approach to sentencing. The Council has already developed and promulgated two sets of definitive guidelines: for assault, and for burglary. The assault guideline, which was the first to be developed by the Council, came into use on 13 June and has been well received by sentencers. The definitive burglary guideline will be in use with effect from 16 January next year.

These guidelines have adopted a new step-by-step approach which the Council believes is easier for judges and magistrates to apply, and easier for the public, including victims and witnesses, to follow. Each guideline includes individually tailored processes for each different type of offence meaning that they are all self-contained and comprehensive – no need to refer back and forth to other parts of the guideline or indeed other documents altogether. This sounds sensible but is in fact quite a departure from the existing Crown Court sentencing guidelines. Those guidelines generally consisted of a substantial text and then a series of boxes, and the problem we found in court was very frequently that counsel would refer to the boxes without necessarily going back to the underlying text.

In both of these guidelines that we have now issued, the Council has returned to first principles of sentencing and opted to focus attention on the two key determinants of seriousness as defined in statute1 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, namely harm and culpability. Weighting these two determinants equally in order to reach a specific category of offence within the guidelines represents a different approach from previous guidelines which focussed more on scenarios which judges found restrictive and resulted in offences being effectively shoe-horned into the scenario most closely resembling the case in hand. The Council’s approach allows for a clear structure which can be broadly replicated for all offences. Of course, we aren’t wedded to an exact and limiting structure – some guidelines will require slightly different structures, but the principles will remain the same which is important in encouraging a consistent approach by sentencers, and to promote better understanding by anyone who wants to look at the sentencing guidelines.

80 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 81

The Council has also consulted on a further two draft guidelines. In March of this year, we launched a consultation on a draft guideline for drug offences. Unlike assault and burglary which replace previous guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, there is no current guideline for courts to use when sentencing drug offences. That may be because some very distinguished judges, as long ago as the early 1970s and beyond, fashioned guidelines and some authorities for the most serious types of offences. A large number of responses to the consultation, together with substantial research conducted with judges across the country, on the likely effects of the guideline, have given us a great deal to consider in the preparation of the definitive guideline and we are soon to complete our work in this area. It has been an iterative process. We consulted extremely widely, as I shall explain, but also have conducted other events to test out potential solutions with groups of judges against common sentencing exercises.

The most recent consultation exercise which we have launched is for a set of overarching guidelines rather than offence-specific guidelines. The package containing guidelines for allocation of cases between the Magistrates Court and the Crown Court – critically important: when should the magistrates decide that a case is too serious for them to try but should be sent to the Crown Court?; the practice of taking offences into consideration, where an offender is prosecuted for one burglary, but then is prepared to admit having committed some others; and finally the approach to totality for multiple offences – in other words what should be the total sentence even if individual sentences taken together and added up would produce far too high an overall sentence. This was launched in September and, in light of the subject matter, the consultation process on this occasion is aimed more at legal professionals than the general public. (I ought just to explain that when we consulted on the other guidelines, which I will come on to, it was a much wider consultation exercise among the public as well.) When the consultation period comes to an end next month (8 December) we will review all of the feedback and respond early next year.

The second of the Council’s aims which I want to touch upon is the production of analysis and research on sentencing issues. The Council has a duty to assess the impact of guidelines on sentencing practice and one of the Council’s achievements of which I am most proud is the Crown Court Sentencing Survey which has been designed to allow us to fulfil that duty. In October 2010, we launched the survey nationwide in order to collect information about the way judges are sentencing, and what factors are influencing their sentencing decisions.

When we published our annual report last month, we also published a bulletin of the results from the first six months of the survey on our website, which you are very welcome to look at. The bulletin sets out a number of results which one would expect such as a clear correlation between sentence length and the severity of the crime. The results confirm that the majority of sentencers are sentencing within the guideline range. We will be doing further work on the interaction between all of the factors collected on the survey forms in order to make further sense of the survey’s findings. Also, the bulletin was written in a style aimed at helping to give the public a greater understanding of why offenders committing seemingly similar offences can get different sentence outcomes.

One thing which the bulletin only hints at is how the Council will use the information to fulfil our statutory obligation to monitor the frequency and extent to which courts depart from guidelines. There is limited information in this bulletin because I took the decision that at least

81 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 82

a year’s worth of data was required before we would have sufficiently robust information to present in relation to all offences. However, you will see that the example which we give in the bulletin notes that, for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, 2.5% of sentences in the period 1 October 2010 to 31 March 2011 fell outside the guideline and this is about the level that I would expect. If you imagine sentences as falling within a bell curve, the guideline intends to capture the centre ground; the interests of justice will always throw up a very few cases that fall at the extremes – either they are unusually serious, or there are unusual mitigating features which certainly should permit a court to sentence outside the Council’s guidelines, in the interests of justice. On the other hand, a significantly higher level of departure would suggest that there was a problem with the guideline which would need to be reviewed. I’m not making the assumption that I’m right. I want to find out where the evidence leads us.

Apart from the Crown Court Sentencing Survey, the Council has also undertaken a number of social research projects in the past 18 months which have served to inform the development of each of the guidelines to date. Various methodologies have been used: surveys, focus groups, one-to-one interviews. Some of the work has been conducted by the Council’s own staff, for example the interviewing of drugs mules, which had been the subject of discussion in our drugs consultation paper. Other pieces of research have been undertaken by organisations such as Ipsos MORI, YouGov and the Institute for Criminal Policy Research. These pieces of research have provided an evidence-based rationale for guideline development and the Council publishes research bulletins to accompany its draft guidelines, ensuring that everyone can benefit from the findings of the research conducted. Whatever we do, in this regard, we will make public.

Returning to the issue of improving public confidence: it is vital that the public understand what judges do in their name and why. When I gave an interview to Radio 5 Live earlier this year, clips from “You Be the Judge” were used in the programme to provide examples of sentencing decisions. They were well received by those who later responded to the programme. For those of you who have not heard me extolling the virtues of “You Be the Judge” before, it is an online resource which enables people to hear the facts of a case from both prosecution and defence, and reach their own sentence before the approach of a sentencing judge is then revealed and explained. It is an excellent tool for giving members of the public a real insight into the three dimensional nature of sentencing rather than the often very one dimensional nature made out in the media reporting of crime.

The feedback from that interview I gave was very positive and the number of visitors to the “You Be the Judge” website increased as a result. I would urge anyone dealing with members of the public who have concerns about current sentencing levels to encourage them to go online and use the examples on the website. More often than not, those people who believe sentencing to be too lenient find themselves under-sentencing the judge in some of the cases provided.

And we have been doing our own work to engage the public – in July we invited members of the public to an event in Liverpool to meet members of the Council to discuss sentencing issues generally, and specifically the on-going consultation on burglary. Around 200 people attended this event. But we were able to reach even more people than this by linking the event to coverage in the Liverpool Echo which has a readership of over 85,000. A number of

82 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 83

hypothetical burglary sentencing scenarios were presented, with attendees asked to choose which sentence from four options they would give the burglar in each case. The aim, similarly to “You Be the Judge”, was to see how their sentences compared with those which would actually be passed. The results showed that the majority of sentences passed by those attending were either the same as or more lenient than the sentences judges would have passed. I believe that events like this are really helping us to promote public understanding of sentencing. If the public understand what we are doing, they will have greater confidence in what we are doing, and if they have greater confidence, the clamour might be reduced.

We have also taken a very pro-active approach to communications more broadly and I believe that it is also yielding results. Our consultations have reached much larger audiences than those of our predecessor bodies, resulting in significantly higher response rates. I’m not, I say immediately in the presence of the former chair of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, criticising what they did by way of consultation, but let me explain how we have done it. For our main guidelines – that’s assault, burglary, drugs – we’ve issued a professional consultation paper, aimed at lawyers, judges, academics, and Parliament, with a series of questions raised and problems posed. We’ve also issued a public consultation document, directed at those who do not have a particular knowledge or understanding of the criminal justice system. And finally we have issued an online consultation for those who don’t want to see it on paper– there is a section of our website that encourages members of the public to provide us with their views. After I discussed this on radio there was, perhaps unsurprisingly, an enormous spike of interest, and responses received. Making it easier for members of the public to respond to the consultations has meant that more than 500 people have accessed the online questionnaire for each of our offence-specific consultations to date. Council members have given interviews to a broad range of media channels encouraging people to look at our website and complete the online questionnaires and I strongly believe that giving people a voice in these issues will give them more confidence in the end result which reflects their views. One of the things that has been commented upon frequently is that when the definitive guideline is published it is by no means the same as the one that we consulted on. So when we have demonstrated that we have indeed taken account of the issues that have been raised, we have received very positive comment upon it.

The surveys undertaken as part of our research work, which I have touched upon already, are another way in which we are reaching out to a public audience and involving them in our work. Feedback from those who have taken part in surveys or focus groups has also been very positive on the whole and the opportunity to discuss and contribute to sentencing policy for certain types of offences is welcomed by most participants. It is very important that we continue to engage as wide an audience as possible through the development of our guidelines at each stage of their development.

Another area which I would like to take this opportunity to highlight to you is the Council’s relationship with Parliament. The Council has a statutory requirement to consult with Parliament and I have given evidence to the Justice Select Committee as part of the Parliamentary scrutiny process on the assault, drugs and burglary guidelines. I am due to give evidence to the Committee again on 13 December. I regard the Committee’s scrutiny of our work, through the evidence sessions they hold and the reports which they produce, as a vital component of the work that we do. While Parliament sets the sentencing framework including

83 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 84

statutory maximum penalties, the Council then has the task of filling in the gaps. Guidelines exist to provide structure to the penalties allowed by Parliament, not to undermine them. Therefore, it is important that Parliament understands sentencing guidelines and we are always happy to consider new ways of interacting with Parliament as part of our work.

Earlier on, I asked what grounds I had for remaining enthusiastic about the Council’s contribution to the criminal justice system. I believe that I’ve given you plenty of reasons but, of course, listing the Council’s achievements in its first 18 months is only one part of it. Looking forward, the Council has a great deal of work yet to do. There are a number of guidelines currently in development on which we look forward to consulting the public. These include new guidelines across the range including sexual offences, environmental crime and dangerous dog offences which you may be surprised to hear was subject to a well-argued number of requests for guidance from magistrates and the police. And throughout its work, the Council needs to continue its efforts to improve public confidence in sentencing and will do so with the support of other key players, including many of you, who work tirelessly to promote confidence in the system.

I hope that I have been able to give you some idea of the Council’s aims, achievements and goals in the time I have had. I would like to thank you for your attention and of course I am very happy to answer any questions which you may have.’

84 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 85

2012

24 January 2012: Multi-faith prison chaplaincy and community chaplaincy

Speakers from Chaplaincy HQ, National Offender Management Service The Revd Canon Michael Kavanagh, Anglican Advisor Mr Ahtsham Ali, Muslim Advisor

Paul Goggins MP said that the idea for this session had come about when the Archbishop of Canterbury had addressed the group a year ago. He was pleased to introduce the two speakers, Ahtsham Ali, and Michael Kavanagh, taking the place of William Noblett, the Chaplain General, who had recently retired. They were both extremely welcome.

Michael Kavanagh began: ‘I am going to kick off by giving those of you who do not know much about prison chaplaincy a bit of a feel of what an average day for a prison chaplain involves, talk a little bit about community chaplaincy, and then Ahtsham is going to give you a bit of background about the development of multi faith chaplaincy. Hopefully we won’t take too long and that will give us an opportunity for discussion.

Each prison chaplaincy team will be made up of a mix of employed and sessional chaplains reflecting the faith/denominational make up of the prison. Each day one of the number will be assigned as duty chaplain. They are responsible for carrying out some of the key duties within the prison each day. I am a great fan of ‘A Life in the Day of…’ on the back of the Sunday Times. So you’ve got this afternoon a Life in the Day of a Duty Chaplain, who could be of any faith.

Each day the duty chaplain would normally come on with the early shift, with the rest of the staff. It starts very similarly to the way those of you who are guests came into the Houses of Parliament today. You have go through the search tank. You certainly can’t bring any mobiles into prison – that would be a complete no-no. So it starts with all that, and a lot of banter with staff. Sometimes you can be asked to stand for the drugs dog to go past, to make sure you are not trafficking anything to the prison.

One of the most difficult but important pieces of work is that when you arrive you may be notified that a prisoner’s relative has died during the night. It is your job as duty chaplain to go and visit the prisoner and break the bad news. For example one person I was thinking about today was a very senior gang leader in a northern town whose Mum had died. It’s quite a daunting task. You don’t necessarily know the person, and you come with all sorts of preconceptions. You go onto the wing, and visit the wing office, and chat about what you are going to do, and what support the person might need. Then you go into the pad and talk to him, and what you find is a human encounter, where someone is trying to cope with, and deal with, a loss on the inside, when all the family is on the outside. You would often arrange a phone call, and then, if the person is happy as this person was, pray with them

85 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 86

and also arrange for their own faith chaplain to visit later in the day. They can provide on- going support and help. Something that we often do is to arrange a time when they could go to chapel and light a candle and pray for the person who has died.

Then you would be back into chaplaincy. The orderlies by that time would be unlocked and coming down, and you would meet with the chaplains who are coming on duty that day. At nine o clock normally there is a meeting with the Governor, and you meet with the other members of staff to talk about any operational issues that have cropped up overnight. That’s often followed by a meeting with the heads of the various wings, where you pool information so that any pastoral concerns are flagged up, and you or one of the other chaplains can be involved in supporting anyone who’s having a difficult time.

Then you are involved in what are called the ‘statutory duties’. I don’t know whether you know that the 1952 Prison Act spelled out very clearly the sort of things a chaplain has to do on a daily basis. Those have been incorporated into the Prison Rules and in the most recent piece of work which provides a framework for chaplaincy, which is the Faith and Pastoral Care Specification. As duty Chaplain you ensure that any relevant issues are notified to the chaplain of the prisoner's particular faith/denomination so that these may be followed up.

The first one is a reception visit, where you will visit each new prisoner into the establishment within 24 hours. They can vary hugely. Sadly some faces are all too familiar, and will come back and back, so it’s just a matter of updating them and giving them a chaplaincy leaflet and that’s it. But for some people that reception visit is hugely important. If someone is coming into a dispersal prison having just received a very long sentence, they will be reeling from the impact of having to serve maybe 20 or 25 years before they can be considered for parole. You can begin to help them to make sense of that. In a local prison you can have people coming in, maybe straight from court, having been told the day before they are going to be a dad and now facing a sentence. There may be huge regret, self- recrimination, and anger. So those reception visits are sometimes very short, or sometimes the beginnings of a long pastoral involvement with that person as they come to terms with what the sentence will bring for them.

Another statutory duty is to visit the healthcare unit. And again for some it’s quite a quick thing – popping in to see someone who is only down there because they are having dental treatment and have to be kept in. But some of the visits are much longer. Two that stand out: an orderly in the healthcare unit who was being diagnosed with manic depression or bi- polar disorder and was coming to terms with that and realising that much of his offending and drug use had been bound up with trying to self-medicate for an illness that was of psychological or psychiatric origin. The anger that he felt was that he had never had any help to try to make sense of that. Another prisoner newly diagnosed with a degenerative condition felt that it was a punishment from God for all the things that he had done. So the healthcare visit is crucial in terms of pastoral support in helping people face really challenging issues in their life.

The Care and Separation Unit – the segregation unit – again involves meeting all the prisoners, but very often it is actually also about supporting the staff in what is a very tense and at times a very difficult environment. I remember one summer visiting the unit when a

86 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 87

prisoner was having a dirty protest. This was very difficult for staff - dealing with the difficulties caused by the protest but also recognising the difficulties being faced by the prisoner leading them to undertake such an extreme form of behaviour.

Then there is the discharge visit. Every prisoner before release has the opportunity of seeing a chaplain and that’s one of the ways in which the community chaplaincy is particularly helpful. If there is a Community Chaplaincy scheme in place a prisoner may work with a mentor who will visit and with whom they will develop a mentoring relationship before they are released. Those 24 hours after someone is released are often crucial as to whether a prisoner y will come back in or whether they will make a go of a new way of life.

That will be pretty much the morning taken up for a duty chaplain, just doing those statutory visits. In the afternoon the chaplaincy can be pretty manic and exciting. You might have in one room a restorative justice meeting going on, perhaps where a group of men are looking at the impact of their offending on victims. You might have a victim of crime coming in, not for a one to one meeting, but to talk to the group about the impact of offending on them, and for the men to understand a bit more closely what impact their behaviour has had. Alongside that there will probably be faith meetings going on from a variety of traditions, and Ahtsham will talk that through. One of the key things is the opportunity to get to know chaplains from across the denominations and faiths, and building a really cohesive team working towards a common goal.

After the men go back to the wing at the end of the afternoon session there is a bit of time to write reports. Chaplains will also contribute to sentence planning reports, to parole reports, and a variety of reports on prisoners some of whom as chaplain you get to know very well, both from general things and also from coming to services. In the evening session you often have volunteers coming in to support the work. Overall we think there are about 7,000 volunteers who come into prisons through the chaplaincy, providing everything from helping to run a hand-bell group through to faith specific meetings, through to more cultural events. That’s a real opportunity to form links with the local community.

The day as a duty chaplain would end with filling in the chaplain’s log, which is a legal document, which has to take account of all the people who’ve been seen and ensuring that the statutory duties have been complete. Then you have to make sure that nothing’s been taken away from chaplaincy. You have to do a ‘tool check’ at the very end. Then you go out. Going out is a little bit easier that going in, unless you get what’s called a blue tally, which means that you’ve got to have an exit search to make sure you are not trafficking anything out. And mostly when you’ve been duty chaplain, and you’ve been in for twelve hours, the last thing you want is a blue tally, because the ‘Life in the Day ..’ needs to end by you going home to have a cup of tea and a good sit down!’

Paul Goggins MP thanked Michael Kavanagh very much indeed and introduced the next speaker.

Ahtsham Ali began: ‘Just to give you a broad picture, we have 144 prisons in England and Wales and every prison has within it a chaplaincy team. The team will have a Coordinating Chaplain, who manages it. The size of the prison will determine the size of the chaplaincy

87 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 88

team, and also the religious make-up of the prisoner population will determine the number of chaplains from each faith. I will read from the Prison Service Instruction. The first item says that ‘chaplaincy provision must reflect the faith denomination requirements of the prison’. That’s quite a major shift. If you go back just over a decade, all the employed chaplains within the Prison Service were Christian, mainly Anglican and some Roman Catholic. All that changed about a decade ago. Prior to that you would have had sessional chaplains, who were called visiting ministers, who would come in for a few hours and would be paid piece rates. But from about a decade ago the Prison Service started employing chaplains from other faiths.

The ones this affected most were Muslim chaplains, because unfortunately we have quite a few Muslim prisoners. At the moment the prison population is about 86,000, and we have about 10,600 Muslim prisoners, which is about 12.8% of the population. There are many factors behind that. One is the number of prisoners who convert inside, another is the number of foreign nationals we have, and the last is the fact that the majority of prisoners are young combined with the fact that 50% of the UK Muslim community is below 25 years of age, but also I think another factor is the ease of drug use and abuse among certain communities. I used to be a youth worker in the north of England prior to this job, so I saw from first-hand the effects of that.

So we have a team which is diverse: you have Muslim chaplains, Christian chaplains- including Free Church, Roman Catholic, Anglican - you have Jewish chaplains, Pagan chaplains, Rastafarian chaplains: you name it, we’ve got it. It’s determined by need so the numbers will dictate. But the provision and the right is there for any prisoner of whatever faith, to have access to the facilities and resources to allow them to practice their faith. We have recently had a few conferences where we have looked at how other countries manage their extremist prisoners, and we’ve had people from Jordan, Lebanon, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi, and Pxakistan, and when we compare our facilities and our resources, and the basic principles we adhere to in this country, it’s remarkable. Nobody else has it. The fact that it is a basic right, if you go to prison, that part of the makeup of the way you are looked after will be your religious rights, your right to practice your faith, a recognition that faith plays an important part in someone’s life and can be used, God willing, in a good way.

I’ve been to France, Spain and Denmark, and you see quite strong differences. When you go to prison in France it’s illegal to ask somebody what religion they are. I met my counterpart in one of the French jails and I asked him how many Muslim prisoners there were in his prison and he said he had no idea. ‘There’s no way of checking, but I think it’s about 1,800’. That’s a huge number for one prison. So I asked how he got to that number and he said he added all the Alis, Husseins, and so on by surname, and that’s how he determined it!

I was part of a visit to a Madrid prison, where they had the Madrid bombers, and when the prison governor, not realising I was part of the Prison Service delegation and I was involved in chaplaincy, was asked by one of our security governors ‘Do you not have Imams coming in to look after the religious rights of the Muslim prisoners?’ he answered, ‘No, no we do not trust Imams in this country.’ I think it’s different here because for 50 or 60 years we have had a significant Muslim presence in this country.

88 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 89

So the team make-up is very good, there is brilliant camaraderie and they support each other in the statutory duties. Things have changed. When I came into post, I looked at the minutes of the previous four or five years to get an assessment of how things were, and you’d get prisons asking ‘The Eid festival for this month, how do we facilitate that?’ And the answer was ‘there is no Eid for this month.’ ‘Don’t you have twelve Eids in the year?’ ‘No we don’t.’ ‘Oh my goodness what have we been celebrating?’ The prisoners had been telling the governor that there was one every month. Those days have passed, but I did read in one of the minutes a governor asking the Muslim Advisor before me: ‘We’ve managed to source halal chicken but how do we get halal pork?’

I had worked as a youth worker, and I’d worked with ex-offenders, trying to resettle them in their communities. But when I started, I had a totally naïve view of prisons. I remember my first week in Armley, when I was on induction with the Muslim chaplain, I saw a young man, about 20 years old, who came after Friday prayers and said he wanted to speak to the Imam. He broke down in tears, and said he just couldn’t cope. ‘Could you please have a word with my cell mate?’ They share two to a cell and there is no privacy. ‘Every time I go to the toilet he switches off the TV and leans over and I have to put a newspaper around me.’ Such basic things that you don’t think of: lack of privacy and lack of personal space. Things that we take for granted are not there. This dispelled from my mind the picture we get in the media that it’s ‘a cushy number’. It’s quite a harrowing experience, and more harrowing depending on which prison you go to.

The first issue I had to deal with, in my naivety, was when Phil Wheatley, the Director General at the time, sent me down to Channings Wood. They had had a sit down protest after Friday prayers and the men refused to move, because the coffee whitener contained an ingredient, an E number, which could have been derived from non-halal beef or whatever. So I sat down, and they gave me some paperwork, and I went in and there were these 25 men sitting there refusing to get up. I just laid into them, which was not the appropriate thing to do maybe, because I couldn’t grasp it. Hang on, you’re in for murder, you’re in for rape, you’re in for burglary and you’re worried about whether an E number in a coffee whitener is compatible with Islam? Come on, get real! But that just shows you how nuanced things can become in a closed environment. Little things can become a big thing.

We have a council called the Chaplaincy Council made up of all the different Faith Advisers in the Prison Service and we meet every two months, and one of the primary roles is to endorse a chaplain going in to prison. If a Buddhist chaplain is being appointed a prison can’t say: ‘We’ll have Fred: he’s a brilliant Buddhist. I know him.’ He has to go through the Buddhist Adviser who checks his credentials and makes sure he’s good. This is quite important from an Islamic view because we don’t have a hierarchy, a sense of ordination. There’s no structure in that sense. We have to make sure that all the different routes to becoming an Imam are cross checked, that it’s not just somebody off the street. That’s part of our function.

I’ve been in post for about seven and a half, eight years. About five years ago the issue of extremism became a bigger part of my workload, as we have had more terrorist offence related prisoners in, and also as we have got a greater sense of prisoners going towards extremist ideas. We now have 209 Muslim chaplains, of whom about 108, roughly, are employed. When I started it was about 16. So that means that nearly every prison has facilities and resources available to counter whatever needs to be countered’. 89 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 90

Paul Goggins MP then asked Michael Kavanagh if he would like to say something about community chaplaincy.

Michael Kavanagh began: ‘There are a number of community chaplaincy projects across the country. In 2010 they numbered 18. The shape of them varies quite a lot because they tend to be funded by various forms of local trust. So the Swansea Community Chaplaincy may look a bit different from the one associated with Low Newton for example. Their main work ends to be ‘through the gate’ in terms of providing mentoring and support in a variety of ways to people as they are making the journey out.

There is an umbrella body called the Community Chaplaincy Association, which provides some common trained support, and now recording facilities, so that community chaplaincies can record the sort of contacts that they had. During 2010 1,354 ex-prisoners were supported through community chaplaincy teams, which had 50 paid staff and about 500 volunteers. So it’s a really significant resource in various parts of the country and the Community Chaplaincy Association is trying to develop and encourage that in a variety of ways. Some community chaplaincies can be particularly faith based, some are more open to people from a variety of faith backgrounds. Some mentors will recruit from one particular faith community and some from a variety of faith communities. So the texture varies according to context. But the key thing is this idea of support through the gate.

Certainly when I was chaplain for Full Sutton, before I went out to talk to groups like the Mothers Union to recruit them to be prison visitors I used to say to my congregation ‘What do you want me to say? What is the key message you want to get out there?’ And they said again and again ‘We need help being resettled’. That transition from prison is difficult, whether you’ve been in and out and in and out, and have never really built a settled life, or you’ve been in for many years so you are basically institutionalised, the idea of going out into this world that’s changed so much is completely scary. It was that help and support that they said again and again is crucial. One of the options in the new specification for faith and pastoral care is the post of resettlement chaplain. Some prisons want to develop that as an employed post, as a complement for a good community chaplaincy.’

90 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 91

6 March 2012: Public or private sector prisons?

Speakers – from the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge Professor Alison Liebling, Director of the Prison Research Centre Dr Ben Crewe, Penology Director and Deputy Director, Prison Research Centre.

Lord Ramsbotham opened the meeting by recording the group’s deep sadness at the sudden death of its chairman, Lord Corbett, whose moving funeral had been held the previous Friday. There would be a memorial service for him in due course. Robin Corbett had been an inspiring and enthusiastic chairman and Lord Ramsbotham suggested that members of the meeting should stand for a moment’s silence to remember him.

Lord Ramsbotham then outlined proposals for interim arrangements until the group’s AGM in July. The meeting was content that two Vice Chairs, himself and Paul Goggins MP, should share the chairing role until then.

Lord Ramsbotham introduced the speakers for the evening. Professor Alison Liebling was one of the first people he had met when he became Chief Inspector of Prisons. She was then doing some remarkable work studying the relations between staff and prisoners in Whitemoor, and had continued working on these and similar themes at Cambridge ever since. There could be no-one better suited to guide members through the difficult subject of private and public sector prisons. He had remembered entertaining doubts about the private prison sector when he took up his post. However he had been pleasantly surprised by his first inspection of Doncaster, where he found both conditions, and staff treatment of prisoners, exceeded his expectations. The prison’s director had told him that, as an ex- governor in a public sector prison, he was now free to do all those things his previous post had rendered impossible.

So we would hear first from Alison Liebling and then from her colleague, Ben Crewe.

Alison Liebling began by thanking the meeting for its kind invitation to talk about this complex topic. She said she would make a 25 minute introduction, inviting Ben to chip in as he wished, as they were still working together on the material. She continued: ‘We change our minds sometimes about the stance we want to take but we think the findings are very clear. We are going to talk about the specific study which we finished last year. We have encountered private sector prisons in lots of our research topics, and we couldn’t help noticing that there were some significant differences. There hadn’t been, until that point, any systematic or independently funded evaluation or comparison of public and private sector prisons (with the exception of a study she had been involved in at Wolds, with colleagues from Hull), despite the fact that it said in the legislation that private sector prisons were being introduced as an experiment. We had to apply to the ESRC for funding and tried to do the research in as systematic a way as possible, using carefully developed methods that would ensure there was some kind of objectivity. We tried to stand outside the various ideological debates about public versus private prisons, and apply our interest about what goes on in prison to these institutions. There’s a hand-out and I’m going to talk my way as briefly as possible through it. We are very happy to make the handout available to anyone who wishes to see it.

91 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 92

I’ll just say a brief word about what we did. It was an independently funded 30 month study. We knew this was a sensitive topic, both politically and operationally, so we decided to try to veer towards the high performance end in both sectors. We wanted to try to choose establishments that we could match. We stuck to the adult male establishments because it was too complicated to do anything else, and we decided to pick a local and a training prison in each sector. So what you see on the first slide is the four original establishments in the study: Forest Bank, which we matched with Bullingdon, both local prisons, one private and one public, and Dovegate and Garth, both Category B training prisons, one private and one public. We took a lot of advice on which establishments to choose, how comparable they were, etcetera. They were all reasonably modern buildings, because we thought that if we were going to compare the quality of public and private sector delivery, there was no point in comparing say Wandsworth or Wormwood Scrubs with a new building.

As soon as we got into the field we found out that our two private prisons were not as good as we were expecting, or had been informed. So although we had ruled out Altcourse because it was famously the most expensive contract – we didn’t think it would be representative of the private sector – the prisoners talked about Altcourse and Lowdham Grange so positively that we couldn’t resist adding them in to our study. Prisoners kept saying ‘They are really good. You should go and have a look at what’s going on there.’ So we did.

Rye Hill was added in because it was going through a rectification process. It was officially ‘in trouble’, so we were requested by the OCP to include Rye Hill in the study to evaluate its quality as it came towards the end of that process. So in the end we have a slightly unbalanced study with two public sector prisons, two matched private sector prisons, and then three additional private sector prisons. We did what we normally do in prisons. We have spent our professional lives trying to learn how to measure the quality of prison life. This has been a very developmental project, very much with the help of staff and prisoners, and using a method that is a slightly unusual appreciative method, to try and identify the sorts of things that should be measured.

On the next slide you have our revised latest fairly comprehensive set of dimensions. We are quite confident that they capture most of the really important things about measuring the quality of prison life as experienced by prisoners – that they represent something of an approximate test of the quality and legitimacy of the inner life of a prison. We have clustered the categories. We have got what we call ‘harmony’ dimensions which are the mainly relational dimensions of prison life; then ‘security’ dimensions; and a set we call ‘professionalism’ which are very important – they sort of bind the relational and security dimensions together; ‘conditions and family contact’; and then ‘wellbeing and development’. We know all of these things matter quite a lot. We’re just showing the gist of it – the headlines - here.

On the next slide we show the dimensions which have the most significant variation between prisons. We are trying not to throw too many numbers at you but if you just look at the list - ‘staff professionalism’; ‘organisation and consistency’; ‘staff-prisoner relationships’; ‘fairness’ and so on - what the numbers tell us is that these things differ very significantly between prisons. There’s a five point scale. Anything above three is a positive evaluation by

92 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 93

the prisoners, but the higher above three the better. Anything below three is negative. What you’ll see is that there are very significant variations between prisons. You’ll also see that some of the scores are very low, so these are the things that prisons don’t find it easy to deliver. I’m telling you all that to help you to interpret the overall results.

The first headline is that the differences within the private sector are so great that we almost abandoned our attempt to compare public with private. What we have done instead is divide the prisons into four quality quadrants, from poor to very good. What you’ll notice is that the private prisons are both at the bottom and at the top end of that quality spectrum. This has been found before, it’s what the National Audit Office found when they did their review of performance, that when private sector prisons are good, they are very good, and when they are bad they are very poor. So Dovegate and Rye Hill are the ‘poor’ private sector prisons. The next quadrant is ‘average’. We called Forest Bank average because, at the time we measured it, it looked like most prisons look, on our view – a typical prison. Bullingdon and Garth we’ve categorised as ‘good’: they were good public sector prisons. Lowdham Grange and Altcourse, two of the new private sector prisons we added in, were in the top quadrant: ‘very good’. Prisoners were right: they were outstanding in all sorts of ways.

All you have to note, really, is the shape of this figure. What it tells you is that very few of the dimensions that matter make it over the threshold. Only the dimensions as evaluated by our randomly selected prisoners that make it over that ‘3’ threshold appear in the figure. So we have only included things that are positively scored. If we move from ‘poor’ to ‘very good’, what you’ll see in the two poor private sector prisons is that very little is there. That means that these prisons were not delivering the things that really matter, when we are talking about prison quality. So ‘respect/courtesy’ is there but at a very low level. 3.01 is really a neutral score, not a positive score, and prisoners were really talking about staff being polite. So in these slightly chaotic, inexperienced private prisons, staff were quite nice, quite benign, but they weren’t delivering much else. There’s a low score for ‘prisoner safety’. In Rye Hill you’ll see ‘care for the vulnerable’, which is about looking after prisoners at risk of bullying or suicide, but again at 3.01. So it barely deserves to be in our figure. Everything is scored positively, so where we have put ‘drugs and exploitation’ that doesn’t mean there are lots of drugs and exploitation – it means the opposite. Prisoners are saying ‘Staff are in control here. They are doing everything they can to stop drugs coming in. Prisoners are prevented from exploiting each other.’ But basically that’s all there is of all of our 21 or so dimensions that matter.

When we move into the next quadrant, Forest Bank, ‘staff prisoner relationships’ appears, and ‘staff professionalism’ for the first time. This is about staff confidence and competence in the use of authority. This includes items like: ‘staff in this prison have enough experience and expertise to do things that I need them to do.’ So it’s about staff being competent and engaging with prisoners in a way that exerts a certain amount of authority in the prison. And you’ll see that the score on ‘prisoner safety’ is higher at Forest Bank. What you’ll notice is that there is a cumulative effect here. Once a prison has accomplished ‘respect’ and ‘prisoner safety’ and ‘care for the vulnerable’, they appear in the next quality column, usually at a higher level, and other things build on those basic foundations.

Where this all becomes really interesting is that if we go to Bullingdon and Garth, the two good public sector prisons, here we are getting slightly higher scores on ‘staff professionalism’ and we are getting a dimension called ‘policing and security’. What this 93 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 94

means is that prisoners are saying ‘staff are policing the wings. This is a reasonably secure prison. Authority is flowing from the right place.’ And for the first time in Garth we see ‘personal development’ which is a really important dimension.

It’s not until we get to the two outstanding and unusual private sector prisons where we get, not everything, but a lot more. ‘Staff professionalism’ – the scores are going up – ‘prisoner safety’, ‘policing and security’, ‘personal development’ and for the first time ‘wellbeing’. Wellbeing is significant because it is the opposite of distress. We have shown in previous research using these measures that the higher the levels of distress among prisoners, the more likely those prisons are to have suicides. Prisons with lower levels of distress, or higher levels of wellbeing, tend to be prisons where prisoners are engaged in offending behaviour programmes, personal development projects and so on. So our interpretation of this figure, apart from noticing that the private sector is very varied – at their best they are able to deliver something that seems hard to deliver in the public sector – is that it raises questions about the ’rehabilitation revolution’, if it is only in three out of seven prisons that prisoners are describing the experience of imprisonment as an experience that involves them being able to plan for their future, think about their personal development, engage in offending behaviour courses and so on. So this is quite important. That’s headline one.

Moving on to the next slide, the dimension of personal development has become of real interest to us in this study. We describe ‘personal development’, based on what the prisoners have said, as ‘an environment that helps prisoners with offending behaviour, preparation for release, and the development of their potential’. And where the prison is scoring reasonably high on personal development, it means the prisoners are agreeing, or strongly agreeing, with these sorts of items: ‘My needs are being addressed in this prison’; ‘I am encouraged to work towards goals and targets’; ‘I am being helped to lead a law- abiding life on release’; ‘every effort is being made by this prison to stop offenders committing offences on release’. Our hypothesis, and we have got good evidence to support this, is that this dimension works in the same way as the distress dimension did in the suicide prevention study, that if prisoners are saying yes to all of these items they really do stand more chance of doing better when they are released. We are getting increasingly interested in the concept of personal development as described by the prisoners. And one of the things they are saying is that in chaotic prisons, like Rye Hill and Dovegate, they are in survival mode, and so preoccupied with getting through the day, staying safe, and manoeuvring their way to getting their basic entitlements, that they are not thinking about their futures. They are just getting through the day.

So if we go back to the figure, it is quite important to understand why personal development is the last thing to emerge. Basically a prison has to be respectful, safe, and caring for the vulnerable. Staff have to be professional, delivering help and assistance to vulnerable individuals, doing policing and security well, and there has to be organisation and consistency (some people call these the hygiene dimensions). These are the things that only appear in the very best prisons. It’s only in those circumstances that prisoners are experiencing personal development. That’s headline two.

What we have done with this data, because it’s all standardised, we’ve put personal development into a regression analysis, and then looked at which of the dimensions in our

94 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 95

overall study are explaining its emergence. Basically this is saying: what are the most important dimensions of prison life if you are interested in maximising personal development? And what we found is that five key dimensions explain most of the variation in levels of personal development. These are: Humanity, that means an environment characterised by kind regard and concern for the person; Staff Professionalism, staff confidence and competence in the use of authority; Help and Assistance, which is support and encouragement with problems, including drugs, healthcare and progression; Organisation and Consistency, which is the clarity, predictability and reliability of the prison; and finally a dimension we have called Bureaucratic Legitimacy, which is the transparency and responsivity of the prison system. What this means is that prisoners understand their sentence and they know how to work their way through it; they understand the decision making, how to get on the right courses, and staff are able to translate some of that into meaningful conversation.

So we think we know from this analysis what a reasonably good prison looks like, and when we compare prisons we find that they are very varied in their performance and on a very wide spectrum, with quite serious implications for outcomes for prisoners.

Headline two is that even in the very best private prisons we have seen a consistent area of weakness, which is to do with the use of authority. So in Lowdham Grange and Altcourse, the one area where these prisons did not outperform the good public sector prisons was in policing and security, drugs and exploitation, and the use of authority. So what we are seeing in the private sector – to talk in shorthand - is a slightly lax or permissive model of order, a bit reminiscent of old style dispersal prisons. Some of you will know exactly what I am saying. Power is not always in the right places. Because staff in private sector prisons are inexperienced, few in number, and professionally not that powerful, they can disproportionately tend to work to a slightly naïve and permissive model of order (this is not unseen in some public sector prisons, but here we are talking from the findings of this study in particular). There are a few quotes from prisoners here, illustrating that point. Prisoners complain that staff don’t use their authority properly, they are a bit permissive, they don’t know where the boundaries are, and so on. So one of our emerging conclusions is that there is a hidden strength in the public sector which is not acknowledged in the debate about public versus private sector prisons, and this is that when staff in the public sector get it right, which they don’t always, they can use their authority in a very professional and competent way, and prisoners appreciate that. It sometimes means prisoners have better and more constructive experiences in traditional professional public sector prisons than they do in slightly permissive private sector prisons.

I know I am talking about a lot of complex material in a very shorthand way, but that’s the gist of it so far. Our next slide illustrates this: it’s all there in the figures. Altcourse was significantly better than Lowdham Grange as a prison. It stands out a mile, and we think we have learned a lot about why this is. We think it was about leadership and the way Altcourse opened, not just about finances. But when we look at the policing and security dimensions, and it matters as much to the prisoner to be in a prison that is secure and safe as it does to be treated with respect, it’s the public sector prison, Bullingdon, that comes first, out- performing the private sector. So in the briefest way possible, what we are arguing is that there are some simplistic arguments being heard in this debate, there is an assumption

95 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 96

sometimes that private is better. We think prisons are more complicated than that, and it is quite important not to overlook this professional authority work that traditional public sector prison officers can do at their best. They often get it wrong too, and veer towards the heavy and oppressive use of authority, but it is the case in almost all aspects of prison work that the ‘right place to be’ is often quite close to the ‘wrong place’. We have spent the day in Wormwood Scrubs and this has influenced our mood. We have come back feeling a bit miserable because we have spent the day in focus groups with somewhat disaffected prison officers and it was not the kind of conversation we wished it had been.

We have tried on our last slide to conceptualise all this. We said to ourselves, if we were dropped into a private sector prison blindfold, and someone took the blindfold off, we’d know we were in a private prison in a second, whether it was high or low performing, because private sector prisons have a very distinctive lightness about them. When you go into a public sector prison there’s a heaviness. We have tried to conceive this along an axis, heavy to light. Then we have got ‘absent/present’, by which we mean whether or not staff are engaging with prisoners. We have tried to put all the prisons we’ve been doing research in recently in this model, to try and articulate some of the features of public versus private prisons that we think we have found. What we think we are arguing is that private sector prisons tend towards the naïve-permissive, light/absent, ie staff tend to stay a little bit back from the prisoners, they slightly under-enforce the rules, they are more powerless in lots of ways, so that there is a slightly naïve-permissive, or at best powerless-professional culture or atmosphere in private sector prisons. The public sector prisons on the other hand tend towards the heavy/oppressive end of a use of authority spectrum. The right place to be, the ideal model, would be in the empty quadrant, what we are calling present-light, and we have seen staff do this in some places at some times, where staff are just unobtrusively, but in a very confident way, making sure that they are the ones in charge. They have relationships with prisoners, but they are relationships with power flowing through them. We think that the public sector can do that, and are more likely to do that, than some private sector establishments. But that is not to say that you can’t hold Altcourse up and say that is probably the closest we have seen in the private sector to that sort of traditional- professional model.’

Ben Crewe added: ‘One of the other things that we are saying is that there are some risks in re-modelling the public sector prisons to look like private sector prisons, because what might be lost are precisely those strengths that are fairly unrecognised at the moment: things to do with having experienced staff who use their authority carefully, judiciously, and wear it fairly lightly. That’s something that’s at risk of disappearing.’

Alison Liebling continued: ‘Having gone to Wormwood Scrubs today there is a frustration in talking to prison officers who don’t work to the traditional professional model. The private sector staff are inexperienced but they are also much more enthusiastic about notions of rehabilitation. They believe in prisoner change, and they are not cynical. They are a breath of fresh air at one level. But they are not so good at the professionalism/authority aspects of their job.

What we have studied has been what we’ve called phase two privatisation, which has been about new private prisons. We are now in phase three, which is existing public sector prisons going over to the private sector. We are obviously watching this with real interest.

96 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 97

Some of the staff at Birmingham, who have been present at presentations on this research, have bought the argument that they could combine the strengths of the public and private sectors. They have got the experience and they have now got a private sector company managing them. It’s possible that they could try and bring off the strengths of both sectors. But they could also combine the worst aspects of both sectors. So we are watching developments with interest.’

97 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 98

98 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 99

24 April 2012: Working in prison

Speakers: Eoin McLennan-Murray, President, Prison Governors Association PJ McParlin, National Chairman, POA

Lord Bradley opened the meeting, explaining that he had been asked to chair the session in the absence of the Co-Chairs. He was very pleased to welcome the speakers, Eoin McLennan- Murray, and PJ (Peter) McParlin, and invited them to address the meeting.

PJ McParlin said that he would begin, but first he wanted to thank the meeting for inviting them both to offer their insights on working in prison. He continued: ‘You see before you an unusual sight – the POA national lead and the PGA lead on the same platform, singing from the same hymn sheet, supporting the concept of working in prisons. That might come as a surprise to you, and I’m sure it would to many of our members. So don’t tell them that you have seen us. We had a rather tempestuous history in the past, before I was chairman and before Eoin was president, and we have some history to get over. But we’re going to try and get over that together. And if we disagree on some issues we hope we’re big enough and ugly enough to say, well, we disagree, and move on. It’s a new working relationship, and we are there together, partners in the criminal justice system. And I think that’s what’s necessary.

When I’ve finished, Eoin will give you an overview of working prisoners from the perspective of the person in charge. Because it will be prison governors who have to source contracts, follow directives from the centre, overcome practical obstacles, and create the working prison. It seems to us that prison governors, who are more used to having a degree in criminology, will have to have an MBA in the future. How that marries together will be interesting to say the least. Eoin will also discuss incentives for the workers – I am not talking now about my members, but about the prisoners – and he will also touch upon reparation for the victims. But I’ll just give you an overview, as an introduction.

I’m sure that everyone in this room will be aware that prisons have always been places of work and endeavour, and prison rules require prisoners to engage in ‘useful work’ and on occasion privileges can be used to encourage compliance in that useful work. No-one is compelled as such to work, and many do not, because the opportunities for work simply don’t exist. As we all know, although there is some very good work being done in prisons, in most cases prisoners are released still unprepared for work in society. Sections of the popular press, and indeed some commentators, seem to hanker for the days of work in prison when it was treadmills, and breaking up boulders in Dartmoor-esque quarries, overseen by brutal warders.

In reality, prisons have been known in the past for a variety of work. There have been productive farms and gardens, although I am afraid those have been reduced in number over recent years. There has been this need to make savings throughout the estate and they have been sold off. There has also been a variety of what I would describe as mostly low-grade, repetitive, menial work in workshops, such as brush shops making shaving

99 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 100

brushes, or packaging a variety of goods. Alongside that there has been production for prisons, such as furniture for cells, laundry services for prisoners’ clothes, and of course essential jobs such as producing meals for 88,000 prisoners - that’s a bit of a daily miracle in itself - and of course wing cleaning. It’s all done by prisoners. It’s not done by people brought in to do it from the outside.

There have been examples in the past of attempts to put prisons on a commercial industrial footing. Coldingley is an example, and I am sure Eoin will discuss the lessons from the demise of that experiment. There seems to have been a mixed view on why that failed. Was it because the Treasury became involved and wanted their ten penn’orth, or their twenty penn’orth or their forty penn’orth? or was there an issue about human rights for prisoners, who needed to have the rights that ordinary workers have?

In 2005, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee reported that there were 24,000 working places across the prison estate. But in that same report the Prison Service accepted that prison industries had got rather left behind by all the developments in the system. It went on to say that the provision of work was no longer a central part of that system. Education, education, education, drug and alcohol abuse sessions, etcetera. I think that tide is starting to change.

In March 2011, 10,000 prisoners were deployed in workshops and of that 10,000, 161 were women, which seems a remarkably low figure. In addition to that number there were approximately 500 on daily license from open prisons working in the community. I can recall being in Latchmere House when it was open and being somewhat surprised to see a bus driver having his hair cut. And I thought what’s this bus driver doing here? And then I realised this was a prisoner about to go out of the gate and drive the number 39 bus. So that sort of work does take place. Again in 2009-10, according to Hansard, the number of hours per week that a prisoner was working was 11.8. That becomes important when we listen to what Ken Clarke says, that he wants a working week for prisoners of 40 hours. There’s a bit of a distance to travel there.

The case for change, to try this experiment, is easy to make. Obviously there is an annual prison bill of some £3bn. On average it costs £40,000 a year to lock up a prisoner. Then there’s the unacceptably high rate of reoffending. According to the Independent newspaper in 2011, 36% of released prisoners went straight into a job or a training scheme. Encouragingly, of that 36%, only 22% went on to reoffend. They saw that as a success, and of course that compares with the 70% rate of recidivism among those with no employment. To all that, we need to add the intention of the government to save £2bn a year from the penal system by 2014-15.

So what do Ken Clarke and his ministers tell us that they want? They want a full 40 hour working week, across the prison estate. They want it to be meaningful work, with the discipline of regular working hours, and the development within that of new skills to prepare for employment on release. They also want to see reparation to victims, not to individual victims, but money to be put into a general pot, to be distributed as they see fit. They also want prisoners to be able to build up savings for their release. A cynic would say that that would enable them to avoid paying a discharge grant.

100 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 101

Eoin and I were invited in a personal capacity to be members of the Working Prisons Business Advisory Group. On that group are a number of commercial companies. For example, the chief executives of Ford Motor Company, Virgin, Timpsons - many of us will know of their work with prisons - and Amaryllis, a PFI firm. We’ve got to the stage now where there is an official launch scheduled for May in Number 10 Downing Street. There is a sales company called 131 Solutions. (Why? Because apparently there are 131 prisons. That’s not correct – but that’s their working title). The subtitle is: Justice Working for You.

Of course the two big things that prisons can provide for prospective companies are space and labour. There is lots of space in any number of our prisons. It might be restricted in Pentonville, but Lindhome, for example, is absolutely huge. It’s the biggest site of any prison in Western Europe. It’s an old airfield, and the hangars are still there. So space and labour are there, and they are concentrating on those traditional industries, but wanting to put them on a commercial footing: printing, engineering, woodwork, textiles and laundry, no longer for the internal market of prisons but for outside. And we are assured by the captains of industry – that’s how they describe themselves – that the quality is fine.

I started by saying that we are broadly supportive, and we are, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the problems. For example, a full working week is somewhat ambitious. I wish that Ken Clarke had spoken to us before he went out with wanting a full working week. 11.8 hours per week is what it is at the moment. If they had said 20-25 hours, that would have been a more realistic aim, at least initially. Then there are of course some prisoners who will never be able to work, and not because of security risks. There is a lot of good commercial work taking place at Frankland, a dispersal prison, for example. But of course there are prisoners who have mental health issues, and issues of addiction. Then there are the practicalities of prison life. The need for security, and the need to make sure that prisoners can attend for court appearances, for medical, legal and social appointments, for visits, and counselling and so on. As I have mentioned, this is a workforce with a number of dependency issues.

Prisons are not currently structured for a nine to five working operation. Moving the gym, medical facilities, and counselling appointments to the evening, the time when the staffing is at its lowest, would mean the complete reversal of the structure of the current prison service today. And of course within that we have been quite clear that they have to continue with their education services, and their addiction therapy. If you can’t read the safety notice, you are going to have a problem in the commercial factory setting. That’s something that people sometimes don’t think about. If you listen to Dr Mary Harris of the National Grid, which has employed a number of ex-prisoners very successfully, it is very simple. She says she wants somebody who is now safe, and who is literate. That is something we should be able to provide. There is no point in just throwing somebody into a workshop environment with these issues. Work has got to run alongside the addiction therapy and the education services.

And of course, the reason I’m on the advisory group, as a trade union leader, is so that I can liaise with the TUC. It would be a dreadful own goal if the law abiding public outside were going to lose jobs because of this initiative, especially in a recession. And of course that brings in issues of pricing. The TUC are broadly supportive. The government are are now

101 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 102

talking about being able to bring back into prisons work that has been outsourced, for example from Czechoslovakia, because prisoners can do it more cheaply. Fine, however when you look at the issues with regard to Remploy, for example, I am sure the TUC will cast a weather eye on that, and they will be concerned about where we are going. They will want to see a code of practice, and they will want to be able to see, as we do, that prisoners are not exploited. They still have to abide by health and safety legislation, and there has to be a legal framework, and we have to know how prisoners will address their concerns, and be treated with respect, in a commercial working environment. We must be quite clear that this experiment has to be a commercial success. Yes there are social benefits for prisoners and for society, but are they equal to the economic benefits? Britain, the Prime Minister tells us, is open for business. We will all have a view about that. But I will tell you that it would appear that prisons are now open for business. That’s more than enough from me. I will now hand over to Eoin’.

Eoin McLennan Murray began: ‘Before I talk about working in prisons with prisoners, just a bit more about the staff. PJ spoke of how we are working together, and discussing common issues about which both our associations are concerned. The context within which this sits, at the moment, is that the Prison Service itself is restructuring. So working in prisons, for staff, is going to change dramatically. That’s being driven by competition. Prisons are being privatised, and we have to compete with the private sector. As a result of that, new working practices and management structures are coming in. New wage structures are coming in. The biggest change is that the starting salary for new entrant prison officers, since 1st April 2011, has dropped by about £5,000 and is more comparable to what the private sector pays their prison custody officers. Of course, over a fifteen year contract, if you factor in that lower wage bill it makes any public sector bid far more competitive. Managerially, the Prison Service is restructuring all management across the service, and it is slimming down, to mirror, again, what you see in the private sector.

This will be a new area for us. It’s bedding in at the moment. We are just going through the transformation stage as I speak. But that level of change sets up enormous uncertainty among staff. Those prisons that are being competed will often have a surplus of grades. They will have the old management structure. Yet when they go into the competition, they will have to adopt a new structure, either one run by the Prison Service or by the successful winning contractor, and we will have surplus staff. If we retain the prison, the surplus staff will be protected in employment. If we lose the prison the surplus staff will face redundancy. So that’s the uncertainty many of our colleagues are facing. And it isn’t an even uncertainty across the country. In certain parts of the country it’s exacerbated; in the North East of England for instance it’s really dire. In the South East, and in London, it’s not a problem. But that is the backdrop to the emotional state of prisons at the moment, with all these changes going on.

Looking at work in prisons as far as prisoners are concerned, as PJ has very eloquently said, that stems from the green paper, Breaking the Cycle. Prisons are going to be places of hard work and discipline. We don’t actually disagree with that. There should be good constructive work in prisons. We know that if prisoners have employment skills and can get employment on release it reduces the likelihood of them reoffending. That has to be a worthwhile objective, and it is one which the government recognises. So in order to get more prisoners into a position where they could gain work, we have to change our whole culture in prisons.

102 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 103

We have in the past seen work as an activity, something to occupy prisoners during the day, because idle hands, as they say, make work for the devil. We have to change from seeing work as an occupation to seeing it as a commercially viable activity which would generate an income. The whole prison regime will have to change to accommodate that.

So where are we now? The figures I have are slightly different from PJ’s. We’ve got 400 workshops at the moment, which employ 9,000 prisoners. Within those workshops the average hours are around 22 per week. I think the 11.8 hours that PJ mentioned is if you looked across the whole estate and averaged out what prisoners were doing, in terms of time out of cell. At best, some of our workshops are doing 33-35 hours per week. They tend to be in the less secure prisons where there is greater flexibility, and the governors have more scope to run a fuller regime. Our local prisons have the poorest figures. They are lucky to reach mid-teens in terms of activity hours and workshops in the week. So it’s a real stretch to go from 14 or 15 hours in a prison like Wandsworth up to 40 hours a week. In fact it’s impossible in Brixton, which doesn’t have any workshops at all. The service is so disparate that it seems madness to us to have a one-size-fits-all policy. It’s just not going to happen.

Really the only way this proposal can be successful is if it’s done in certain parts, and to a certain degree. There are some prisons which can accommodate longer working hours, have the space and have the capacity to meet the needs of industry. But some of our inner city locals are so packed, so old, and have such poor infrastructure that you are just not going to be able to develop to a state where you can run any financially viable enterprise. And those are the prisons that hold the section of the population, the short termers, who create the most offending, and are responsible for the highest re-conviction rates. Ironically, they are the people we should be targeting to try and inculcate work skills, to reduce their levels of reoffending. But these proposals will probably not be able to achieve that at all. I suspect we will be concentrating on those prisoners who serve longer sentences, and who tend not to reoffend so much. They are the population who I suspect will benefit from this working in prison scheme, while the people who really need it most of all are going to be left behind.

The big prison industries that we have, as PJ said, are laundry, printing, furniture engineering, and textiles. Just to give you some idea, the turnover is about £36m a year. The plan is to increase that to something like £60m, and they want to do that within the next four years. They plan to do that by extending the length of the working week. This is all being done, not with more resources being given, but with resources being taken away: the £2bn savings that PJ spoke about. So the money has to come from private enterprise. That’s the only way that it can be funded. If you are going to extend the working week you are going to need to employ more staff to supervise it. Or you are going to have to restructure your regime, so that you close down some bits and allow other bits to expand. That would be quite a managerial challenge, and the detail hasn’t yet been worked out.

If you just increase your staffing, and you can pass that cost on to someone who is investing in your prison, that would be the best scenario. But if they want to make a profit, and you are going to buy in extra staff and put in infrastructure, those are heavy overheads. So, for the prisons where it will be viable, there will have to be an investment made by the company

103 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 104

to ensure the numbers stack up. And if the numbers don’t stack up it isn’t going to happen, because private business isn’t out to make a loss. They want to make money. They also want to create new business opportunities. As PJ said, we’ve got space, and we’ve got labour. So what they are hoping for is that a company will come and say ok we want to take over that hangar at Lindholme, we want to invest in it and put in some capital equipment, we want to employ a number of prisoners, we want to produce a product and we want to sell it. And we will fund all of that. If that’s what they can do, that’s wonderful. Everyone wins in that situation. However, as I said, not every prison could accommodate that kind of approach.

There are other initiatives whereby we will just increase the contracts that we currently service. Let’s take laundry as an example. We may be able to provide laundry services for the NHS, or for hotel chains, and bring in those contracts commercially, because our laundries probably don’t work very efficiently. As you can see if we are doing 22 or 25 hours per week, a lot of money goes into laundry equipment. If you run it 24 hours a day you can take in a lot more work. I am sure there is scope for private industries to get involved in using our facilities in what would be down time for us. That might be a way to boost income and also to increase the number of hours that people work.

PJ spoke about the business advisory group that we sit on, and these captains of industry, who are obviously successful in their own fields, will be casting a very watchful eye on the financial viability of some of the schemes that are being suggested. So what’s emerging at the moment? There are certain givens, and the captains of industry have made this quite clear. Industry will pay the market rate for labour. So if you are marketing high quality furniture, and the commercial rate outside is that you pay £25 per hour, that’s what they will pay for every prisoner that they employ. That’s not to say that the prisoner would get that amount of money, because what is envisaged is that the prisoner would get an allowance. That hasn’t been set yet, but it’s likely to be in the order of £20 to £25 per week. The additional money that is being paid to the prison for the prison labour, and for renting the facilities, would go to cover the additional costs of that undertaking, because it is anticipated that the security and accessibility of the prison will add on-costs for any outside contractor, and therefore they could be reflected as legitimate costs to come off the bottom line. So the idea is that there should be sufficient income generated to pay the prisoners, and to provide for a rehabilitation fund for the prisoner, for his eventual release, as well as a fund for reparation to victims. That would go to a charity like Victim Support.

The Minister is clear that it has to ‘wash its own face’. There can’t be a cost. It has to at best be cost-neutral, and that would include, of course, the contractor making some profit. There are some issues that it throws up. The Treasury will take the view that, if you are earning an income in a state-funded prison, then that money should come back to the tax-payer, or off- set the cost of running that prison. So the MoJ will have to square with the Treasury some flexibility about whether they can keep that money, because it should go back to the public purse. That’s a battle that has yet to be fought.

From September last year, a new scheme was brought in for prisoners who are working currently for real wages outside, on temporary release, whereby their earnings are not paid to the prisoner any more, but are paid to NOMS, into a shared service centre. The prisoner then pays national insurance and tax. His or her net income is then reduced by a further

104 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 105

40% and that money goes to Victim Support. There is no rehabilitation fund for these individuals. PJ spoke about incentives, and I can best illustrate this with a case example. If you’ve got a man from a place like Blantyre House, working in London for a little above the minimum wage, he has to fund his own transport into London. A season ticket from Staplehurst to London is something like £4,500 a year. He pays tax and national insurance. What he’s left with, if you reduce it by a further 40%, gives him a level of income which he could almost earn if he stayed in a prison workshop. So there is a big question about whether you can incentivise prisoners to work if they don’t see that there’s anything in it for them. There is currently no rehabilitation fund for the prisoner, and what he is left with is not sufficient to make provision for his future accommodation needs. So in some ways the objective of helping prisoners resettle and steer away from crime is being undermined by the very policies we are now following.

Another interesting issue which might arise is this: what is the position with industry in privately managed prisons? Are they going to be subject to the same restrictions? Will the Treasury have the same view about money that they make as profit? I don’t think that will be the case. So I think there are a number of things that have yet to be thought through here, and the government should think very carefully about making statements that are so generalised about what they are going to do across the prison estate, because it’s not really going to be achievable. As PJ said, in broad terms we very much support these proposals, in terms of increasing work in prisons, and improving prisoners’ chances of successfully resettling, but we have got to be realistic about it, and it has got to be done in a way that is practical and will work. What concerns us is that the rhetoric will create an expectation that the reality will not be able to deliver. We will caution them about that. I’m going to stop there because there may be some questions about some of the detail’.

105 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 106

106 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 107

15 May 2012: Youth Justice Board

Speaker : Frances Done CBE, Chair, Youth Justice Board for England and Wales With John Anthony, Youth Justice Board

Paul Goggins MP opened the meeting, by saying what a pleasure it was to have Frances Done with them. He said that at every meeting that week he had returned to a theme common to those supporting the same football team. He thus introduced the speaker by saying that one of her previous roles had been as chief executive of the organising committee for the seventeenth Commonwealth Games, which had taken place in the magnificent surroundings of the Manchester City stadium, now known as the Etihad Stadium, which had reached global prominence earlier that week. Frances Done had gone on to make such a great contribution in her work at the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and he knew that members of the meeting would be very interested to hear what she had to say.

Frances Done began by agreeing that she had felt very proud watching the team as they had arrived at Manchester Town Hall, although she herself supported Plymouth Argyle. It had been wonderful to see the stadium, which she would go on calling the City of Manchester Stadium, so vibrant. She continued:

‘I am really pleased to be here. What I thought I’d do is give a brief introduction under four headings. Firstly: general progress and challenges. I’d like to talk briefly about the resettlement work that the YJB is leading – though bear in mind that everything we do is done in partnership with the whole of the youth justice system. I want to talk briefly about the youth justice custody pathfinder schemes which are really exciting. They involve payment by results but are very much in the grain of what we have been trying to do for some time. And then just a couple of minutes about some schemes that are really quite important. It’s particularly interesting that Lord Bradley is here because the youth justice liaison diversion scheme around mental health is a really important scheme with vast potential for the future. Then finally just a few minutes about post-18 work, and the things we are doing to look at the transition of young people out of the youth justice system.

Just in terms of general progress: it’s always very difficult to say in youth justice that things are going well, because obviously things happen every day that are not going well. Things happen that are really damaging to victims and to young people. But generally speaking the progress is being maintained, despite the real challenges about budgets and all the things that the Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) are facing. I think that is because basically the system has matured, and there is a very strong understanding of what we need to do to keep the progress going. So the first time entrant figures are still coming down, and as for the reoffending rate, although the headline rate has gone up, the real reoffending rate which is based on comparisons between comparable young people and offences is still going down. The custody numbers are at their lowest ever levels since accurate records were kept. We are now down to1804 young people in custody, I think, in March. That’s really encouraging, because the whole aspiration we have, of course, is to ensure that no young person goes into custody if it is possible and practical and appropriate for a community sentence to be given by the court. So all those things are encouraging but we all know that there are huge issues in our communities still and we need to do a lot better.

107 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 108

One of the things we have been concentrating on really hard in the last couple of years is resettlement, with a view to reducing reoffending, and supporting young people at the time when they probably need it most, when they come out of custody. And what that means, obviously, is concentrating on helping young people get back to school, or training or a job, helping make sure they have a good housing situation – they are not sofa surfing, or on the streets even, as some children are when they leave custody – and making sure that they have some personal support. Because although those other two factors are the key, if they don’t have anyone to help them on a day to day basis, to support them, or be bothered about them, or care about them, then they will revert back to the groups where they feel comfortable. And usually that’s an offending group.

So we started in the North West and we invited chief executives from local authorities into a young offender institution just to see whether it would make any difference. And it did. We got nine out of ten chief executives from the Greater Manchester area, and nine out of ten children’s services directors, all on the same day, into Hindley Young Offender Institution and the impact was amazing. They hadn’t really understood before that there were 250 of their young men in Hindley. From then on, the whole idea of resettlement took off. So now we have a whole group of YOTs working together, working with the young people who have got detention and training orders, as soon as they come in, on what their resettlement plans will be. We are working with third sector organisations, Construction Youth Trust, Princes Trust, Catch 22, any organisation locally that is prepared to be part of it. The third sector is dong a fantastic job, because they can often provide services in a way that is much more flexible, much more sensitive than the more formal local authority services.

We have now got that set up in seven different areas of the country, with different groups of local authorities, all at different stages, and the results are really encouraging. I can’t give you official results because we have to wait until we have the elapsed time reoffending rates properly measured by the Ministry of Justice and I don’t want to pre-empt any of that because it would be wrong to do so. But on the ground, you’ll find that the groups of local authorities are really encouraged by the results into what impact this is having on whether children go back into custody; whether they reoffend; and if they do, how often they reoffend. That is really important because there is a victim for every crime, so if you reduce the number of crimes you reduce the number of victims. There is also a scheme still going in Feltham, the Heron Unit, which will finish in the autumn. It has offered very intensive support for young people, and has gone very well too, although it was a much more expensive model.

I think the sign that this is going in the right direction is that when we have talked to the local authority consortia about not being able to carry on supporting the project manager posts we put in to start with, to help them get going, we have found that the groups of local authorities have been prepared to cough up the money themselves. That’s what we want, not just so that we can pull the money out, but because we want these things to sustain themselves, and to be run locally, and that’s been very encouraging. It has also driven more cooperation between local authorities and YOTs on other issues as well, so it’s drawn them together in other ways and made it more likely that good results will be had.

Just to say about the youth justice custody pathfinders – a bit of a jargon title. What we have been doing for the last four years is trying to talk to local authorities about the potential for them to hold the custody budget. At the moment we hold it in the YJB. It comes from the

108 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 109

Ministry of Justice. It’s a large budget; at the moment it’s running at about £230m a year, which is a lot of money for a relatively small number of children. We have always believed that if that money was held by local authorities, and they had to pay the bill, there would be a great incentive for them to invest up front in young people, well before they become extremely expensive, not just in money but in terms of the damage they do. Local authorities were not very keen on that to start with, but over the years we have been talking it through, and getting them much more involved obviously around resettlement, and bit by bit they have come round. There are always arguments about how we’ll do it, and how much everyone is going to get, but there’s a general understanding now that this is the right thing to do. As from next April, following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, the cost of secure remands will transfer to local authorities. That’s a relatively small sum of money, £25m a year, but local authorities know that later on there will be devolution of the whole budget. The focus that we’re getting from local authorities, with this coming up, is very significant and therefore we are already getting better results, and more efforts to keep people out of secure remand, and we expect that to continue. So that’s all going in the right direction.

On the pathfinders, when we asked for four areas to try out a deal whereby we would give them money up front to invest in services, and they would commit to a reduction in custody numbers, we got twelve groups of local authorities volunteering. I thought that was amazing. I thought we might not get four, but we got twelve groups and we were able to choose four: four boroughs in West London, seven boroughs in East London, Birmingham on its own because it’s very big, and West Yorkshire, and they are all working hard on it. A slight fly in the ointment was that they all signed up last April, and then the riots happened in August, which took everyone by surprise. The London groups have been a bit shaken, and Birmingham to some extent, but we have been working with them on that, and things have calmed down, they are still sticking with the plan, and I am optimistic. They are all trying different things. Some of them are investing in well-proven methods like multi-systemic therapy, which is a complicated way of saying working very intensively with families and the young person, which has got a proven effectiveness, in terms of scientific evidence. Some of them are concentrating on improving the relationships with the Crown Court, where the serious offences are dealt with, some of them are doing much more work on triage, stopping young people coming in earlier on, and making sure they don’t end up in custody. Whatever they do, it’s all about focusing on the particular young people they know are at risk, and that’s what we wanted. We don’t know the results of that yet, but I would be very surprised if they didn’t turn out to be successful. But anyway, on the way we are learning an awful lot about what is working in certain areas, and we bring these four areas together every four or five months and they all share their experiences and then they go away and think about whether they can try something that has been tried elsewhere.

I just wanted to say something about the new diversion schemes. Since the Bradley review, the Department of Health have really invested heavily in the whole idea of trying to identify vulnerable young people (and adults) at the point of arrest. To make sure that rather than just going through into the system and getting charged, there is a real consideration of exactly what is affecting this young person, and what mental health needs, what learning disability, or speech language and communication needs they may have. The vast majority of young people that we deal with at the more serious end have got these needs in various combinations, and it’s about trying to work that out right at the beginning, using health professionals at the point where they can talk with the police and the YOT about what the charge should be if there is one, and if there isn’t a charge, then what other action should be taken. Again, this is looking

109 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 110

really encouraging. Although it costs millions and millions of pounds, when you think what happens if you don’t address issues at the right point, then it’s relatively small beer really. There’s a commitment, subject to the evaluations, to roll this out across England and Wales, by 2014. Given the pressures there are on budgets, it’s really important that there is commitment to do this really positive work.

Then the final thing, which is a bit close to my heart: I have felt ever since I came in 2008 that there was a whole area of work that YJB was not addressing well enough, not because we didn’t bother, but because there were so many other things to concentrate on. But I think the maturity of the YJ system now has got to a point where we have to focus on what happens to young people of 17 as they go into the adult system. The answer is that for many of them it is like literally falling off a cliff. Because we hone down the way we deal with young people to the extent that they get a great deal of support. The support the YOTs give is very directly related to their need and the risks that they pose. But they can easily at 18 if they are in the community transfer to probation, with probation having no obligation to do anything to support them at all. That’s not probation’s fault. That’s just the set-up that probation has. Also in custody there are real possibilities that young people, who we have invested heavily in, who are in specialised units, with really good care and support, could be, and are, transferred to prisons where there is no support at all. Obviously we do our best to make sure that doesn’t happen, but that does happen and can happen. And apart from the risk to that young person, there’s the real likelihood that the good work that has been done to date will not be continued, and is therefore lost – or if not lost, then not built on. Probation are as keen as we are to work on this, and we are working together with probation and NOMS and government departments. There is a big programme of work around transferring information properly between YOTs and probation services, by putting it up in a cloud, and then probation can pull it down, and the pilot schemes in London were incredibly well received. When we were turning off the pilots in order to get the MoJ to agree to a longer term scheme, the London YOTs and probation asked us to carry on the scheme, because there is a big issue about transferring information accurately. If you don’t know all that is known about a young person, how can you properly deal with them later on? You can’t possibly. So we are really working hard on that.

We are also working with local probation and YOT groups to try and come up with arrangements to decide which young people really need to carry on with the support they are getting, and how we can do that. This links in with all the work that the Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A) has been doing for a very long time. What we are trying to do is to bring some reality on the ground to all the plans and ideas that those bodies have had. There’s nothing new in all this: we are just trying to do something about it.

Finally we are working with NOMS on trying to get proper agreement as to what happens to young people in custody, and how we make sure that they only ever go into a 18+ custodial institution which can support them properly, and provide for their needs, and their further training and their education. So there’s an awful lot going on. It’s early days on all this but it’s a very important direction of travel, and we are very supportive of all the other agencies that are working on it. I think I’ll leave it there.

I’d just like to introduce you to John Anthony – we’ve changed the name of his post with all the restructuring that has been going on, but I think his title is Head of the London Local Business Area for the YJB, and I know he’d be happy to answer any questions about London.’

110 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 111

19 June 2012: The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman - pursuing fairness and safety in custody in challenging times

Speaker: Nigel Newcomen CBE, The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England & Wales

Paul Goggins MP opened the meeting, by saying what a pleasure it was to welcome the speaker, Nigel Newcomen, who had been in his post for six months. Prior to that, he had been Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons. The meeting looked forward very much to hearing what he had to say.

Nigel Newcomen began by thanking the group for its kind invitation. He had been proud to take up this new role last autumn, after nearly nine years as Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons, and he looked forward to sharing a few thoughts about how he had set about the role, and some of the issues with which he had been grappling. He continued: ‘What I thought I’d do is begin by outlining my vision for my new office in these rather challenging times; touching on one of the big challenges at the moment which is the tragic rise in deaths in prison custody, immigration detention and probation approved premises. Then I’ll touch on the high volume of complaints from those in custody and on probation; I’ll set out a few words on how I hope my office will rise to these challenge; and finally I will say a few words about the need to maintain and, preferably, reinforce the independence of my office.

So, what of my early ambitions for my tenure in these challenging times? To begin with, I am pleased to have inherited a committed and value driven organisation. To reinforce this, one of my first steps has been to ask my staff to revisit our statement of vision and values. The new vision emphasises our independence and my desire to make a significant contribution to safer, fairer custody and offender supervision. I intend the values to drive my staff’s behaviours – which is why they now include an absolute commitment to equality and diversity, both internally and in the agencies we investigate.

Another change of emphasis has been to place greater focus on identifying lessons from investigations and improving dissemination of that learning, so that services are encouraged to improve. This search for improvement is integral to the new vision: investigation is what we do, but I want my office also to contribute to change. Put simply, if I can help the agencies I investigate to learn the lessons of those investigations, this should help avoid the next complaint by remedying the problem at source and helping to prevent avoidable deaths by contributing to safer custody and safer approved premises.

111 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 112

More pragmatically, in these austere times, I have also had to focus on how to sustain and protect the strengths of my office. Unfortunately, as with all public services, considerable efficiencies are required of me (indeed, my budget will reduce by at least 21% by 2015 and I have already lost around 8% of my staff since 2010-11). Having to seek such efficiencies is a familiar story in these challenging times, but my office’s work is demand led and demand continues to grow. Thus in 2011-12 we saw a substantial and tragic increase in the number of deaths that we were required to investigate - and no let-up in the number of complaints we received.

Let me say a few words about deaths in custody. In 2011-12, my office started 229 investigations into deaths in prison custody, immigration detention and probation service approved premises. This is the highest annual figure since the Prison and Probation Ombudsman took on this mournful and onerous responsibility in 2004 - and a 15% rise on the previous year. Indeed, January 2012 saw the highest ever monthly total of deaths in custody (34). Even amongst so many tragedies, one other statistic sticks out: last year saw three apparently self-inflicted child deaths – the first such deaths for 5 years. These are deeply troubling figures. The majority of deaths we investigated were from natural causes: 142 deaths - a rise of 20 on last year. This continues an upward trend over recent years, no doubt reflecting the fact that more prisoners now serve longer sentences, more prisoners are sentenced later in life and some prisoners display significant health deficits. This has led to an aging and ailing prison population. In consequence, the past decade has seen deaths from natural causes replace self-inflicted deaths as the principal cause of death in prison custody.

Unfortunately, the number of apparently self-inflicted deaths also rose last year - to 71, 13 more than the year before and a sharp reversal of the downward trend seen in recent years. The rise in apparently self-inflicted deaths is particularly depressing, reflecting as it does the chronic despair of the individuals concerned, but it is also troubling that prisons are now having to care for an increasing number of people who are growing old and dying in their care.

Each death, of whatever cause, is a source of immense sadness to family and friends - and a reason for reflection in our investigations about what more could have been done to prevent an unnecessary death or to provide better care for the dying. Spotting potential trends and seeking to learn lessons is therefore important. One example, where we spotted an apparent recent trend, was the increased number of fatal incidents in 2011-12 in which the deceased was undergoing methadone treatment in custody and may also have been using a combination of drugs, whether licit or illicit.

I raised my concerns about these drug related deaths, which were shared by a number of coroners, with the Chief Executive of the National Offender Management Service. I am pleased he took the matter seriously and launched his own inquiry. I believe this inquiry was published last week, with a range of actions to address the emerging concerns about methadone related deaths. This is exactly the sort of learning of lessons that I want to encourage and which, I believe, can increase safety in prison.

112 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 113

Moving from deaths to complaints: there has also been no lessening of demand for the other principal part of my remit: the independent investigation of complaints. This is no doubt to be expected, as the number of prisoners continues to rise. Overall, the total number of complaints this year, at around 5,300, was very similar to last year. However, we started 5% more investigations than in the previous year, so there was a significant rise in substantive casework.

Frustratingly for complainants, and wasteful of my office’s scarce resources, around half the complaints received were ineligible under my terms of reference. This was mainly because the internal complaint process of the services concerned had not been exhausted. This suggests that, 20 years after my office was created, understanding of how and when to access the Ombudsman is still sketchy amongst prisoners. This is something I am seeking to address with a new communications strategy. With the prison population at an all-time high, there is no reason to suppose that this volume of complaints will do anything other than rise. It is also entirely feasible that, as greater efficiencies are required of prisons and other parts of the system, so further increases in demand will feed through to my office. At its simplest, if regimes and services are trimmed, detainees and those on probation may simply have more to complain about.

So there are many challenges, but I am convinced that my staff will rise to them. And I am committed to ensuring that the combination of decreasing resources and increasing demand is not allowed to be an excuse for poor service to complainants and bereaved families. My office must strive to improve the quality of its service wherever it can and with whatever resources it has - and I recognise that there is some way to go to deliver the quality of service to which I aspire. For example, timeliness of investigations, particularly into fatal incidents, needs to improve.

In 2010-11, only 14% of draft reports into self-inflicted deaths and only 16% of those into natural cause deaths were produced within our time targets. There was some improvement in 2011-12, with 22% of drafts into self-inflicted deaths and 24% of drafts into natural cause deaths within target - but there is still a long way to go. Unfortunately, much of this delay is outside my control. In particular, I am obliged by my terms of reference always to have a review by a clinician of the quality of healthcare provided to those who die in custody. These reviews are generally commissioned by Primary Care Trusts but they were late in 86% of cases in 2011-12, and this obviously had an impact on the timeliness of my own reports.

A lot of effort has gone into trying to encourage better quality and timeliness of clinical reviews. But, ultimately, this responsibility rests with the NHS and, inevitably given everything else going on in the health service, the issue is a low priority. Although I am hopeful that new national commissioning arrangements for offender health from April 2013 may offer an opportunity to address the matter. Meanwhile, I and my staff will redouble our efforts to improve performance in fatal incident investigations, as delays hinder bereaved families gaining a measure of closure from our investigations and add to the already excessive delays in the inquest system.

113 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 114

Looking inwards for a moment, you can see that the inevitable message to my staff is that we have no choice but to deliver more for less and with fewer staff. Already I have put in place a range of internal reforms, including work to create the type of organisation I need, and can afford, work to re-engineer casework processes and efforts to introduce greater proportionality into our investigations – although, as I will explain, this proportionality must always be tempered by the need for justice and care for bereaved families.

So what do I mean by proportionality? Well, with complaints it means targeting our resources more effectively. I need to ensure we do a first class job in our most serious cases - for example complaints about assaults by staff or about bullying or racism – in other words, cases where there may be most to put right and potentially most to learn. One size of investigation does not fit all. Some simple cases can be dealt with briskly and some mediated between the complainant and the authority. But I will have to decline to investigate complaints where no worthwhile outcome can be achieved or no substantial issue is at stake. For example, we recently received a complaint from a prisoner that his prison had temporarily run out of shower gel and he regarded the offer of soap as an alternative as unsatisfactory. I declined to investigate the matter further.

We will also ensure that we respond proportionately to prolific complainants, so that resources are spread as equitably as possible (in fact, I was surprised to learn that 37 complainants made 20% of all the complaints investigated last year). However, in making any changes, fairness and protection of complainants will remain my touchstone: prisoners have very little and small things can mean a lot. Indeed, as I learned very clearly in the Inspectorate of Prisons, the adding together of small indignities is a very real way in which degrading treatment can manifest itself.

I am also introducing greater proportionality into fatal incident investigations, at least in cases where there are likely to be fewer lessons to be learned. This is clearly delicate, but some deaths from natural causes are reasonably foreseeable and greater standardisation, brevity and expedition may be appropriate. This focus on proportionality will enable me to redirect resources to where our findings can have most impact and offer most learning, for example to enable me - as I recently needed to do - to allocate significant numbers of senior staff to investigate the appalling spate of apparently self-inflicted deaths amongst children. But, again, any changes I make will be sensitive to the needs of bereaved families whose interests must remain central to my investigations.

I would add, that there has been a suggestion that, given scarce resources, I should stop investigating deaths from natural causes altogether. I do not agree: firstly, because Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires the independent investigation of all deaths in state custody. And, secondly, because I believe there is a lot to learn – and improve – about the care of the increasing numbers of prisoners who die of natural causes in custody. My investigations have an important part to play in this.

114 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 115

For example, I have been disappointed that, in a number of recent natural cause cases, I have had to criticise the inappropriate use of restraints on some very elderly and infirm prisoners attending hospital. Prisons are not always getting the balance right between security and humanity in these cases and my investigations will continue to review whether prisoners have been allowed to die with dignity.

Finally, on this whistle-stop tour of my early months in post, let me turn to the key issue of independence. I hope that my lengthy time in the Inspectorate of Prisons has eased my transition into the role of Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. There is much that is similar between the two offices: both are robustly independent and, I believe, respected bodies which report without fear or favour.

As a result, they are both able to carry out crucial work to support fairness and safety in the criminal justice system, and offer a means to reassure the public about the appropriateness of what happens in custody in their name.

However, there are differences, not least constitutional. Thus the Chief Inspector is a Crown appointment and a creature of statute. My role is not on a statutory footing, although I was recruited in line with the public appointment process, confirmed by the Justice Select Committee and have written guarantees of operational independence. I also do not have the legally enforceable powers of access or interview of some equivalent bodies – although I must add that there has never yet been any obstruction to my investigations, but there is no guarantee this will always remain the case. It has been argued that this lack of a statutory basis weakens the visible independence of my office and I agree. Indeed, the Justice Select Committee, when endorsing my appointment, called on the government to “proceed to put the Ombudsman on a statutory basis at an early opportunity”. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Justice has confirmed to me that the government remains sympathetic to finding a legislative slot - although none has yet been found. Meanwhile, I will continue to ensure that my office remains robustly independent of the services I investigate and the departments responsible for them. Anything less would be to diminish the role.

In conclusion, can I say that I am grateful to have been given this opportunity to set out my early ambitions and some of the challenges facing my office. I am convinced my staff and I have an important role to play in pursuing fairness and safety in prison, immigration detention and probation. And I hope there is no doubt about my commitment to robustly and independently pursue this responsibility, even in this particularly challenging time’.

115 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 116

116 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 117

26 June 2012: Fair Access to Justice? Availability of intermediaries for vulnerable defendants

Speakers: Lord Bradley Juliet Lyon, CBE, Prison Reform Trust Jenny Talbot OBE, Prison Reform Trust

Ian Mearns MP opened the meeting by introducing Catherine Stone, Chief Executive of Voice UK. He was glad to report that, although Voice UK had suffered funding cuts, it would still be possible to continue with the APPG, the AGM of which had taken place earlier in the day. He outlined his own long-term interest in this field, from his days in local government in the North-East. He had learned something of the problems, and the animosity, facing those with learning difficulties in gaining access to those public facilities and services others take for granted. He was pleased to introduce the speakers, Lord Keith Bradley and Jenny Talbot, as well as Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust. He also sought the meeting’s understanding about the lack of MPs present, given that afternoon’s business in the House. He also apologised that he had to leave the meeting early to vote.

Lord Bradley began, after thanking the meeting for its invitation to speak at the joint meeting: ‘This meeting has the pleasant duty of launching the PRT’s ‘Fair Access to Justice?’ briefing paper, so brilliantly produced by Jenny Talbot. I am very pleased to be here to give my support to the paper, and to say a few introductory words around its context in relation to my own report on people with mental health and learning disabilities in the criminal justice system.

Just to put the context therefore: as many of you will know I was commissioned to write that report back at the end of 2007 and it was published in April 2009. When I was asked to do that, it was to undertake a very simple and quick review of the liaison and diversion schemes that were in place at that time – there were about 160 of them – and to make comment about how they could effectively be organised, funded and sustained within the criminal justice system. Having looked quickly at them I decided that it would be a missed opportunity simply to review the existing schemes. So with the then government’s agreement I took on a more wide-ranging review to look more broadly at the criminal justice pathway, about where people come into contact with the criminal justice system – that’s principally at the police station – and then what happened to people with mental health and learning disabilities at the police station; if they then Prisoner rehabilitationcontinued (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Pris along the criminal justiceoners Rehabilitation pathway to10/10/2012 court, 16:44what Page sup 118port and help and information flowed from the police station to the court; then if they continued into secure accommodation, again what support and help was given to this group of people in prison or in secure health accommodation. Or if they were transferred either by sentence or by connection with healthcare into the community, how they were tracked into the community and again what support and help was given. Again, when they had completed their time in secure accommodation, how they were then reintroduced back into the community, and what help and support117 was given to them, particularly in terms of support against the threat of reoffending at that point.

So fast forward to when that report was completed and published in 2009. The then government accepted the 82 recommendations I made for change at that time. Then we had a general election and a change of government and there was a job to be done to try and ensure that those recommendations, and related policy documents, such as Jean Corston’s report on women in the criminal justice system, were not lost, and that the implementation programme was continued with the new Coalition Government. I am pleased to say that they again accepted the recommendations of my report, and allocated resources to its implementation. That started off at a fairly modest £5m but is rising all the time because of the efforts of many people in this room and others to ensure that it is kept on the agenda and that there is a momentum behind it.

We hope that over the next two or three years there will be a national roll-out of what I called criminal justice mental health teams to try at the first point of contact with the criminal justice system, principally in police custody, to have the support and help to identify, assess and make the more appropriate decisions about what the right disposal or the right charge should be at that point. For the purpose of today’s meeting, the crucial issue is about what help, support and information flows from that first point of contact at the police station through to the courts, to ensure that vulnerable people, people with learning disabilities, mental health and communication problems are given the best opportunity for a fair trial and the best opportunity to present the evidence that they could give, in that setting.

I just want to refer to three recommendations that I made. The first was that all police custody suites should have access to liaison and diversion services. These services would include improved screening and identification of individuals with mental health problems and learning difficulties, providing information to police and prosecutors to facilitate the earliest possible diversion of offenders with mental disorders from the criminal justice system, and signposting to health and social care services as appropriate. Secondly, liaison and diversion services should also provide information and advice services to all relevant staff including solicitors and appropriate adults. So that was to say that these teams were set up and would have a range of responsibilities, but crucially for those that then moved from police custody, having been charged, into the court setting, that there should be a system of support and help. This should ensure, first of all, that the court staff, the magistrates, the judges if that’s the appropriate setting, had information and knowledge about the needs of the individual, and secondly that solicitors, appropriate adults and intermediaries also had information, at that first court appearance, to enable the right decisions and the right support to be put in place.

The third recommendation I made was that immediate consideration should be given to

118 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 118 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 118

into the community and again what support and help was given. Again, when they had completedinto the community their time and in secure again whataccommodation, support and howhelp theywas given.were then Again, reintroduced when they back had intocompleted the community, their time and in secure what help accommodation, and support washow given they wereto them, then particularly reintroduced in termsback ofinto support the community, against the and threat what of help reoffending and support at that was point. given to them, particularly in terms of support against the threat of reoffending at that point. So fast forward to when that report was completed and published in 2009. The then governmenSo fast forwardt accepted to when the that 82 reportrecommendations was completed I made and forpublished change inat 2009. that time. The thenThen we hadgovernmen a generalt accepted election theand 82 a changerecommendations of government I made and for there change was aat job that to time. be done Then to we tryhad and a general ensure election that those and recommendations, a change of gover andnment related and therepolicy was documents, a job to be such done as to Jeantry and Corston’s ensure that report those on womenrecommendations, in the criminal and justice related system, policy documents,were not lost, such and as that theJean implementation Corston’s report programme on women was in the continued criminal with justice the system, new Coalition were not Government. lost, and that I athem pleasedimplementation to say that programme they again was accepted continued the with recommendations the new Coalition of my Government. report, and I allocatedam pleased resources to say that to its they implementation. again accepted That the started recommendations off at a fairly of modest my report, £5m and but is risingallocated all the resources time because to its implementation. of the efforts of Thatmany started people off in atthis a fairlyroom modestand others £5m to but is ensurerising all that the it time is kept because on the of agenda the efforts and ofthat many there people is a momentum in this room behind and others it. to ensure that it is kept on the agenda and that there is a momentum behind it. We hope that over the next two or three years there will be a national roll-out of what I calledWe hope criminal that over justice the mental next two health or three teams years to try there at the will first be apoint nation ofal contact roll-out with of what the I criminalcalled criminal justice justicesystem, mental principally health in teams police to custody, try at the to firsthave point the supportof contact and with help the to identify,criminal assessjustice system,and make principally the more in appropriate police custody, decisions to have about the whatsupport the and right help disposal to oridentify, the right assess charge and should make bethe at more that appropriate point. For the decisions purpose about of today’s what meeting,the right disposalthe crucialor the right issue charge is about should what be help, at that support point. and For information the purpose flows of today’s from that meeting, first point the of contactcrucial issue at the is police about stationwhat help, through support to the and courts, information to ensure flows that from vulnerable that first people, point of contactpeople with at the learning police disabilities,station through mental to thehealth courts, and tocommunication ensure that vulnerable problems people, are given thepeople best with opportunity learning disabilities,for a fair trial mental and the health best andopportunity communication to present problems the evidence are given that theythe best could opportunity give, in that for setting. a fair trial and the best opportunity to present the evidence that they could give, in that setting. I just want to refer to three recommendations that I made. The first was that all police cI ustodyjust want suites to refer should to three have recommendations access to liaison andthat diversionI made. The servi firstces. was These that services all police wouldcustody include suites improved should have screening access and to liaison identification and diversion of individuals services. with These mental services health problemswould include and learningimproved difficulties, screening providingand identification information of individuals to police and with prosecutors mental health to facilitateproblems the and earliest learning possible difficulties, diversion providing of offenders information with tomental police disorders and prosecutors from the to criminalfacilitate justicethe earliest syste possiblem, and signposting diversion of to offenders health and with social mental care disorders services fromas the criminalappropriate. justice Secondly, system, liaison and signposting and diversion to health services and should social alsocare provideservices information as apprand adviceopriate. services Secondly, to allliaison relevant and staffdiversion including services solicitors should and also appropriate provide information adults. So thatand advicewas to servicessay that theseto all relevantteams were staff set including up and solicitors would have and a appropriate range of responsibilities, adults. So butthat cruciallywas to say for thatthose these that teamsthen moved were set from up police and would custody, have having a range been of responsibilities,charged, into tbuthe courtcrucially setting, for those that therthate then should moved be a from system police of supportcustody, and having help. been This charged,should into ensure,the court first setting, of all, that that ther thee court should staff, be thea system magistrates, of support the judgesand help. if that’s This shouldthe appropriateensure, first setting,of all, that had the information court staff, and the knowledge magistrates, about the judgesthe needs if that’s of the the individual, Prisoner rehabilitationandappropriate (deleted secondly 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Pris setting, that solicitors, had information appropriateoners Rehabilitation and adultsknowledge 10/10/2012 and intermediariesabout 16:44 thePage needs119 also of hadthe individual,information, atand that secondly first court that appearance, solicitors, appropriate to enable the adults right and deci intermediariessions and the also right had support information, to be putat that in place. first court appearance, to enable the right decisions and the right support to be put in place. The third recommendation I made was that immediate consideration should be given to Theextending third recommendation to vulnerable defendants I made was the thatprovisions immediate currently consideration available shouldto vulnerable be given to witnesses. Good work has been done over recent years to ensure that vulnerable witnesses have the best opportunity to provide evidence in court. It seems to me, and 118 Jenny’s report reinforces this message, that defendants who have a range of complex 118 needs should have that same support, to enable them to provide the best evidence possible in court, and that they are provided with appropriate assistance to ensure that that is the case.

Can I also point out the fact that the handling and questioning of vulnerable defendants, such as those with learning and communication disabilities, is a specialist skill? It’s not something that everyone is capable of doing, to support people in the right way. And in fact the UK Joint Committee on Human Rights has particularly raised concerns on this issue, to ensure that they have a fair trial. So our concern is simply about ensuring that all vulnerable people appearing in court have an entitlement to receive the support they need to participate effectively in the process, and to be able to give the best evidence possible to ensure the right outcome in the court. That’s the context in which I set my recommendations. This report now reinforces them, and brings forward more strength to the argument about ensuring that vulnerable defendants have the relevant support.

Finally, one of the key ways in which I gathered evidence for my own report was to have what is now termed a ‘users’ group’ – young people and their families who had been through the criminal justice system, who had been to court, and who then came to talk to me at each stage of the evidence-gathering that I did about their own experiences, and also to test out my recommendations against those experiences. Nothing was more valuable to me than hearing the experiences of those individuals who had come to court because they hadn’t received the relevant support and help they needed, and invariably ended up back in court because they hadn’t been given the appropriate support at that first appearance in the court room. Often they were remanded into custody because they hadn’t been given the right support and help, nor had the sentencers been given the knowledge and information about the needs of that individual. I was hoping that Anthony Fletcher was going to be here, because he was one of those people who gave me that invaluable information. Unfortunately he can’t be here. I think, Juliet, you are going to say a few words around that area. But can I commend this report and wholeheartedly endorse its recommendations.’

Ian Mearns MP thanked Lord Bradley and introduced Juliet Lyon.

Juliet Lyon began by saying how sorry she was that she was not Anthony, as she had always very much enjoyed hearing him speak. She continued: ‘We were very proud that in the work we were doing at PRT, supported by the Princess Diana Memorial Trust, we were able to partner with Keyring, a small organisation which many of you here will know. And it was through Keyring, and the Working for Justice group, that Anthony was able to contribute so well. I can remember one occasion when he was speaking in a meeting like this, and he was asked, ‘what sort of help would have made it easier for you in court?’ Anthony replied, ‘If the judge had been more lenient’. There was a pause

119 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 119 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 119

extending to vulnerable defendants the provisions currently available to vulnerable witnesses.extending to Good vulnerable work has defendants been done the over provisions recent yearscurrently to ensure available that to vulnerable vulnerable witnesseswitnesses. have Good the work best has opportunity been done to over provide recent evidence years to in ensure court. Itthat seems vulnerable to me, and Jenny’switnesses report have reinforces the best opportunitythis message, to providethat defendants evidence who in court. have Ita seemsrange ofto complex me, and needsJenny’s should report have reinforces that same this message,support, to that enable defendants them to who provide have the a range best evidenceof complex pneedsossible should in court, have and that that same they support, are provided to enable with themappropriate to provide assistance the best to evidence ensure that thatpossible is the in case. court, and that they are provided with appropriate assistance to ensure that that is the case. Can I also point out the fact that the handling and questioning of vulnerable defendants, suchCan I asalso those point with out learning the fact andthat communicationthe handling and disabilities, questioning is aof specialist vulnerable skill? defendants, It’s not somethingsuch as those that with everyone learning is capableand communication of doing, to supportdisabilities, people is a inspecialist the right skill? way. It’sAnd not in factsomething the UK that Joint everyone Committee is capable on Human of doing, Rights to has support particularly people raised in the concernright way.s on And this in issue,fact the to UK ensur Jointe that Committee they have on a Human fair trial. Rights So our has concern particularly is simply raised about concern ensurings on thatthis issue,all vulnerable to ensur peoplee that theyappearing have a in fair court trial. have So ouran entitlementconcern is simplyto receive about the ensuring support thatthey needall vulnerable to participate people effectively appearing in inthe court process, have anand entitlement to be able toto receivegive the the best support evidence they possibleneed to participate to ensure theeffectively right outcome in the process, in the court. and toThat’s be able the conteto givext thein which best evidence I set my repossiblecommendations. to ensure theThis right report outcome now reinforces in the court. them, That’s and thebrings conte forwardxt in which more Istrength set my to therecommendations. argument about This ensuring report that now vulnerable reinforces defendants them, and bringshave the forward relevant more support. strength to the argument about ensuring that vulnerable defendants have the relevant support. Finally, one of the key ways in which I gathered evidence for my own report was to have whatFinally, is onenow of termed the key a ‘users’ways in group’ which –I gatheredyoung people evidence and theirfor my families own report who hadwas been to have throughwhat is now the criminaltermed ajustice ‘users’ system, group’ who– young had peoplebeen to and court, their and families who then who came had been to talk tthrougho me at theeach criminal stage ofjustice the evidence-gathering system, who had been that toI did court, about and their who own then experiences, came to talk tando me also at eachto test stage out myof therecommendations evidence-gathering against that those I did aboutexperiences. their own Nothing experiences, was more valuableand also toto metest than out myhearing recommendations the experiences against of those those individual experiences.s who hadNothing come was to morecourt becausevaluable tothey me hadn’t than hearing received the the experiences relevant support of those and individual help theys whoneeded, had andcome invariably to court endedbecause up they back hadn’t in co urtreceived because the they relevant hadn’t support been givenand help the theyappr opriateneeded, support and invariably at that endedfirst appearance up back in in co theurt court because room. they Often hadn’t they been were given remanded the appr intoopriate custody support because at that theyfirst appearancehadn’t been ingiven the courtthe right room. support Often and they help, were nor remanded had the intosentencers custody been because given thethey knowledge hadn’t been and given information the right about support the and needs help, of northat had individua the sentencersl. I was hoping been thatgiven Anthonythe knowledge Fletcher and was information going to beabout here, the because needs ofhe that was individua one of thosel. I was people hoping who that gave meAnthony that invaluable Fletcher was information. going to beUnfortunately here, because he can’the was be oneher e.of I thosethink, peopleJuliet, youwho are gave goingme that to invaluablesay a few information.words around Unfortunately that area. But he can can’t I commend be here. I thisthink, report Juliet, and you are wholeheartedlygoing to say a few endorse words its around recommendations.’ that area. But can I commend this report and wholeheartedly endorse its recommendations.’ Ian Mearns MP thanked Lord Bradley and introduced Juliet Lyon. Ian Mearns MP thanked Lord Bradley and introduced Juliet Lyon. Juliet Lyon began by saying how sorry she was that she was not Anthony, as she had alwaysJuliet Lyon very began much byenjoyed saying hearing how sorry him shespeak. was She that cont sheinued: was not ‘We Anthony, were very as proudshe had that inalways the work very wemuch wer enjoyede doing athearing PRT, supportedhim speak. by She the cont Princessinued: Diana ‘We were Memorial very proud Trust, thatwe Prisoner rehabilitationwerein (deletedthe able work 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Pris to we partner were doingwith Keyring, at PRT,oners asupported Rehabilitation small organisation 10/10/2012by the Princess 16:44 which Page manyDiana 120 ofMemorial you here Trust, will we know.were able And to it partnerwas through with Keyring,Keyring, aand small the organisation Working for whichJustice many group, of thatyou hereAnthony will was ableknow. to And contribute it was through so well. Keyring, I can remember and the Workingone occasion for Justice when group,he was that speaking Anthony in awas meetingable to contribute like this, and so well.he was I can asked remember, ‘what sortone ofoccasion help would when have he wasmade speaking it easier in for a youmeeting in court?’ like this, Anthony and he replied, was asked ‘If the, ‘what judge sort had of been help more would lenient’. have made There it was easier a pause for youand inlaughter. court?’ Anthony’sAnthony replied, support ‘If worker the judge asked had him been what more he lenient’.meant by There ‘more was lenient’ a pause and Anthony replied, ‘Well, if the judge had just explained things a bit better.’ And that was just so indicative. He had used a great word,119 but it wasn’t the word he had actually meant to use, and he hadn’t understood what119 had happened.

In PRT we are very grateful to Jenny for the work she has done. The programme was called ‘No-one Knows’ but over the years she worked on it, pretty much everybody did know. I don’t think we are yet there in terms of securing enough support, and this paper is a testimony to that. But what we are clear about is that we have been able to show the prevalence of learning disability and communication difficulties inside the justice system, and systematically we are working through making sure people do know. Working in partnership with other charities we will make absolutely sure that this briefing goes to the people who are in a position to make a difference. But before I finish, I wanted to say that knowing when a defendant has particular support needs is a crucial step in providing that support. And we want to make sure that the very good work that has been done with vulnerable witnesses and vulnerable victims is replicated in something similar for vulnerable defendants, to ensure parity.

I can’t think of anything more nightmare-ish than going to court - which anyway feels a bit of a strange and nightmare-ish situation – and not understanding what was happening, not knowing who people were and what their roles were, and not being able to speak up for myself. In the course of the interviews, we found that people who had learning disabilities, or communication difficulties, all said they had trouble with the language in court. I want to read you, from the briefing, one or two of the things they said: ‘The judges don’t speak English. They say these long words I’ve never heard of in my life.’ ‘The solicitor came to talk to me and used big words and I found it difficult to understand.’ This in turn frequently led to problems in understanding and following the court proceedings. ‘I didn’t understand really. I pleaded guilty straight away. I didn’t know what he meant when he said ‘custodial’. ‘I couldn’t really hear. I couldn’t understand but I said ‘yes, whatever’, to anything, because if I say ‘I don’t know’ they look at me as if I’m thick. Sometimes they tell you two things at once.’

And then some defendants talked specifically about the difficulties they experienced in responding to questions. ‘I am not good at speaking and they don’t listen. I needed more time to explain myself’. Others spoke more generally about not knowing what was going on in court or who they might ask for help. ‘I didn’t know what was going on and there’s no-one to explain things to you. They tell you to read things and in court you can’t just ask for help. The judge thinks you can read and write just because you can speak English.’ And then lastly: ‘It was scary because I could just see this man and two women sitting on a great big bench and I was in a glass box and there were all these others looking. A man then came over and said he was my solicitor but he was different from the one the night before. I thought to myself ‘what is going on?’’

I think those are very explicit and clear and without that kind of guidance to us I don’t think we’d get anywhere. So that’s my contribution, standing in for Anthony, and believe me he would have done it better. But I’ve done my best.’

120 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 120

Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 120

and laughter. Anthony’s support worker asked him what he meant by ‘more lenient’ and Anthonyand laughter. replied, Anthony’s ‘Well, if supportthe judge worker had just asked explained him what things he meanta bit better.’ by ‘more And lenient’ that was and justAnthony so indicative. replied, ‘Well, He had if the used judge a great had word,just explained but it wasn’t things the a wordbit better.’ he had And actually that was meantjust so toindicative. use, and He he hadhadn’t used understood a great word, what but had it happened.wasn’t the word he had actually meant to use, and he hadn’t understood what had happened. In PRT we are very grateful to Jenny for the work she has done. The programme was calIn PRTled ‘No-one we are very Knows’ grateful but overto Jenny the years for the she work worked she has on it,done. pretty The much programme everybody was did calknowled. I‘No-one don’t think Knows’ we are but yet over there the inyears terms she of workedsecuring on enough it, pretty support, much everybodyand this paper did isknow a testimony. I don’t think to that. we Butare yetwhat there we arein terms clear ofabout securing is that enough we have support, been able and tothis show paper theis a prevalencetestimony to of that. learning But whatdisability we areand clear communication about is that difficulties we have beeninside able the tojustice show system,the prevalence and systematically of learning disability we are working and communication through making difficulties sure people inside do the know. justice Wsystem,orking andin partnership systematically with weother are charities working wethrough will make making absolut sureely people sure thatdo know. this briefing goesWorking to the in partnership people who with are otherin a position charities to wemake will a make difference. absolut Butely surebefore that I finish, this briefing I wantedgoes to tothe say people that knowingwho are inwhen a position a defendant to make has a particulardifference. supp Butort before needs I finish, is a crucial I stepwanted in providing to say that that knowing support. when And a we defendant want to hasmake particular sure that supp the ortvery needs good is work a crucial that hasstep been in providing done with that vulnerable support. Andwitne wesses want and to vulnerable make sure victims that the is very replicated good workin that somethinghas been done similar with for vulnerable vulnerable witne defendants,sses and to vulnerable ensure parity. victims is replicated in something similar for vulnerable defendants, to ensure parity. I can’t think of anything more nightmare-ish than going to court - which anyway feels a bitI can’t of a think strange of anything and nightmare-ish more nightmare-ish situation than– and going not understanding to court - which what anyway was feels a happening,bit of a strange not andknowing nightmare-ish who people situation were and – and what not their understanding roles were, andwhat not was being able tohappening, speak up notfor knowingmyself. In who the peoplecourse wereof the and interviews, what their we roles found were, that andpeople not whobeing had able ltoear speakning disabilities, up for myself. or communicationIn the course of difficulties, the interviews, all said we theyfound had that trouble people with who the had languagelearning disabilities, in court. I wantor communication to read you, from difficulties, the briefing, all said one they or twohad oftrouble the things with thethey said:language ‘The injudges court. don’t I want speak to read English. you, from They the say briefing, these long one words or two I’ve of the never things heard they of in mysaid: life.’ ‘The ‘The judges solicitor don’t came speak to English.talk to me They and say used these big longwords words and I’veI found never it difficult heard of to in understmy life.’and.’ ‘The solicitorThis in turn came frequently to talk to led me to and problems used big in wordsunderstanding and I found and it following difficult tothe courtunderst proceedings.and.’ This in ‘Iturn didn’t frequently understand led to really. problems I pleaded in understanding guilty straight and away. following I didn’t the courtknow proceedings.what he meant ‘I when didn’t he understand said ‘custodial’. really. I‘I pleaded couldn’t guilty really straight hear. I couldn’taway. I didn’t understandknow what hebut meant I said when‘yes, whatever’,he said ‘custodial’. to anything, ‘I couldn’t because really if I say hear. ‘I don’t I couldn’t know’ they lookunderstand at me as but if I’mI said thick. ‘yes, Sometimes whatever’, theyto anything, tell you twobecause things if atI say once.’ ‘I don’t know’ they look at me as if I’m thick. Sometimes they tell you two things at once.’ And then some defendants talked specifically about the difficulties they experienced in Arespondingnd then some to questions. defendants ‘I amtalked not specificallygood at speaking about theand dif theyficulties don’t they listen. experienced I needed in moreresponding time to to explain questions. myself’. ‘I am Others not good spoke at speaking more generally and they about don’t not listen. knowing I needed what was goingmore timeon in to court explain or who myself’. they mightOthers ask spoke for help.more ‘I generally didn’t know about what not was knowing going what on and was there’sgoing on no-one in court to orexplain who theythings might to you. ask They for help. tell you‘I didn’t to re knowad things what and was in going court onyou and can’there’st just no-one ask for to help.explain The things judge to thinks you. Theyyou can tell readyou toand re adwrite things just andbecause in court you you can speakcan’t just English.’ ask for And help. then The lastly: judge ‘It thinks was scaryyou can because read and I could write just just see because this man you and can two womenspeak English.’ sitting on And a great then big lastly: bench ‘It was and scary I was becausein a glass I couldbox and just there see thiswere man all these and two otherswomen looking. sitting on A mana great then big came bench over and and I was said in he a glasswas my box solicit and orthere but were he was all thesedifferent fromothers the looking. one the A nightman thenbefore. came I thought over and to myselfsaid he ‘what was myis going solicit on?’or but’ he was different from the one the night before. I thought to myself ‘what is going on?’’ I think those are very explicit and clear and without that kind of guidance to us I don’t thinkI think we’d those get are anywhere. very explicit So that’sand clear my contribution,and without thatstanding kind ofin guidancefor Anthony, to usand I don’t believe methink he we’d would get have anywhere. done it So better. that’s But my I’ve contribution, done my best.’ standing in for Anthony, and believe me he would have done it better. But I’ve done my best.’ 120 120

Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 122

So, in terms of intermediaries within the context of special measures in particular, and to help ensure fair access to justice, we are simply recommending one register of appropriately trained and professionally accountable intermediaries, which can be accessed to provide support according to personal need for vulnerable people in the criminal court, regardless of their status as witness or defendant. The briefing paper contains a number of recommendations - I’ve just talked about one particular example - and we hope those recommendations will ensure fair access to justice for vulnerable defendants. We are very keen to discuss further the contents of the paper and the recommendations, and to progress them. I would just like to end by saying a big thank you to all those people who helped me to put this paper together, some of whom are here, and all of whom are acknowledged in the paper’.

122 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 123

3 July 2012: The Future Place of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Justice System

Speakers: Lord McNally, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice Lizzie Nelson, Director, Restorative Justice Council Javed Khan, Chief Executive, Victim Support

Geoff Dobson, Clerk to the Group, opened the meeting and welcomed everybody. He said there had been just two nominations for co-chairs of the group, Paul Goggins MP and Lord Ramsbotham. He had therefore much pleasure in handing over to Lord Ramsbotham.

Lord Ramsbotham thanked the meeting, and began by paying tribute to Lord Corbett, the former chairman of this group. He had attended a very moving occasion the previous week in his memory. It took two people to replace Lord Corbett, and moreover the advantage of co-chairmanship was that there would be a chair from each House. This was agreed, with satisfaction. He then proposed that the meeting consider the election of the Vice Chair. Claire Perry MP had indicated her willingness to continue in the role, and the meeting indicated its agreement. The Group’s Secretary, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts had indicated his willingness to stand again. There had been no further nominations. The meeting was content, and all were duly elected.

The accounts were audited as part of the Prison Reform Trust’s accounts, and it was agreed they could be taken as satisfactory. A report on the work of the group would be produced over the summer and circulated when members returned in October. Lord Ramsbotham thanked Geoff Dobson for all the hard work he had put in to organising such a full and interesting programme for the year, and Julia Braggins for producing the minutes. He also thanked the Chair and the Director of the Prison Reform Trust for making Geoff’s time available, and for supporting the group. Finally, he particularly wished to thank the Barrow Cadbury Trust for funding the secretariat. Max Rutherford from the Trust was present, and was asked to pass the group’s formal thanks to the trustees for their support. This was a group that was widely valued by members, and which had quite an influence in the House.

Finally Lord Ramsbotham gave notice of the next meeting, on Tuesday 23 October, with the Criminal Cases Review Commission. He knew there would be a good deal of interest in this.

With that, Lord Ramsbotham closed the Annual General Meeting and introduced the evening’s speakers. The meeting was fortunate in having Lord McNally, Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice, with them. He knew Lord McNally had a strong interest in the evening’s topic, restorative justice, and he was very pleased to invite him to open the proceedings.

Lord McNally began by saying how glad he was to join members of this group. He too referred to the moving event the previous week to celebrate the life of Lord Corbett. It had been an eclectic gathering, with a strong penal affairs element to it. He had known Robin

123 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 124

Corbett for forty years, and knew how committed he was to this cause. He also said he regularly saw the notices for the Penal Affairs Group and shared members’ admiration for the organisation behind it. He had enjoyed the AGM. There was nothing more complete in the workings of democracy than the election of officers for all party groups.

He was delighted to be there, and to share the platform with Lizzie and Javed. He knew Javed, but had heard Lizzie for the first time at a round table at the MoJ that morning. He knew the meeting was in for a treat. He continued: ‘I plan to use this time to set out the government’s approach to restorative justice in England and Wales. In addition, let me make clear that I am an ardent supporter of the principles of restorative justice (RJ). I believe it offers an opportunity not only to assist the rehabilitation of offenders but to give victims a greater stake in the resolution of offences and in the criminal justice system as a whole.

Victim-led restorative justice can allow us to make inroads into the reoffending cycle, with the triple benefit of victims avoiding the trauma of future crimes, the tax payer not having to foot the bill for more crime, and a rehabilitated offender making a positive contribution to society. As many of you know far better than me, the evidence for the effectiveness of restorative justice is promising. Analysis conducted by the MoJ of a number of restorative justice pilots showed that 85% of victims who participated were satisfied with the experience and there was an estimated 14% reduction in reoffending. The government is therefore committed to making use of restorative justice in more areas, and in more circumstances, across the criminal justice system.

Crucially, the increased use of restorative justice needs to be rooted in local needs and responsive to local crime and reoffending. It needs to be driven by how practitioners, victims and communities want to respond to crime in their area. This is part of a move towards localism where we accept that different areas will have different approaches. To ensure restorative justice is delivered in the way most appropriate for each area, we are working with partners like the Restorative Justice Council to provide local areas with the tools to make greater use of restorative justice with confidence. Therefore as part of our response to lower level crime, more than 18,000 police officers have been trained in restorative practices. We are also working with 15 local areas to develop Neighbourhood Justice Panels which will bring together the victim, the offender and community representatives to respond to low-level crime by using restorative justice and other reparative processes.

Further up the system, over £1 million is being provided to train prison and probation staff and volunteers and to develop guidance, and we are providing over £600,000 to Youth Offending Teams to provide training to Youth Referral Panel members to deliver more restorative and reparative panels. Provisions in the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act which received Royal Assent on 1 May will also allow courts to make wider use of Youth Referral Orders which are focused upon restorative and reparative outcomes. All of this work is geared towards enabling local areas to build the capacity and capability to develop and deliver RJ practices which are effective and victim focused.

We also believe there could be a place for restorative justice before the sentencing process for offenders who admit guilt and are able and willing to participate alongside the victim. Pre-sentence restorative justice would inform the court’s decision about what the right type

124 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 125

of punishment should be. At this stage, we need to learn more about how this would operate, and hope to work with one or more local areas to test pre-sentence restorative justice out.

To ensure that restorative justice is delivered to a high standard, we funded the Restorative Justice Council’s ‘Best Practice Guidance for Restorative Practice’, and last year the Ministry of Justice and the Restorative Justice Council launched a National Register of Restorative Justice Practitioners and professional qualifications accreditation. This allows criminal justice staff and voluntary sector organisations supporting victims to recommend properly trained individuals who can safely and effectively support victims to participate in restorative justice. We cannot hope to achieve our aims without the crucial involvement of victims. So I am particularly pleased about our continuing work with Victim Support. One of the key purposes for expanding the use of restorative justice must be to give victims a greater stake and voice in the resolution of offences and in the criminal justice system as a whole.

The government published its response to the consultation, ‘Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses’ yesterday. There we recognised that, despite the improvements that have been made over the last two decades, victims still too often feel they are an afterthought for the criminal justice system. We are committed to ensuring that victims get the support they need to deal with the immediate aftermath of a crime and, over time if need be, receive further help, which may include compensation, to put their lives back on track.

To realise these ambitions the government has committed to reviewing and updating the Victims’ Code and the use of the Victim Personal Statement as well as the process for dealing with complaints when something has gone wrong. We will prioritise, as part of this review, how the offer of a restorative approach can be incorporated in a revised Code and whether the Victim Personal Statement could be used as a way of a victim signalling their interest in restorative justice.

The government has also committed to make offenders pay reparation to victims for the harm they have caused. This may be financial - through court ordered compensation paid by the offender to the victim - or indirectly, through revenue raised from the Victim Surcharge which is spent on support services. We are also providing Victim Support with £38 million in funding per year until 2014 so it can invest in services that are victim focussed; we have put rape support centres on a secure financial footing for the first time, with 65 centres around the country receiving total grant funding of nearly £3 million a year until 2014; and we have further guaranteed funding of £2 million a year for the next two years to fund specialist support for adult victims of human trafficking.

The next significant step in this context has been the government’s consultation on community sentences. I’m very pleased that this included a substantial section on reparation, looking at how we can ensure that restorative justice is more regularly used in the sentences of the court and what more we can do to strengthen the role of victims in it. The consultation closed on 22 June, and we are still busy working through the responses. However, it is clear from initial analysis that there is considerable practitioner enthusiasm for greater use of restorative justice. And I hope to see some constructive proposals that build on what we’ve achieved already.

125 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 126

Our vision, therefore, is for a criminal justice system which understands and addresses the issues involved for victims, offenders and wider communities, responds intelligently and is more effective. We want a system that focuses relentlessly on tackling reoffending, helping offenders lead law-abiding lives and supporting victims. This is why we will continue to work with organisations across the sector to improve best practice, tackle capacity hurdles, extend the use of restorative justice and firmly establish its place now and for the future in the criminal justice system.’

Lord McNally concluded by saying that that was the end of his text. He told the meeting that he hated reading speeches, and quoted one of his early mentors, Michael Foot, saying that he had found this one of the worst things about being a minister ‘because I like being as excited as everybody else about what’s coming next.’ He again mentioned the round table meeting that lunchtime, which had left him with things to think about. Good intentions were not enough. Things needed to be thought through, to ensure that delivery and expectations were in kilter. Otherwise public confidence in the concept of RJ would be undermined. However he was convinced that the government was on its way in this area, and completely committed to taking it forward. He was looking forward to the support of all the organisations and individuals in the room to making it a reality in the very near future.

Lord Ramsbotham thanked Lord McNally very much indeed for his presentation, and reflected on how delighted Charles Pollard of Thames Valley Police, one of the original proponents of RJ, would have been to hear it. He agreed that the key would be to ensure that it was implemented in the best way. He then introduced the next speaker, Lizzie Nelson, and noted how very much she had contributed to progress thus far.

Lizzie Nelson began by thanking the meeting for its invitation, and thanking Lord McNally for his and the government’s support. This had been crucial in shifting the culture amongst the criminal justice agencies towards taking RJ seriously. She continued: ‘The Restorative Justice Council (RJC) is the national membership body for restorative practice. We have around 250 member organisations, which are the organisations delivering RJ at a local level around the country. Since the launch of our practitioner register last year we now have 250 registered individuals, who are also members of the RJC.

As we heard already from the Minister, RJ works. We don’t have to debate the evidence any longer. There was a £7m 7-year study showing that it reduced reoffending, delivered very strong victim satisfaction, and that 70% of victims who were offered the opportunity to meet the offender face to face following a serious crime of burglary or robbery took up that offer. So we know that it works. And we know it’s the right thing to do. Giving victims the opportunity to confront the offender with the real impact of the offence and encouraging offenders to face up to what they’ve done and to take responsibility for its impact on others is simply the right thing to do. I think that’s why the Prison Reform Trust’s ICM poll last year showed that 88% of the public support a victim’s right to confront the offender with the real impact of their crime. I think that’s also why we have received such strong cross-party support. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the peers who spoke in the recent debates on the LASPO Bill in favour of legislation on RJ. It is really striking to see the wide range of support, from cross bench peers and from all three main political parties.

126 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 127

We believe that RJ should be available to any victim of crime, at any stage of the criminal justice process. It shouldn’t be an intervention only offered for low level crimes, or only if you get to court, or only post sentence. It should be available at every stage of the system. Good progress is being made. The Minister has already spoken about some of it, through developing the evidence base, and through the training that has been rolled out among many police forces. The government has recently funded £1m of training in NOMS. So there is a lot to be positive about in terms of increasing the capacity.

But two things are really needed if we are to move beyond a culture change of encouragement to actually mainstreaming RJ and delivering that vision that the government has set out so clearly. One is the need for evidence-based practice standards to be maintained and adhered to. RJ only works when it is done well. If you don’t do the preparation, generally speaking victims simply won’t come. That’s what we are seeing in a lot of youth justice at the moment. Victims are sent a letter saying ‘we’ve already planned a meeting for two o’ clock next Tuesday. You can come if you want’. It doesn’t tell them this meeting is about them. It doesn’t prioritise whether or not this meeting is at a time that suits them. It’s no wonder that people don’t come. At the moment there is an attendance rate of just 13% amongst victims of crime, nationally.

Yet we know that RJ only delivers these reductions in reoffending and these victim benefits if the victim and the offender actually get to meet and talk to each other. That’s what delivers these very strong findings of the government’s research. The preparation is essential, running the meeting well is essential, and the follow up is essential. All of that is the restorative process and you can’t just assume that because you have sent someone an opt- in letter they are going to come. So adherence to the practice standards that are based on the evidence the government has gathered is really essential as we roll RJ out more widely.

The second major gap is in relation to the legislation. At the moment the only provision in legislation for victims of adult offenders is in the CJA 2003 where there is a very brief mention of RJ as a possible activity requirement in a community sentence. Based on that legislation, Thames Valley Probation Service has managed to keep going an RJ service since the research trial closed in 2004. But they are the only area of the country that has consistently been involved in RJ post-sentence in the adult criminal justice system. W Yorkshire Probation has also recently introduced a service post-sentence based on this piece of legislation, and London are just starting one. So across the country there are just two areas that are offering RJ post-sentence for victims of adult offenders. And in relation to pre-sentence RJ, which the government has made clear they want more of – half the cases in the government’s seven year study were pre-sentence – since the trials closed in 2004, there has not been a single incidence of pre-sentence RJ in this country.

If we want to see pre-sentence RJ develop, there are good grounds for doing so. Joanna Shapland’s evaluation of that research showed that more offenders say yes to participation pre-sentence, so more victims get access to RJ. Victim participation rates and victim satisfaction were just the same pre and post sentence, and pre and post sentence victims also said that RJ had been offered to them at about the right time. The judiciary bowed to pre-sentence RJ, by which I mean that the offender has come to court, they have pleaded guilty, you don’t sentence there and then. You just defer, as if it’s part of the pre-sentence

127 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 128

report writing. The judges liked it because it gave them additional information on which to base their sentence. So there is no reason not to introduce pre-sentence RJ as long as it is always voluntary for the victim and the offender, and victims have a choice to say yes or no. The evidence is very strong. I think Javed will say more about potential cost savings. But the key point is that without stronger legislation we won’t see any increase in pre-sentence or post sentence RJ. So we really need the kind of amendments that many of the peers around this table supported and called for during the last debate.

That’s really all I wanted to say today. I don’t think we need any more evidence for either pre-sentence or post-sentence RJ. The key thing now is to move to action. And on the practice standards: we know what best practice is. We have got the evidence from practitioners, from the government’s research, and from international precedent. All of that has fed into RJC Best Practice Guidance and national occupational standards on restorative practice. The key thing is to ensure that people actually work to those standards and don’t cut corners. We can best ensure that through practitioner accreditation, where people actually evidence those standards. The government has the power to ensure, through commissioning and guidance to areas, that these are the standards that must be met, wherever RJ is practised.’

Lord Ramsbotham thanked Lizzie Nelson very much for her presentation. He thought what a good thing it was that the RJC existed to ‘kite-mark’ good practice. He was also not surprised to hear that Thames Valley were still practising RJ, and spoke highly of the quality of their work at the conferences he had attended. He was pleased to introduce Javed Khan, Chief Executive of Victim Support. He expressed the hope that parliamentary time could be found for a debate on the recently published consultation, on which he and Javed had worked.

Javed Khan began: ‘I’m really pleased to have the opportunity to speak at this APPG and to follow the noble Lord and the formidable Lizzie. The problem I have, though, is that I am not sure what I can say that is going to be particularly different. So I shall try to be as controversial as I can be, on behalf of victims. Because I don’t think everything is good. There is a lot of good that is developing but I don’t think we are quite there on everything.

I would like to place on record Victim Support’s welcome for the government’s commitment to RJ, which has been developing over the last year. We heard more about that yesterday. I see it as an approach which can go some way to empower victims who so often feel disempowered as a result of crime and, all too often, the result of the way they are treated after crime. However, let me reinforce at the outset, as has been said: it is the needs of the victim that must be at the centre of any effective approach. That’s the only way that what is on offer is both truly “restorative” – giving back to victims some of what was taken away – and “justice” – where victims can begin to see that offenders recognise the harm done and are committed to facing up to their own responsibilities.

Effective restorative justice needs to have victims at its core but that does not mean it is at the expense of offenders or their rights. There has often been some misconception, and this becomes a victim versus offender debate. But this is not a binary debate: it’s not an either- or. The rights and needs of victims and offenders are not mutually exclusive and we must not fall into that trap. That’s demonstrated by Victim Support in the work we have been doing with the Prison Reform Trust, the Restorative Justice Council and others, to challenge

128 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 129

that outdated narrative. Doing that is not easy and means challenging long-held preconceptions and assumptions – not least in the media. I hope today’s discussion will help to move that along.

I said in my contribution to the annual Perrie lectures last month that there are three key outcomes we most certainly all share:

• the full rehabilitation of offenders (and prisoners) • an improved experience for victims of crime • a community that is confident the justice system is doing its job.

I think those are universal demands that we all place on the criminal justice system. And in this vein, I believe restorative justice, when done well and with the needs of victims at its heart, is one of the most effective ways of helping offenders to face up to the impact of the crimes they have committed. That is what so many victims tell our volunteers, that they want to know that the ‘wrong done’ is recognised by the person who commits that ‘wrong’. And that’s common sense: we all know that we can’t begin to put anything right in our own lives unless and until we recognise what has gone wrong and why. To put it simply, it’s called taking responsibility. Perhaps this is not universally fashionable but, I’d suggest, it’s always necessary.

So, facing up to the crime, to the ‘wrong’ committed, is a good and necessary action. It helps the offender and it certainly has real potential to help victims too. I believe, RJ can offer victims a sense that they are making the journey to take back control of their lives. It offers victims a real voice in the criminal justice system, something that is not always evident. That voice is core to the delivery of justice and that’s one of the reasons why Victim Support has been supporting RJ projects for many years; to strengthen the voice of victims in the justice system. And we know that the voices of victims tell us that satisfaction in that system is much stronger when RJ, giving victims a voice, has their needs at its core. As mentioned earlier, we know that 85% of victims are satisfied with restorative meetings and a not dissimilar number – 80% – of offenders feel the same. So, it works for both victim and offender.

And also, when RJ works properly, it raises confidence levels in the justice system more generally, and we know that that’s a major challenge for the government at the moment. It can provide the community with greater feelings of security. I believe that confidence levels will continue to grow as it becomes clear that RJ offers a real opportunity to reduce the level of reoffending – which in turn saves money and benefits us all. Victim Support and the RJC have estimated that if all victims of burglary, robbery and violence against the person were offered RJ it could save as much as £185m over two years (by lowering reconviction rates). I would argue that there is a very strong case for an ‘invest to save’ approach, even in these fiscally constrained times.

So the case for victim led RJ is very strong. But let’s not get too excited just yet, as so far we have only heard some fine words. We already know that there are some major risks to effective RJ being rolled out, coming along very soon. The commissioning of victim services being handed to Police and Crime Commissioners is possibly the greatest of these risks if

129 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 130

not done well. We have made our position consistently clear on this and found wide spread support from a range of organisations including the PRT. Let us be under no illusions that without a national framework and obligations, local commissioning risks having a negative impact on the wider spread of RJ.

We know that RJ has been shown to be very effective for victims as well as offenders. It is also highly cost effective. However, it is still not widely understood and may, therefore, not be prioritised by Police & Crime Commissioners if they are to be given that responsibility. If this happens, local people will be deprived of the opportunity to benefit from RJ and the lack of resources will choke off the hard-won progress we have made. Government has an obligation to listen and to act, not just to speak soothing words. I would call on the Ministry of Justice to reflect carefully on the fact that 70% of respondents to their consultation on local commissioning have said “you’re making a mistake’. I would ask: why have you chosen to ignore them? .

So, to end, we want to see RJ available to all victims who want it, at a time when they want it. It can’t be seen as something to impose on victims. Rather, it needs to be a genuine offer that clearly aims to meet the needs of the victim. This will take resources, it can’t be done on the cheap, and at a time when the future funding of services to victims is, at best, uncertain, we look to you, Minister, to help make real the aspirations and commitment we know you share with us. If we achieve that I think we will build a justice system which we can all be proud of and which meets the needs of offenders, victims and society’.

130 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 131

131 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 132

132 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 133

133 Prisoner rehabilitation (deleted 506f07f9-3e3800-9b37eff7)_Prisoners Rehabilitation 10/10/2012 16:44 Page 134

The All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group aims to increase its members’ knowledge of penal affairs and to work through parliamentary channels for reform of the penal system.

This report, Prisoner Rehabilitation, focuses on the dominant theme of many meetings held in the past two years and on a particular interest of Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, who chaired the group from 2002 – 2012.

Prison Reform Trust 15 Northburgh Street London EC1V 0JR 020 7251 5070 www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk [email protected] 2 071473 968010