Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
30 JUNE 2004
PROFESSOR ANDREW
COYLE AND
PROFESSOR DAVID
WILSON
Q1 Chairman: Good morning. Could I welcome
Professor David Wilson and Professor Andrew Coyle to our proceedings
and say we are delighted they were able to come because we have
just started our inquiry into prison education. The Home Affairs
Select Committee has recently looked at the resettlement of prisoners
and what we are doing, I think, is concurrent with their inquiry.
Could I welcome you and say that we are just starting the inquiry
and we have just been to Reading Prison to look at some very interesting
innovations there in terms of training of young prisoners and
we are about to go to Andrew Turner's constituency on the Isle
of Wight to look at three prisons there on Monday. So this comes
at a very good time for us. We are seeking to learn. If these
inquiries do not add value then they are not worth doing and we
do not want to just go charging off with some sort of prejudice
already in our minds about what the role of education is in prisons
and how effective it is. So we are really seeking to learn this
morning from both of you. Both of you have been prison governors
and you know the whole system inside-out. Could I say to both
of you, would you like to say anything to get us started or do
you want to go straight into questions?
Professor Coyle: Could I make
an overarching comment, if I may, Chairman? In terms of context,
the Prison Service historically has created structures which parallel
those which exist in society. I am thinking, for example, of the
Prison Health Service run separate from the National Health Service.
There were departments like, for example, prison chaplaincy, which
were separate, similarly psychology and a number of other functions
which arguably should have been making use of the organisation
situations which existed in society rather than being separate.
One exception to that arrangement traditionally has been education.
Until, I suppose, about twelve years ago education in prisons
was provided through local channels and I think that was a very
healthy arrangement. I remember when I became Governor of Brixton
at the beginning of the 1990s one of my first calls was on the
chief executive of Lambeth, who met me with his director of education
to discuss education in Brixton Prison and how we could tie the
provision in the prison in with what was being provided in the
borough. That, as I say, was very healthy. That arrangement changed
about twelve years or so ago when contracting out began and those
of us who were involved at the time were concerned about the break
of that local link, which indeed in some instances did happen
where we have subsequently had one college or organisation providing
prison education across a very wide geographical area so that
it is no longer linked, or the local link is a very tenuous one.
I think that has been an unfortunate move. One links that, I think,
in general terms to much of what is going on in the Prison Service
at the moment and the weakening of local links because prisoners
come from local communities, they commit their offences in local
communities, the victims come from local communities and prisoners
will return to local communities, and if we are going to achieve
anything in terms of rehabilitation and reintegration then the
initiatives need to be locally based. I think there is a danger
with much of what is going on at the moment that we are reducing
that local link and also that the Prison Service or the Criminal
Justice Service (through what is to be called NOMS from now on)
is working in a bubble rather than with very close community links
and that is where education is, I think, at its most successful
and strongest and those are the general principles which you may
want to consider in the course of your inquiry.
Q2 Chairman: That is very useful. Of
course, as I understand it, as the Committee has been informed
from a seminar we held on this subject before we set sail, I do
not think even when you say there was a local link prison education
came under the Department for Education and Skills, or its predecessor,
and so we were unable to look at prison education because it was
not part of your departmental link. So it is only recently that
the Department has had responsibility for prison education. Ofsted
now inspects prison education and of course our writ now runs
into the prison education system.
Professor Coyle: I think, having
said what I just said, one should recognise the strides which
have been made in recent years in terms, for example, of prison
health, which now comes directly under the Department of Health,
and the more recent move to the Department for Education and Skills
is a very healthy one. Looking at things from the sidelines, it
does seem as though the moves on prison health, bringing it into
the mainstream, are much further advanced for a variety of reasons
than has been the case with prison education and the Department
for Education and Skills. I think there are lessons to be learned
from the experience of prison health and how it has been brought
into the mainstream, but the principle of that is an excellent
one.
Q3 Chairman: David, do you want to say
anything?
Professor Wilson: Just two things,
I think, from me. Firstly, I think it is important to say that
prison education has been around for a very long time. The first
specialist education provision was put in jails in 1908. Prison
education has therefore been a component of the prison regime
for a very long time and prison educators have quite specialist
skills and that is very important, I think, in looking at contracts.
It is not like you can suddenly just pluck somebody who has been
teaching maths in the community and put them in a jail and hope
they will teach maths in a jail. There has been a real reluctance,
I think, historically to recognise the very specialist skills
that educators in jails have. That would be the first thing I
would like to say. Prison education has been around for a long
time and prison educators have particular skills. The second thing,
as Andrew was alluding to, we were both still in the Prison Service
during the contracting out process and we were both, I think,
very marked by that process in terms of believing in some of the
local education, the local issues that Andrew has alluded to,
and indeed in Andrew's autobiography, which he was writing in
1993, he said, "In ten years' time we will look at the contracting
out process to see if everything that has been promised that was
going to happen as a result of this contracting out process has
delivered something better to prisoners." Well, frankly,
ten years on, I do not think any of us who knows anything about
this subject would say that there has been something better delivered.
There is something different delivered, but I would still question
whether we could answer Andrew's question in the affirmative.
Q4 Chairman: Okay. That is very useful
and something that we will be pursuing. Could we start from sort
of the ground floor. Some of our constituents might say, "What
is the point of educating people in prison? They're in prison.
They've done something wrong. They've been sentenced to prison
and what is the point? Not only what is the point of providing
an education for prisoners, but does it work? Is there convincing
evidence?" Most of us, I suspect, on this Committee, would
absolutely think that if you pile on the education skills you
would get a better citizen coming out, someone who is more likely
not to offend again, and so on. Is that true? Some of my constituents
would disagree with that, but some of the academic experts might
say there is not a really clear link between the amount of education
and skills that a prisoner receives and his or her behaviour when
they leave prison.
Professor Wilson: There are various
ways of answering that. I think the first is to say that if nothing
positive is provided in terms of what happens to prisoners once
they are in jail, my gosh, will they learn, but they will learn
from each other in ways which are particularly negative. It was
one of Mr Turner's predecessors who said that prison could be
an expensive way of making bad people worse. If you watch what
happens, how prisoners transmit information to each other about
criminogenic skills, you realise that if you simply abandon prisoners
in this kind of vacuum in which nothing positive will happen then
you clearly are going to be dealing with some difficult issues
down the line. The second thing is that quite clearly prisoners
come from some of the most marginalised sections of our community
in which frankly very few of them have level 1 educational achievement,
i.e. they have not got the skills of an eleven-year-old in terms
of reading and writing. That clearly does affect their chances
of being able to gain employment once they are released back into
those communities. So if you can actually use prison as a positive
experience to counteract some of the very negative schooling experiences
they have and therefore factor in one of my earlier points about
the specialist skills that prison educators often need, so much
the better. My third point to you is that empirically there is
evidence. That evidence is not particularly well-known because
this has often been an area which has been neglected. People have
not been particularly interested in prison education. But there
is evidence. Most of that evidence comes from Canada, and in particular
the five years in which the Simon Fraser ran education courses
in British Columbia at five jails, and over the course of the
number of years that education programme was running there were
some 650 prisoners went through the educational programme and
the evaluation that was done by Professor Polson from Canada and
Professor Dogood from Canada, who looked at the cohort that had
achieved in education to see what the predicted rates of re-offending
were when they entered jail and then measured that against what
had happened when they were released from jail and the predicted
rate of re-offending had been reduced by over 30%. So there is
indeed evidence to suggest that if you engage prisoners with education
you are likely to affect their re-offending when they are released
back into the community. I think not only constituents want there
to be less re-offending in the community, all of us want less
re-offending in the community, and education could be a tool for
achieving that objective.
Professor Coyle: Following on
from David's point about what would happen if you did not, I think
there is an argument saying we should provide prison education
because it is the right thing to do. I think that is an important
starting point, not just in terms of education but in terms of
what goes on in prison. It is the right thing to do. That passes
an important message to a variety of people. From my practical
experience and subsequent experience, I am a reductionism in terms
of the use of imprisonment and indeed of criminal justice. I think
there has been a tendency, particularly in this country over the
last decade or so, to be expansionist about the role of criminal
justice in society and about the role of prison in society and
the danger that one then expects prison to deliver much more than
it actually can do. However, having made that context, I think
it is incumbent on us to make the experience of imprisonment for
those who have to be deprived of their liberty as positive as
possible. I think where both the Department for Education and
Skills and the Prison Service have been successful in recent years
has been in focusing on particular skills which might help prisoners
once they are released. I think for a period the pendulum swung
too far to the purist approach. I think it is coming back now
and that we do see more use of creative activities in prisons.
If we helped to develop the prisoner as a person then I think
we will reduce the likelihood of that person continuing to commit
crime. I think one of the things we need to be cautious of at
the moment—and again NOMS will inevitably come up in the
course of our discussion this morning—to focus on these
people as offenders without taking account of all the other facets,
I think, of their humanity is giving a very narrow focus which
is not actually going to help us in the long term. So provided
one sees these people as individuals, I think the answer to your
constituents is that people who are more roundly developed are
actually more likely to become honest citizens.
Q5 Chairman: When you say that the pendulum
has swung too far in one direction, which direction is that?
Professor Coyle: There was a period,
I think, five years ago when there was an over-focus on giving
prisoners skills which, in theory at least, would help them to
find employment and I am not sure that it was the lack of new
skills which actually made it difficult for prisoners to find
employment. The reason, I think, that prisoners found it difficult
to get employment was the fact that they were ex-prisoners, regardless
of their skills, and I think that is recognised now and the Prison
Service is returning, as I understand it, to a more rounded view
of education, as I say, taking in more creative and other developmental
focuses.
Q6 Chairman: There is an argument that
we have picked up already on our first visit to a prison that
a lot of the young people in the Reading Young Offenders Prison
had rejected basic skills time and time again right throughout
their school history and to try and replicate a kind of school
education but in prison was not what was necessary, you actually
had to wrap the basic skills up in practical learning of some
kind. That is what seemed to be the secret of the success of the
Transco operation in Reading.
Professor Coyle: I think that
is correct. That is something, I imagine, which your Committee
must come across in its inquiries into so many other areas of
education. People who are in prison are no different from some
of their cohorts elsewhere in society and the actual packaging
of these tools is extremely important. There is, I think, also
another thing which the Prison Service does not seem to be doing
terribly well at the moment, which is reading across from some
of the successes of the Youth Justice Board. I think some of the
things that the Youth Justice Board has done in managing children
in prison give a number of lessons which can be read across to
the management of adult prisoners and I am not sure that that
has been picked up on yet.
Chairman: That is going to be useful
for us to look at.
Mr Pollard: I have learnt a new word
this morning; criminogenic. I think I know what it means. Perhaps
you will tell me afterwards. I visited a few prisons when I was
a magistrate some years ago and more recently. What struck me
was that there is a sort of pecking order of management in prisons
and the educator is sort of last in the pecking order. I wonder
if, if we are serious about education in prisons, we might reverse
that where the educator was as important and seen to be as important
as any other part of the management system, in fact perhaps more
important than most—if we are serious about this. I wonder
if you have got a view about that. Secondly, there are two partners
in education, there are the educators—and David mentioned
the special skills required about teaching mathematics in prison
is different to teaching it in the general population—but
we also need to make sure that the prisoners themselves recognise
the value of education, and I am not sure from my visits that
that is always the case. For example, are incentives needed? How
do we ensure that prisoners do value education and see that as
a way out in every sense?
Q7 Chairman: Could we take those in order.
Professor Wilson: Yes. Promoting
education firstly, you are quite right to have picked up that
prisons operate both as formal hierarchies and informal hierarchies
and there are certain people in jails who will be seen by different
groups as being more important than others, and I think you are
quite right to say the prison education comes well down the bottom
of that list. I would actually broaden that and say that part
of the reason for that is, to go back to the very first question
the Chairman asked, because prison education is something often
people are rather embarrassed about talking about. Andrew and
I were joking about the fact that one of the questions we would
often be asked as prison governors would be, "Governor, why
should the prisoners have access to computers when my kids don't
have access to computers in their schools?" So there has
always been rather a reluctance to actually trumpet the success
of what education can do. Three hundred people graduated from
The Open University last year in prison. I do not think any of
you would ever have seen that in the broadsheet press or the tabloid
press, but it is something to be proud of. So until broadly we
start promoting what education can do in jail then I think that
hierarchy where the educator is seen at the bottom will continue.
Therefore, it is about being far more proactive about what prison
education can do for the wide community once those prisoners are
released. You mentioned specialist skills and it goes back to
a statement the Chairman made about Transco and wrapping things
up. These are people who by and large have been excluded from
school. The idea of keeping them in a class for two and a half
hours in a jail was exactly why they failed and were school-excluded
in the community. So actually you have got to engage with them
so that young people in particular are engaged through their own
personal needs. Education has to be more person, prisoner-centred.
At the minute, prison education is more centred on the needs of
the institution to meet key performance targets. Those targets
might have nothing to do with those young people who need to be
engaged, who are engaged if they are approached by some of the
good education provision in jails but are not engaged if it is
simply a question of making sure that they achieve key skills
level 1 so as to allow the prison to tick the box which says they
have achieved their target. Young people do identify, it seems
to me. My most recent research is with the Children's Society,
with young black kids in jail, and my gosh, do they value education.
They just do not tell you they evaluate it in the way we expect
to hear it, but they all want to go in education despite the fact
they are often paid less for doing so. They value education because
actually education is for many of them a passport out of the criminogenic
circumstances they have found themselves in.
Q8 Chairman: Andrew, do you want to add
to that?
Professor Coyle: The hierarchy
in prison is very important. Prison is a hierarchical place. Traditionally
one's place in the hierarchy was indicated by the number of one's
key. The governor usually had key number 1. Either the chaplain
or the medical officer had key number 2 and the other had key
number 3 and they were the triumvirate of the prison. The education
officer used to be pretty high up the list. I suspect he or she
has probably fallen down the list and I think partly that is an
organisational thing because of the contracting out, that these
people are no longer seen as being central. But there is this
ambivalence, I think, about the place of education in prison.
If one takes a reductionist view of prison, that people should
only be sent to prison as punishment when there is no other punishment
appropriate, then it is inevitable that education comes within
that context. What we do not want is people being sent to prison
in order to get education, and that is presumably something that
your Committee will look at elsewhere. We do not want magistrates
or judges saying, "I know you will get good training in Reading
Prison or at Reading Young Offenders, so I am going to send you
there for a training course." So there is this continual
tension and what we need to make sure of is that that tension
is constructive rather than destructive.
Q9 Mr Pollard: You mentioned children
being chucked out of school and that is the past way. As a magistrate
for years we were always trying to intervene to stop people going
to prison. Should education be changed so that those who are pre-prison
are singled out for special education? I meant in the sense of
different from what the norm is, otherwise they would not be where
they are. Is that something we should think about?
Professor Wilson: I think that
is a much wider issue. Most of the kids I have been working with
are actually in Birmingham, it is a Birmingham based project I
have been looking at, and it does seem extraordinary—and
it is particularly young black children I have been working with—that
they achieve remarkably well in primary school and then suddenly
there is a problem in the secondary school. I do not think it
is necessarily about giving them special education, I think it
is working out what have been the structural components that have
led them to succeed in one educational environment but fail in
another, and I think that is a much broader question, to be honest,
Mr Pollard.
Q10 Chairman: Yes. We did cover quite
a lot of that territory when we looked at pupil achievement fairly
recently in terms of that kind of achievement. Before we leave
this section and go on to the next, one question which has not
been asked which we should cover is, it is all very well having
education in prison but what if the facility for continuing that
education is not provided when the prisoner leaves? Is it not
the full package? People keep saying to us already informally
that what really matters is the full package on release; not that
you have got a job, but what about housing, what about support?
They keep talking about the "full package". I suppose
that is common parlance?
Professor Wilson: It is common
parlance and there are various organisations which are providing
resettlement advice in relation to that full package, but what
tends to happen is if one part of that package falls down then
the whole house of cards fails. With some prisoners, education
might be the most important thing that they want, or housing might
be the most important thing that they want. The real problem that
I identify and the Forum on Prisoner Education has identified
is the discrimination which exists against prison education qualifications
in the community. It is very difficult at one level if you say
your bricklaying skills or your typing skills come from HMP Wellingborough
and you take that to an employer because that immediately identifies
you as an ex-offender. At the other level, we have been fighting
on behalf of a number of prisoners and one, for example, I can
talk about because he mentioned this publicly. One of the people
in our Forum was accepted to read law. He had an unconditional
offer to read law at Oxford Brookes University, he had three As,
and he was rejected once they discovered the fact that he had
a sentence. So there is a lot of discrimination still being faced
by prisoners as they want to go back into the community and use
the qualifications they have achieved whilst in jail.
Professor Coyle: Your question
about the "whole package" is an important one and that
goes back to what was being said earlier about seeing the person
as more than an offender, about looking at the whole person, and
one could apply the same question, for example, to drug treatment
in prison, to health care in prison and to many of the other issues
which go on in prison. If you simply approach them as the offender's
need rather than the person's need then one is left with a problem
and there are good examples from other countries where the role
of what we would call the probation officer (which is not necessarily
how they would describe that person) is to make sure that the
person who is in prison or the offender on probation in the community
plugs into the resources which exist in the community, whether
they be housing, whether they be employment, whether they be drug
treatment and whether they be education, and you use the time
in prison to create a foundation which will carry on in the public
sphere rather than to operate in a vacuum.
Professor Wilson: If I could just
use Andrew's point there to make another which we have talked
about earlier, which is that that is why it is so difficult, at
a time of prison expansion with the numbers so high where prisoners
are moved so very far away from where they live or where they
will return to, to plug into those local services when you are
actually 150 miles away from where you are going to return to
live. So the kind of numbers has a broad impact throughout many
of these issues that we have been talking about.
Chairman: That is very interesting. We
will come back to that and look at the mobility of prisoners later.
I would like to move now to how to measure the effectiveness of
prison education and Jonathan is going to lead us through this.
Q11 Jonathan Shaw: I would just like
to ask you if you could tell us a little more about your assessment
of the contracting out because that certainly came up during our
visit to Reading Prison and in the seminar that we organised.
Professor Wilson, you have preferred to Professor Coyle's autobiography.
Professor Wilson: That was because
I was crawling, to be honest!
Chairman: Mutual admiration!
Q12 Jonathan Shaw: Have you an autobiography?
Professor Wilson: I am hoping
he is going to refer to some of my work later!
Q13 Jonathan Shaw: Sadly, it is not being
televised. Could you tell us what made you write that and perhaps
you could give us your assessment of that decade which has now
taken place in the contracting out?
Professor Coyle: The comment was
informed by my particular experience at that moment, which was
as Governor of Brixton, as I have already referred to, where Brixton
was and remains, I think, typical of many of our prisons, a large,
urban prison, known in the trade as a "local prison"
with prisoners coming by and large from the locality, returning
to the locality. I was at that point very clear that the prison
should be, for better or worse, a part of its community just as
much as the school should be or the hospital should be. Clearly
it is not an exact parallel, but it is a recognition that the
prisoners are local. The vast majority of the prisoners in Brixton
at that point came from Brixton or Lambeth or south London and
would return to that area, to those communities, and for that
period they were standing still, as it were, in Brixton Prison,
perhaps for the first time standing still, and one of the things
that we could do was to make use of that captive time to build
in networks which they could make use of after they were released.
One way of doing that was in respect of education in the broadest
sense at that time was delivered in Brixton by Lambeth Education
Department. We had a contract with them, paid them an amount of
money and they employed the teachers who worked in the prison.
They were by and large local teachers employed by the local authority
who worked in the prison and were aware, I think, of what loomed
large in the lives of the people from Lambeth who happened to
be in Brixton Prison at that time and very much the attempt was
to provide a spectrum of education which would either help them
once they were released or which would create a framework which
they could make use of so that they could have continuing access
to the education in the community. Now, that was weakened by the
arrangements which were brought in in the early 1990s.
Q14 Jonathan Shaw: It was weakened. Looking
back to how things were then when you were the governor at Brixton
and how things are now, are prisoners less equipped to be able
to secure employment, etc, after release today then they were?
Some of the statistics we have been provided with are 46,000 qualifications
in literacy, language, numeracy, and 110,000 qualifications in
work-related skills before people are released. You have described
the local relationships, local prisons for local people, but overall
are prisoners getting a worse or a better deal in terms of assisting
them to reintegrate? What works, I suppose? If I could say that
a cosy local relationship sounds great but what is more important
to society is what works.
Professor Coyle: The short answer
to what works is, not much. That goes back to my earlier point
about a reductionist view of imprisonment. I think one should
not look for the prison system to provide overmuch, or rather
what the Prison Service can do best is to plug into the resources
which are going to help the former prisoner to resettle in the
community and one of these indeed is education. We have already
touched on the fact that it is not sufficient to get the 46,000
qualifications if the fact that this is an ex-prisoner is going
to mean that he is not going to get employment anyway. So what
one needs to be doing all the time is trying to reinforce links
with the local community. We are doing quite a bit of work at
the moment with the Local Government Association, getting them
involved through their crime reduction strategy, the Crime Disorder
Act, trying to get them to take on their responsibility for resettling
offenders. So all the time what one is trying to do and it seems
to me what one has to do is to break out of the tramlines of the
prison world of criminal justice into the wide world, which will
make it more likely that former prisoners will become honest citizens
again.
Q15 Jonathan Shaw: Do you think we should
not be looking at this then?
Professor Coyle: No. Absolutely
I think you should. Absolutely. There are so many, I think, healthy
developments going on at the moment. The more the Department for
Education and Skills, and therefore your Committee, shines the
spotlight—what you must do, it seems to me, is use the same
measurement as you use everywhere else within the prison setting.
That is a message which I think one passes frequently because
prisons create a mystique about themselves, "We are different
from other places. If only you knew what we know you would understand
how difficult it is," and it is that sort of mystique—
Q16 Jonathan Shaw: They are not unique
in institutions.
Professor Coyle: Indeed. Absolutely.
But they are a bit better at it than many because by definition
they are secret places and if you can shine the spotlight of normality,
ask the naíve question, the why question, that is absolutely
important.
Q17 Jonathan Shaw: Oh, there is no end
of those.
Professor Wilson: I wanted to
come back specifically to that question and a way of answering
it, as far as I am concerned, is that prior to the contracting
out period what has changed since 1993 is that contractors are
now paid on the basis of the number of teaching hours that are
delivered. So there is no time and no payment in the contract
therefore for lesson preparation, for curriculum development,
for marking, for any other kind of pastoral interest in the person
who is in the education department and prior to 1993 one of the
best things about the prison educators was the interest they took
in the prisoners as people. Under contractual arrangements all
that is interested in is how many hours were taught that particular
week—
Q18 Jonathan Shaw: And ensuring that
they were. Professor Wilson, if you were redesigning the prison
education programme, taking in what you have said about contracting
out, taking in what you have said about the existing targets,
would you bring it back in-house, would you put any targets in,
and if so what those targets would be?
Professor Wilson: Oh, what a nice
question. The first thing that I would do is recognise that the
world that used to exist is not going to be created and I have
taken very much an approach that contractors are here to stay,
contracts are here to stay. It is about actually working with
contractors to say what is good and what has benefit. Specifically
in terms of targets, I would certainly be looking at targets beyond
basic skills. I would be looking at targets at levels 2, 3 and
4. The reality of that is that because there are no targets in
relation to those levels, or there are fewer targets in relation
to those levels, prison education regimes do fundamentally get
altered because the prison governor is quite instrumental about
what is going to be delivered. A specific example is Channings
Wood Prison in the south-west. I do not know if any of you have
a south-west constituency here, but Channings Wood in the south-west
has one of the best records about getting prisoners into further
education. There are some five prisoners studying for masters,
twenty prisoners studying for degrees. The tutor who has been
coordinating that programme at Channings Wood is being made redundant
to make way for a brick-laying instructor because there are no
targets for levels 2, 3 or 4. So that would be one of the things
if I was being given this blank sheet of paper. The second thing
I would do with my blank sheet of paper is actually say it is
not beyond the wit of the Prison Service to be able to deal with
some of these issues far more creatively. At the end of the day
I visit, as Andrew visits many more than myself, but I visit many,
many prisons in Canada and the United States. Many educational
programmes are delivered through Intranet provision. Now, you
just have to say "the Internet" in an English and Welsh
penal context and people immediately faint at the idea that this
could possibly be delivered. You mentioned, Mr Shaw, that there
were 46,000 achievements in basic skills. Actually, 200,000 prisoners
go through prison each year. The vast majority of them are short-timers.
So we are actually only hitting about 25% because there is not
space in prison education departments to take everybody who might
benefit from education in jails. It seems to me that one of the
ways that I saw in America, Sun Microsystems does it in America,
in the United States, and I saw education programmes being delivered
through a secure Intranet. Now, why can that not be one of the
things that is looked at. The third thing I would do with my blank
sheet of paper, and then I will shut up, is that I would look
again at the role of the OLSU. There is a great deal of confusion
about what the OLSU is—
Q19 Chairman: What is the OLSU?
Professor Wilson: The Offenders
Learning and Skills Unit.
|
