Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
RT HON
CHARLES CLARKE
MP AND SIR
JOHN GIEVE
KCB
25 OCTOBER 2005
Q20 Chairman: I am sure your comments,
which were certainly new to me, about the composition of the prison
population and the recent increase, will attract some attention.
Do you have a sense yet, Home Secretary, whether the disparity
between the imprisonment of British nationals and foreign nationals
reflects patterns of crime or patterns of sentencing?
Mr Clarke: We are analysing this
in some detail. I think it is more a pattern of crime and there
are some particular crimes in the area of fraud where there have
been some significant increases.
Chairman: We look forward to further
information on that.
Q21 Nick Herbert: Home Secretary, could
I ask you about the use of the private sector in the prison system?
Back in 2004, the White Paper talked about the use of the private
sector in association with the Prison Service as being extremely
positive. Martin Narey proposed a market test of all public sector
prisons. Does that remain the Government's policy?
Mr Clarke: Broadly speaking, yes.
I have two things to say about the private sector as a general
position. The first is that I think there is a great deal of evidence
that the private sector can be an extremely efficient and good
provider of prisons, both from the point of view of rehabilitation
and from the point of view of efficiency. Secondly, I think that
it is positively desirable to get a wider range of providers into
the field in relation to everything to do with offender management,
corrections or whatever word that one would like to see. I think
there are many voluntary and charitable organisations which would
have a great deal to contribute in relation to some of the conditions
in prisons. My stance is to involve the private sector and the
voluntary and community sector more in what we do and also to
build stronger partnerships between prisons and probation and
the wider community, which I think go with that. As far as market
testing specifically is concerned, we have been discussing
very explicitly with our stakeholders, including the trade unions,
how we can improve the market-testing regime that operates throughout
the prison system. Perhaps at this point I could pay tribute to
the fact that there has been a constructive approach to discussion
by all parts of that approach. A particular case where that arose
was in relation to prisons on the Isle of Sheppey and the issue
around that, but there has been very positive discussion. Perhaps
I should ask John if he would like to add anything on the market-testing
regime. If your question is whether there is any doubt in my mind
as Home Secretary whether we should be going down this path, the
answer is: none at all and I think it is the right way to go.
Sir John Gieve: May I add that
market testing can be used in a broader or a narrower sense. For
example, on the Isle of Sheppey we have undertaken a performance
test, which is still not complete yet. That is to ask the public
service and the unions to come up with new ways and changes in
the ways of running the prisons which meet the benchmarks set
by best practice through the Prison Service. That is a form of
contestability which we have used quite a lot in the Prison Service.
I suppose I would say that I think market testing in the narrow
sense, which means putting out every contract to open tender,
is one means of bringing market forces to bear in creating a contestable
market. We are committed to contestability across the whole field,
but the exact mechanism for that will vary according to the circumstances
we meet.
Q22 Nick Herbert: I want to clarify that.
Back in March, the Prison Officers' Association asked you to put
the whole programme on hold and threatened strike action unless
that was the case. There was then an announcement by a Minister
that suggested that the process had been put on hold and that
the process of market testing would only be after alternative
arrangements had been made with the Prison Officers' Association.
Is that not the case?
Mr Clarke: It is not quite the
case. Firstly, I think, on behalf of the Prison Officers' Associations,
a role I often play, I should make it clear that strike action
was not threatened and they would not go down that course. It
is true that at their conference there was discussion amongst
some sections of the union as to whether that might be something
they would want to re-visit, but that was not the position that
came forward, nor was it the position which we would have accepted.
It is not acceptable, in our view, for the Prison Service to take
strike action. We made agreements around that before I became
Home Secretary, which we would stick with. It is the case that
the Prison Officers' Association was very exercised about the
proposed market testing at Sheppey. They said that they were keen
to discuss with us what we were trying to achieve in the contestability
framework, in the way that John has just described. We said we
were very keen to talk about that with them because for us it
was not simply a question of Prison A or Prison B; it was a question
of getting a much better system across the whole prison estate.
Since that time, the discussions have been proceeding I think
very effectively. There has been a lot of give and take in the
discussions. They are not concluded. There are issues about the
Sheppey test which John has referred to and to which I cannot
add anything. There are issues about pay deals for the future,
which also relate to that. There is a whole set of issues that
is absolutely on the agenda.
Q23 Nick Herbert: In principle, there
is no limit to the extent to which the private sector may be involved
in the management of prisons?
Mr Clarke: Not in principle, no.
In practice, there may be. There are many very serious practical
issues. I can easily see, for example, that with some prisons
it might be unimaginable to go down a private route. I can see
that, and so I do not envisage going to private provision right
across the whole length of the country. I think that would be
very unlikely. If you ask if there is a principal decision somewhere
that says, "There is a line over which we cannot cross",
I do not think we are in that position. There are some aspects
of national security which I think would always require certain
prisons to be within the public sector.
Sir John Gieve: May I add one
point? We now have a reasonably mature market in prisons with
a number of private contractors, private firms, in the business.
The public service can be very competitive. That has been our
experience. Indeed, they won some of the open competitions. In
other cases, we have found the private sector is not interested.
There is not a stop point, as the Home Secretary was saying, but
in practice the public service can compete and in some areas it
has been the only competitor in the field. What matters across
the whole service is to have sufficient competition to set the
standards and to drive up standards, not just in terms of efficiency
but also in terms of effectiveness and measures against re-offending,
and so on. That is what we are set on doing.
Q24 Nick Herbert: Can I just go back
to one issue in relation to prison overcrowding, which is the
suicide rate? Would you accept, Home Secretary, that the suicide
rate must be linked in some way to overcrowding? What measures
are being taken to deal specifically with the problems of suicides,
particularly amongst young people?
Mr Clarke: I do not accept the
absolute linear relationship that you have made. I think there
is a number of factors which leads to people committing suicide,
of which the starting point has to be the increasing numbers of
vulnerable people who demonstrate high-risk characteristics on
any of the issues that I mentioned—mental health, drugs,
drink, troubled relationships and previous histories of self-harm.
We do have, and always have had, a comprehensive suicide prevention
strategy with a new assessment and care planning system, precisely
to focus on those vulnerabilities of people with those particular
potential issues. Within that, there are specific strategies in
place for women and juveniles, exactly for the reason that you
have just said. We are working very intensively on this. We will
continue to do so. The core is the point that I gave in answer
to Mr Clappison of the strategy focus on each individual offender,
obviously with particular attention to those who are particularly
vulnerable. It is the case, obviously, that the more crowded the
prison population is, the less easy it is to apply that strategy
to each offender, for the reasons I gave Mr Clappison earlier.
I do not mean this in a critical way: I think it would be over-simplistic
simply to say that there is a linear relationship between some
measure of overcrowding and prison suicides. It is one of a series
of factors that operates on the situation.
Q25 Mrs Cryer: Just to put a marker down,
I find it quite offensive to talk about dealing with prisoners
by means of commercial decisions and market testing. I wonder
what role the suicide rate in those prisons has on those commercial
decisions and market testing?
Mr Clarke: I am sorry you found
it offensive, Mrs Cryer. Firstly, I am not aware, but maybe we
should do the research on this, of any significant differentiation
in the suicide rates by the form of prison management, whether
private sector or not. We will look at that. If I may, Mr Denham,
perhaps I could drop a note to the Committee on that to clarify?[3]
John may have further information on this.
Sir John Gieve: When I last looked
at it, the private sector prisons had, on the face of it, a slightly
better record, but that may be a reflection of the type of prisons,
the type of population and the places they are in. Can we provide
a note on that because some sorts of prisoners and some sorts
of prisons have greater suicide rates for a variety of reasons.
Chairman: I might mention the point that
earlier today in private session the Committee was so concerned
about this issue that we are going to have a special session on
8 November looking particularly at overcrowding with a focus on
prison suicides. I realise it is very short notice but we would
be very grateful to both of you for any help you can give us in
ensuring we have ministerial and official representation. We normally
like to give much more notice than this but obviously it would
be very helpful if the Home Office was able to be fully represented.
Q26 Mr Streeter: The Committee has just
started looking at the draft sentencing guidelines, and one of
the things we have noted is that there have not been too many
responses yet to your consultation exercise. Do you accept that
you have not actually yet won the battle of confidence, particularly
in relation to community sentencing? How are you going to go about
reversing that and giving a bit more leadership on some of these
important issues?
Mr Clarke: There is a number of
battles for public confidence involved. One at a level which you
are not asking a question about is fines, collecting fines. It
is very important that we continue to improve our record. There
have been significant improvements already but we need to take
that further. The second, as you say, is on community sentencing
where it is relatively recent that we have had the range of community
sentencing powers that exist even at the moment. We are still
in a process of putting in place the interventions, which will
make it a comprehensive position, including the other forms of
sentencing, for example for weekends and so on, which could operate
there. In that sense, you are right that we have not yet won the
public confidence in this issue. On the other hand, I think we
are increasingly developing the capacity to do so. There is some
evidence that we are beginning to win that already but we are
at very early stages in this.
Q27 Mr Streeter: On the issue of resourcing
of community sentencing, are you now investing sufficient resources,
do you think? That is one of the things that the Committee, in
welcoming the guidelines last year, talked about: the need for
sufficient resources and the desire to monitor the development
of that programme. Are you putting in sufficient resources, do
you think, and how is it going?
Mr Clarke: We are certainly putting
in significantly increased resources. The word "sufficient"
is one I always steer clear of. It can always be the case that
more resources could improve the quality of what is done.
My own view, however, is that the combination of the increased
resources that have gone in, plus stronger partnerships in the
way that I was referring to in answer to Mr Clappison, with external
organisations on education, health, employers or whatever, is
the best way for us to go in that regard.
Q28 Nick Herbert: You mentioned the need
to collect more fines. I do not think you have a percentage figure
in your mind of the number of fines which are not paid, but is
it government policy now to encourage sentencers to impose more
fines? Are you in favour of the proposal in the Carter Report
about income-related fines for low risk offenders?
Mr Clarke: I do not have the figures
just in my mind. I think we have gone up from about 60% collection
to about 90% collection over recent years. John may correct me
if I have that figure wrong.
Sir John Gieve: I am not sure
it has reached 90% but it has gone up very sharply in the last
couple of years, partly because the court service has been very
focused on this.
Mr Clarke: We want to take that
still further forward. I can set out for you, through the Criminal
Justice Committee on which I work with the Lord Chancellor and
the Attorney General, our targets in relation to fines collection.
I am happy to let the Committee have a note about that, if that
would be helpful, to give the accurate answer to your question.[4]
In terms of income-related fines, speaking personally, I think
there is quite a lot to be said for that and I think there are
areas where it would be appropriate. It is not something which
is currently the policy of the Government and so I should not
give the impression, because it is not the case, that we are intending
to legislate in that way, though I do think it is worth looking
at. Perhaps John would like to add something on fine collection
generally.
Sir John Gieve: Clearly the key
part of making fines credible as a punishment is to make sure
that they are collected. That is one element, alongside the measures
we are taking, to make community services more credible. We are
also trying to make fines more credible. If you look at sentencing
practice over a number of years, the reduced use of the fine has
been one of the things that has driven the pressure on the probation
and prison services. It is an important part of the picture.
Chairman: We will certainly need the
useful information that the Home Secretary has offered. That will
be very useful. Thank you.
Q29 Mrs Cryer: Home Secretary and Sir
John, during the recess, I had a long chat with probation officers
in my constituency about their concerns. I went to a regional
meeting of probation officers about their concerns. Last week,
I talked to some probation officers here. They all had many concerns
about NOMS and I think they have difficulty in understanding this
split of purchaser and the provider in their service. Your new
plans for contestability in the probation service appear to contain
little or no scope for local accountability or community involvement.
Why do you consider that such a move from local to central control
is justified? I do share the concerns of the probation workers
to whom I have talked. I think there are some very genuine concerns.
I really do have some sympathy with them.
Mr Clarke: Firstly, I agree with
you, Mrs Cryer, that there are concerns on this issue. I also
agree with you that the commitment in general of probation officers
is outstanding towards reducing re-offending and working together,
often in very difficult conditions. In my experience since I have
done this job, I would say the following attitudes sum up where
people are. Firstly, I think there is a strong acceptance of the
need for end-to-end offender management, in the jargon; i.e. looking
at the offender from when they go into the criminal justice system
hopefully to when they leave in a way that is focused on the needs
of that individual to try to stop him re-offending. Second, people
accept that that requires change in the way that we organise our
probation and prisons. Third, people accept that there is benefit
in bringing other providers in who have specific expertise in
relation to particular types of offender—e.g. drug users
or whatever it may happen to be—and they see a wealth of
experience which should be drawn in. Fourth, I agree that there
is not always a sense of direction about what we are trying to
achieve that is clearly understood and communicated from the centre
to the wider community as a whole. I think that criticism has
been made to me on a number of occasions. We are attempting to
address that, for example by publishing the consultation document
we did last week. You are right to say that there is not the confidence
as yet that we are communicating clearly what we are trying to
achieve in this area. I do think the principles that I indicated
earlier are ones that are fairly broadly accepted. You ask the
question about our accountability. Part of that is about achieving
a way of operating locally which is accountable locally.
Whether the current accountability arrangements are the best way
of doing it, is a doubtful question. I do not think it is at all
clear that the way the probation boards operate provides that
local accountability in the way that you describe, though there
are some areas where they definitely do.
Q30 Mrs Cryer: On the same subject of
probation officers, in terms of timing, is it a good idea to proceed
with the major structural upheaval in the provision of probation
services just when the new community sentences are coming into
effect?
Mr Clarke: I do not feel there
is any option really. The idea of saying that the current arrangements
are okay to deliver a state of affairs where we are trying to
achieve a massive transformation, not only in community sentences,
which you highlight, but in the development of an overall end-to-end
offender management system, simply is not sustainable. We have
two completely different services historically which have been
brought together: a very localised probation service and a highly
centralised prison service. I know that is a bit of a caricature;
it is not entirely like that. Getting them to work together in
one way that develops the idea, for example, of community prisons
so that there can be proper work with communities in these areas
requires change in a number of different areas. I do not see a
contradiction between changing the way in which we are doing things
and delivering the other things which we are seeking to achieve;
for example, community sentences.
Chairman: Can we change tack now and
look at some asylum and immigration issues?
Q31 Mr Benyon: Home Secretary, the review
of managed migration routes that was announced by your predecessor
is being used as the reason to hold up the awarding of indefinite
leave to remain for people who have come here on ancestral visas,
particularly from Zimbabwe. I am interested in why this review
is taking so long and why it is particularly affecting those wanting
to come here from Zimbabwe. Tony McNulty has said that the review
is being handled by the IND. The Chief Executive of the IND seems
to be confused as to the status of this review. Are you aware
what effect this is having on a larger number of people? In my
constituency there are well over a dozen, and you can spread that
across the country, people who cannot travel; they have vulnerable
relatives in that country; they are unable to go to family funerals
or go and look after those relatives because their papers are
all held here. We also have constituents from neighbouring South
Africa who seem to be able to make the transition from an ancestral
visa to ILR with without any delay for such a review.
Mr Clarke: First, let me say,
as we set out in our five-year strategy in February, which is
what we are seeking to implement, that we believe we need a much
stronger regime, which we believe should be based on a points
systems, of managed migration to this country, essentially focusing
on migration to work and migration to study, and that should be
the core of what we achieve. We are doing intensive work at the
moment on the structure of that managed migration scheme within
IND, as you say, and we will, in due course, I hope before too
long, publish our intentions in relation to this area. I hope
and believe that the approach we follow will be one which meets
general respect and that people appreciate the way we are doing
it. We will wait and see, of course, whether that actually turns
out to be the case. Secondly, we wish to continue offering asylum
and refugee status to people who are fleeing terror or whatever
in any given place. We are not, for example, in favour of withdrawing
from the United Nations Convention on Refugees. We believe that
we should continue to offer refugee status but we acknowledge
that some of the decision-taking has been longer than it needed
to be and not always as accurate as it needed to be. That is why
we are pleased we have brought the average time of consideration
of a case down to about two months, which is a massive improvement.
Both of these are the key reforms which underlie the whole of
the chain that we are talking about. I do not know if that addresses
what you are asking.
Q32 Mr Benyon: I am coming on to ask
you about asylum in a moment. On the specific immigration point,
how long is this review going to take? There are people in very
real difficulty because of the length of time it is taking. Can
you be specific? Why is there this lack of understanding between
what the Minister responsible is saying and what IND is saying?
Mr Clarke: I am not quite sure
what references you are describing. I am not aware of any lack
of understanding between the Minister and IND. In fact, I was
struck by the general closeness of the way in which they worked
together, but it may be you have a reference of which I am not
aware.
Q33 Mr Benyon: I have a ministerial announcement
that this review is being undertaken by IND. In briefings to new
Members by the Head of IND, they declared that there was no knowledge
or understanding of this review or what its status was, and so
there appears to be a discrepancy.
Mr Clarke: I can certainly write
to the Committee if that would help with clarity about this process.[5]
As I understand the review that we are talking about, it is the
establishment of a points system to set up proper channels of
managed migration in this country, which is work that is being
directly done by IND.
Q34 Chairman: Can I pursue this? My understanding
was—and Mr Benyon will correct me if I am wrong—that
for many years it has been possible for Zimbabweans to come here
and settle in this country on an ancestral visa. That process
has entirely stopped because of the wider view of managed migration.
Are you now suggesting, Home Secretary, that it is part of the
intention that that route of migration from Zimbabwe will be stopped
in this process and that the points system is now going to apply
to that group of people? At the moment, those of us who have constituents
in this position are simply getting a letter saying, "We
are not dealing with any of these because we have the wider review".
I certainly have not understood until now that it was planned
to change that migration route.
Mr Clarke: John may be able to
clarify if I am wrong about what I am saying about the managed
migration route from Zimbabwe in particular. The whole thrust
of what we are seeking to do is to establish the managed migration
route from every country in the world in which everybody can have
confidence in a way that I think there is not sufficient confidence
at the moment. John, have I perhaps missed a point on the question
about Zimbabwe that you can see?
Sir John Gieve: I am afraid I
cannot cast any light on this. Perhaps we can come back to you
on Zimbabwe in particular. I think there is no doubt that there
is a review of managed migration and the points system. I think
everyone here is clear about that. There may be a particular point
on this.
Chairman: It would be helpful if you
could address Mr Benyon's point in writing to us as quickly as
possible because a number of Members will have constituents in
the same position.
Q35 Mr Benyon: I would be really grateful
for that, particularly in relation to the fact that people from
other countries coming in on the same system seem to have no problem
and so if there is a review of the points system, it just seems
to be particularly disadvantageous to this one particular group
of people coming from Zimbabwe. If I can move on to talk about
asylum issues, where did the Zimbabwe removals case leave your
policy on returning failed asylum seekers? How are you going to
ensure that enough is done to take into account the local conditions
that exist in a particular country?
Mr Clarke: Obviously we are considering
precisely at the moment whether we will appeal the judgment that
was made in relation to the particular case. Until the legal position
is clear, we are not removing people to Zimbabwe. The state of
affairs is that we are considering that decision in the light
of the tribunal decision. There were some positive aspects of
that decision but there are two particular issues which are criticisms
we take very seriously. The first is the question of how, in removing
people to Zimbabwe, are we doing that and are we doing it in a
way which identifies the people who are being removed to the Government
of Zimbabwe that places them at risk? That was the first question
on which there were criticisms, which we are now examining very
carefully. The second is what form of monitoring regime we might
be able to have for people who have been returned to Zimbabwe
in a way that deals with the concerns that people have. We are
looking at both of those. We will take decisions on those matters
shortly. We do not accept that there is a blanket issue that says
that every returnee to Zimbabwe should not go to Zimbabwe because
Zimbabwe is, in general, not a safe place. We were glad that the
tribunal accepted that argument because obviously Zimbabwe is
a very large country with different circumstances in various parts
of the country and different circumstances for particular individuals,
but the same principle applies to every country in the world.
We look at the circumstances of the individual and make a judgment
about safety based on both Foreign Office advice and the advice
of other organisations.
Q36 Mr Benyon: Do you accept that there
is also a problem whereby individuals escaping from a regime such
as, say, exists in Zimbabwe will go next door to Malawi, as happened
in a very well-publicised case, and obtain citizenship there and
then seek to get asylum here? If they are removed from here to
Malawi, there is a very good chance that they will be sent straight
back to Zimbabwe so that the effect is the same. One has to look
at the sort of secondary removal effect?
Mr Clarke: Those are precisely
the issues which are looked at in detail in the case of any individual
who might, for example, have gone via the path that you have just
described. There are absolutely serious issues that have to be
assessed in that context.
Q37 Mr Benyon: Finally, this committee,
long before I was on it, recommended that a lot of work should
be done by your department into looking at the effects of what,
as you say, is going on. If you had taken that advice that the
Committee made in 2003, would you not agree that the difficulty
you face with this case would not have arisen?
Mr Clarke: No, I think the reverse
is true actually. I think the Committee's advice was good advice,
despite it not having you to contribute to it. It was well taken
advice, which was that we should look carefully and understand
the implications of any given decision in this area. I think perhaps
I should take this opportunity to emphasise the serious professional
commitment of the people who work for the Home Office, working
in conjunction with their colleagues and other government departments,
in particular the Foreign Office, to take very professional decisions
both about the general circumstances of a particular country but
also the particular circumstances of the individual. There is
a very high level of expertise there. I do not have the particular
recommendation of the Committee in front of me. If it is as you
have just summarised it, I think we did take it very seriously,
and that is again broadly what we do.
Q38 Chairman: Home Secretary, has the
idea of accommodation centres now been entirely scrapped?
Mr Clarke: I am not quite sure
what you mean by the phrase "accommodation centres".
Do you mean the Bicester case?
Q39 Chairman: I mean the ones that were
originally planned. I think for Bicester you have planning permission
but Gosport and elsewhere?
Mr Clarke: They have not been
entirely scrapped because there is always the possibility that
they may become necessary. I am giving you a candid answer. We
made an assessment of the progress that had been made on our ambitions
since the policy was announced early in the 2001-05 parliament.
We felt that sufficient progress had been made for us not to need
to go down the line of the construction at Bicester that we were
talking about in that sense. That remains our general assessment,
and so we do not have other such schemes on the books, as it were,
but we will continue to look at the situation and keep it under
review.
3 See Ev 38 Back
4
See Ev 39 Back
5
See Ev 39 Back
| 
