Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
TUESDAY 20 JANUARY 1998
MR JOHN
HICKS, MR
HOWARD LOCKWOOD
AND MR
GEOFF DOBSON
60. I wonder how far you could satisfy us, Mr
Hicks and your two colleagues, that the probation officer in question
will follow up the order in a stringent manner, because again
your critics argue that because of the training that probation
officers receive and their general outlook, so the allegation
goes—I repeat the allegation—there is so much in-built
sympathy for the offender by the probation officer that perhaps
in practice not too much concern is shown in order to make sure
that the actual probation order is fully dealt with. What do you
say to that?
(Mr Hicks) There is a tension but I think the service
has changed very significantly over the last ten years. Those
working in the service now would tell you that the focus on public
protection and the proper conduct of the order right through to
its completion is a far more rigorous part of the disciplines
of the service, expected at all levels in the service, than would
have been the case, say, ten years ago. I think the service has
changed. In your visits, I think this is something that you might
wish to explore with the people you meet. I think you will find
that probation officers take the question of compliance, completion
of an order and the disciplines required of the service very seriously.
They do not let it slip.
61. Are you conceding the point that those who
make the criticism were right? If not now, they would have been
right about the probation service, say, ten years ago in the 1980s?
(Mr Hicks) I think I would recognise that ten years
ago, but I think it is different now. It may be this emerges from
the figures. The practice of a breach, of following up a breakdown,
is quite significant in relation to community service. I think
there is a ten per cent disparity between the disciplines of a
simple order like community service, where an individual is required
to do a certain specified number of hours' work in the community
under the supervision of the service—it is a very straightforward
payback to the community, and the disciplines are very clear,
very precise. It is almost automatic. With the probation order,
you are talking about a much more complicated process where discretion
has entered in to a more significant degree. What I have given
as the across the board position actually needs to be unpicked
a bit because there are differences between the probation orders,
the community service orders and the combination orders. They
do reflect the different kinds of people who end up on those orders.
62. I suppose what the public would like to
feel confident about, if non-custodial sentences are given, is
that it is not just a matter of a person coming along for a few
hours and then perhaps the following week not attending, but that
there is, as you said, a rigorous attempt to make sure that the
order is successfully completed or else the matter goes back to
the court as quickly as possible. Would you accept that that feeling
needs to be felt by the public if there is to be any confidence
generally in non-custodial sentences?
(Mr Hicks) Yes, I would. If you were placed on a probation
order in a magistrates' court today, you would normally be expected
to know what your first appointment was before you left the court.
You would be required to come and see the probation officer within
five days and often it would be sooner than that. That first session
would be a very careful examination of the reasons why you were
put on probation, what the offence was, what work there is to
be done, what risks were associated with your circumstances and
your offending pattern, so that we could tune the work to minimising
the risk of any kind of reconviction in the early stages. You
would be very clear that you would be required to attend to see
the probation officer in accordance with national standards at
least on a weekly basis during the first period of your supervision.
That would be for programmes of work that you were planning together
to undertake, so you would be required to do it but there would
be an expectation that you would be there wanting to make something
of it. The risk assessment is one of the key elements of the work.
It might be undertaken individually or in a group working with
a number of other offenders convicted of similar kinds of offences.
Some work might be undertaken by partner agencies with whom we
attend to some of the other related factors in an individual's
life, so you might be required to go to a programme run by NACRO
or SOVA to help you work out some aspects of your educational
deficits, literacy, numeracy, to assist you in preparing to make
some first steps towards employability. The programme of work
would actually be very clear from the start. The expectations
laid on you would be clear and the sanctions that would follow
if you did not comply would be clear. I really do think that the
public idea about what happens is erroneous, as was suggested
in the British Crime Survey piece ten days ago.
Chairman
63. Is it erroneous or is it just a bit behind
the times, because it is clear that this public perception, right
or wrong, is shared by a section of former probation service employees
from the evidence that has been quoted?
(Mr Hicks) There are one or two within the probation
service, and former employees of the probation service, who are
quite vociferous about that. I think the evidence of credibility
is rather different from that. Those who work closely with the
probation service, those who know its business, demonstrate a
much higher level of confidence in its work. Magistrates were
surveyed in 1995 and 88 per cent of them showed a high or good
level of confidence in the work of the service. Drug action teams
have said quite specifically that the probation service are key
players on whom they rely very directly to achieve the kind of
purposes they are in business for. In establishing new arrangements
under the welfare to work programme, the employment services have
recognised both that the probation service has a very significant
role to play in that and that they are currently engaged with
a very high proportion of the people for whom the employment to
work programme is intended. Those who work closely with us and
those who know more about the service do show a much higher level
of confidence in what the service does than those who have only
a sketchy knowledge.
Mr Winnick
64. Finally, on this line of questioning, the
critics that we are going to see next week are very obsessive
critics. Some of your former colleagues may be there. You may
know them. They make the point throughout most of their literature
to us that you are anti-prison, in effect saying that you want
to substantially reduce the number of people going to prison and
perhaps giving the impression that there should not be any prisons
at all, even if they do not go as far as that. What do you say
to that point?
(Mr Hicks) There was a time when that might have been
true but it is not true now and it is not true of us.
65. Is it true of other sections of the probation
service?
(Mr Hicks) The orientation of training of probation
officers historically has been to gear them towards making best
use of provisions in the community. We believe it works with a
significant group of people and that is still the case.
66. That goes back to training from the earliest
days?
(Mr Hicks) It certainly goes back to my training,
which goes back 30 odd years. That has changed recently and I
can say a word or two about that. We are there to ensure that
the courts always have a community option available to them if
there is one that can be offered that is relevant to the offending
behaviour. We say that we think there is a reasonable chance and,
in many cases, a better than good chance of making some headway
with this individual in those cases, but we recognise that there
is a place for prison, that some people have to be locked up.
Community safety requires that some people are locked up and,
from our work with the prison service in the joint prison/probation
review, we are in the business of finding the most effective ways
of dealing with offenders, whether you lock them up or whether
you deal with them in the community.
Mr Hogg
67. Following up what Mr Winnick is putting
to you, one of the things that occurs to me is that there may
be a reluctance on the part of probation officers to say to the
court, "A community based sentence is not appropriate to
this offender" because in a sense that is to detract from
what it is that you have to offer. As a consequence of that, it
occurs to me, a number of people who may not be appropriate for
a community based sentence are put on a community based sentence.
It is flowing from a reluctance on the part of probation officers
to admit the inappropriateness of a community based sentence.
(Mr Hicks) No. We are very clear that it is for the
court to decide what is appropriate.
68. But your recommendations are important.
(Mr Hicks) We make proposals; we do not actually recommend.
We are very clear that there is a distinction of role. Our job
is to ensure that the court has the options, that they know enough
about what those options are and that they have a realistic appraisal
of how the individual might fit in with those options. In the
majority of cases going through the magistrates' courts, there
are, as I said earlier, only a relatively small number for whom
there is nothing that can be done in the community, where we will
go as far as to say that we do not believe we have anything to
offer, because it is for the court to make the decision, at the
end of the day, whether justice requires that somebody be locked
up. It is not for us to say that. What you are describing as a
reluctance in fact is a difference of role. We recognise that
some people have to be locked up; we recognise that the courts
will make that decision. We want to make sure that, in making
that decision, the courts always know whether there is a realistic
option that they should consider.
Mr Howarth: Can I just return to the question
of successful completion of community service orders? I for one
welcome your acknowledgement that improvement could be made in
this area. I think it is the sort of issue which does give rise
to lack of public confidence. Basically, if nearly a third of
the people out there on community service orders are not bothering
to complete them, their enforcement is not being vigorously enough
pursued and that makes it look as though it is a soft option.
I welcome the fact that you are going to try to tackle it. I hope
that you will perhaps take this opportunity to say you are going
to tackle it with the greatest vigour. We will be returning to
this issue, no doubt—
Chairman: What is your question?
Mr Howarth
69. I was going to ask Mr Hicks if he would
take on board that he might return and would he make sure that
he produces some better figures next time?
(Mr Hicks) I did not say we will; I said we are. It
is being tackled. It has been the focus of attention for some
two or three years and progress is being made. There is a slight
distortion if you are inferring from what I said that 30 per cent
get away and we do not care about it. That 30 per cent contains
a multitude of sins, including those who relapse into crime and
are arrested. That is a significant part of that 30 per cent.
I am not saying that 30 per cent of the people under supervision
do not turn up and are allowed to get away with it. That is not
the case. If somebody does not turn up for an order of the court,
under the expectations of national standards, they will be followed
up. It is not as tight as we would like it to be but it is nowhere
near the 30 per cent figure that you are describing. That 30 per
cent figure is something different.
Chairman
70. You mean a percentage are not followed up,
when you say it is not as tight?
(Mr Hicks) The vast majority are followed up. The
timeliness with which they are followed up is something that,
with the Home Office and the Inspectorate, we are working to improve,
but I do not want the impression to be given to this Committee
by me that 30 per cent are allowed to get away with it. That is
not the case.
Mr Cranston
71. Earlier you mentioned the British Crime
Survey. People do get things wrong. Also, there is that research
work where people are given hypothetical cases. The public tend
to give lower sentences than the courts so there are these problems
of perception. Effectiveness I think is one aspect of this and
I am not sure at this stage that intellectually you have convinced
me that you are more effective. The critics do have some points
here that we will have to grapple with on the way the system works.
That is something we have just touched on. How can we grapple
with this problem of the public misperceptions? One aspect, I
suspect, is language. You may know that the Criminal Chief Justice
some time ago suggested that community sentence is not an appropriate
description because it gives people the impression that somehow
this is an easy option. That has been taken up by the Home Secretary.
Another point put to us is that you describe offenders as "clients"
and this might not be an appropriate way to describe them. Can
you give us some ideas about how we get over to people the fact
that some of these sentences are tough compared with what they
themselves would impose?
(Mr Hicks) There is an image issue. It is largely
to do with lack of good information. In terms of developing what
the probation service and other community based services have
to offer for the future, there is a need for a good public information
coordinated programme, if you like. The cigarette lobby is managing
to change public perception.
Mr Hogg
72. The anti-cigarette lobby.
(Mr Hicks) The anti-smoking lobby, yes, because it
achieved the status of an important public health service agenda.
If it is recognised that, in this context, it is important that
the public understand properly what happens when people are placed
on probation and community service orders and in probation hostels,
then the same kind of investment in a public education programme
is probably necessary. You go on to ask a question about naming.
There is a lot of discussion currently, in the context of the
prison/probation review, about the name of the probation service.
We do not formally have a position about this, partly because
I think it is difficult to know at this stage what a better name
would be. A closer linkage between the prison and the probation
service operationally is clearly part of this.
Mr Cranston
73. A work order is the suggestion.
(Mr Hicks) A work order for community service?
74. What you describe as a work order.
(Mr Hicks) I personally accept that there is room
for a lot of misunderstanding in the public mind because there
are so many different things to describe when you talk about community
service: voluntary work, overseas work and so on. I think the
language question may be part of the problem but even if you changed
the name of orders or the name of the service the image is still
going to be there unless people understand what actually happens.
75. Is it not true that you have not got out
there enough in the community—this is not a criticism; it
is just a fact—explaining to people what, for example, community
service involves? Mr Linton and I went and saw one of the projects
nearby last week. I do not want to speak for him but I was quite
impressed by the extent to which these people had to turn up by
quarter past nine; one of them had not; he was in severe trouble.
They were hard at work; it was bitterly cold and they were painting
away. To my view, it was a punishment but people do not see this.
(Mr Hicks) That is right. You say it is not a criticism
but we feel it is a criticism internally that our attempts as
a service to get out and explain to the public what actually happens
have not gone far enough yet. We have moved quite substantially.
You will see far more stories in local papers at least from time
to time about what actually happens. We have a long way to go.
The fact is that our resources are focused on doing the job. That
is why I am talking about the importance of some kind of public
information campaign. If it is important to government, it is
not just the service; I think government needs to be engaged in
helping to move public perceptions.
76. I notice in your written evidence you say
that politicians are most important in terms of changed perceptions
and I think that is one of the reasons why we are taking up this
particular enquiry.
(Mr Hicks) May I just add that good news stories are
not often run in the press.
Mr Hogg: The Conservative Government found that
out!
Chairman
77. May I pursue this point that it is the public
that have this misconception? The use of the word "client",
which I repeatedly hear used by probation officers—I heard
it as recently as this morning on the Today programme[2]—suggests
that it is the probation service that perhaps has this misconception
because their client is surely the public who are funding the
whole operation.
. (Mr Hicks) You have not heard me use
that word.
78. I know you are well attuned to the politics
of all this but this morning I heard somebody who works with offenders
use the expression "client" again.
(Mr Hicks) I think it is true. We can at times be
our own worst enemy. I think there is no doubt that the client
for the service is the public. It is the courts. The people we
work with are recipients of a service that we are requiring them
to avail themselves of. We are talking about a service that is
undergoing a process of change and I think that bit of language
will change over time. What it reflects though is the fact that
a probation officer does need to get quite close to an individual,
to engage their confidence and to establish a level of understanding
between them that is going to produce some change in behaviour.
Although I agree the language is not helpful in terms of the politics
of all this, it does reflect the other side of the reality we
are working with.
79. I understand you have to enjoy the confidence
of the offenders as well. I kept hearing this morning again "helping
the client". I am not sure that the public think that is
your purpose. In the course of the whole interview, no one could
bring themselves to use the word "punishment". In the
end, it affected even the interviewer. He could not bring himself
to use it and they were talking about violent offenders.
(Mr Hicks) One way in which the word "helping"
is relevant is that we are requiring a change, in fact. Again,
if I go back to talking about the profile of the population we
are working with, we are not just talking about punishment on
its own. We are talking about imposing a punishment in the community
that also contains as part of it, to make it effective, attention
to a number of deficits—"deficits" is a bit stark
as a word—in terms of behaviour, life chances and life skills.
You simply cannot change people's behaviour just by dealing with
the stark punishment dimension. That needs to be the context and
we have to work with the realities on the ground as well. Those
are helping processes.
2 See Appendix 3 Back
|
