Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MINISTRY OF
JUSTICE, NATIONAL
PROBATION SERVICE
AND HM PRISON
SERVICE
23 APRIL 2008
Q1 Chairman: We are now considering the
Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on Community Orders and
we welcome from the Ministry of Justice Sir Suma Chakrabarti,
who is the newly appointed Permanent Secretary; Phil Wheatley,
the newly appointed Director General of the National Offender
Management Service; and Roger Hill, National Director of Probation.
Sir Suma, I shall probably address my questions to you but please
pass them over if you wish. Perhaps we can start by looking at
paragraph 3.6, which you find on page 20, which tells us that
rates of non-completion are not nationally reported. Why do you
not know how many Community Orders are completed in line with
the courts' wishes? Is this not absolutely fundamental to the
whole system? How can the system work if you do not know how many
are completed?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: It is fundamental
to the whole system, Chairman, and we do collect data at national
level on the total number of Community Orders that are completed.
Of the 12 requirements, we also collect national data on the accredited
programmes requirement and also on the unpaid work requirement.
As the Report also shows in paragraph 3.4, we have a pretty good
record; for example, in our accredited programmes only 2.5% of
these were not delivered, breached or revoked, and that is down
from 4.9% in 2005-06. On the other requirement that we do not
collect national data on, there is no evidence from inspectorate
reports that there is a non-completion problem that has not been
picked up here or elsewhere. Even though the evidence does not
suggest a problem, we agree with the recommendation in the Report
and we will be collecting data on all 12 requirements from later
this year. We already have a plan to do that.
Q2 Chairman: That is good. Let us
look at paragraph 3.5 now, which tells us that "As part of
our case file review we sampled orders covering all 12 requirements
and found that in six per cent of cases (18 out of 302 case files)
the offender failed to complete one or more order requirements
given by the court before the order." Why do you not ensure
that all these Community Orders are completed or all the requirements
are completed?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: It is quite
an interesting analysis there. It shows of course 94% were completed,
breached or revoked. Of the 6%, if you look at figure 12 on page
20, in the second column it shows very clearly—and our own
analysis tallies with this—that the 6% is confined to very
much the accredited programmes and specified activities, and the
reason is spelt out very clearly in paragraph 3.7 and we agree
with all those reasons. There has been progress actually in the
last few months on this. The key programme where there have been
significant waiting lists has been the domestic violence programme,
and it is picked up in the Report, but that is the only programme
now with significant waiting lists, and even there, Chairman,
in the last few years since 2003-04 the waiting lists have dropped
by 40%. In the last two years domestic violence programmes exceeded
their targets on completions, so we are making progress on there
too. Roger can talk to the Committee about how we do this but
essentially it is a mix of national standards and circulars and
local action. Roger sets out national standards as Director of
Probation. He sent out a circular last month which set out what
was expected. It is very important to set out the expectations
of local probation officers, what they should do if they think
a requirement is not going to be completed. We are very clear
with them, including what breach procedures they should take and,
again, the inspectorate has not identified a problem with staff
failing to act on non-completion.
Q3 Chairman: If we just look at paragraph
3.9, we see that according to national standards an order should
be breached following an offender's second unacceptable failure
to attend within a 12-month period and the offender will be returned
to court. The number of breached orders is not reported nationally.
Why is that? This is, again, fairly fundamental to the whole system.
You have to know, in addition to how many are completing, how
many people are breaching, otherwise you will not know what is
going on nationally, will you?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: I think
we have to not just know that top number, which we agree we will
report on in the future, but actually we also need to know at
a more granular level some other data around breaches, which we
do collect, and it is worth setting that out. First of all, we
know that most breaches from past experience tend to happen in
the first six months. If you get through the first six months,
you have a pretty good chance of getting this offender through
the whole order. We now collect data on the level of compliance
in the first six months, and that shows that 71% of offenders
do not breach in the first six months. We now collect data on
the percentage of orders terminated for failing to comply. That
stands at 24%. We also collect data on the percentage of appointments
arranged and kept, 86%, and finally on timeliness of enforcement,
which is now at 94%. It was 90% when the NAO looked at the data.
All of this data is collected and it shows an improving performance,
and it is the data around breaches which really helps delivery.
I do not disagree though, Chairman, that we should collect the
overall top number as well.
Q4 Chairman: Good. Thank you. Now
let us look at the excuses people give. This is mentioned in paragraph
3.12. "We identified the sorts of reasons accepted by Offender
Managers for absences| nine per cent involved an offender forgetting
their appointment." How can the system work if offenders,
Sir Suma, are allowed to play the system by saying they forgot
their appointment?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: Our view
is that offenders are not playing the system to any great extent.
Of course, within this cohort there are bound to be some people
who try it on, quite frankly, but the system has become much more
robust than it used to be in tracking this. The guidance is very
clear that when an offender is absent—let us say he does
not turn up for an appointment—the offender manager, probation
officer, must then work out whether this is an acceptable absence
or not, and Roger can, again, give examples of how they do that
at the moment. We are very clear now with all our probation officers
that it is two strikes and you are out, you are back in court,
and that clarity I think was not there before. Enforcement has
gone up. We are now getting timely decisions made in 94% of cases.
In 1999 this used to be 44%. I think the whole system has much
tightened up.
Q5 Chairman: You keep saying that
to me, and you keep saying that although we accept the recommendations
and although I keep putting to you that your lack of information
nationally is a problem, you keep referring to what is happening
locally. Let us look at paragraph 3.29, which tells us that not
all Community Orders requirements are in use in all probation
areas. "Of the 12 Community Order requirements from which
sentencers should be able to choose not all were used in all Probation
Areas," so you have to ensure your will is carried out locally,
do you not?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: I think
that is a very important theme in this Report and it goes to the
heart of the autonomy of the probation areas and to what extent
the centre can actually set out guidance: what is mandatory, what
is not mandatory.
Q6 Chairman: What do you think?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: I think
the system has been such that we have not been able always to
be very clear about what is mandatory. I think what has improved
last year, in 2007, the standards that Roger set out and in the
circulars he has sent out since then is much greater clarity,
so I think the system has improved partly because of that, and
what has obviously helped is that as well.
Q7 Chairman: Before we look at the
effectiveness of all this, let us look at figure 11, and availability
of research and findings for elements of the Community Order.
We still have very ineffective, weak evidence of just how much
good Community Orders do. What are you doing about it?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: I think
the evidence base is improving. There is a dearth, as the Report
rightly notes, internationally.
Q8 Chairman: The rubric says weak,
strong, inconclusive, weak, inconclusive, weak, weak, weak, strong,
inconclusive, strong. That is still pretty mixed.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: That is
right. That is a mixed bag. That is an international assessment.
We do not disagree with that. We agree with that. We are improving
the research base and, again, the Report, helpfully, I think,
sets out some of the examples. I will not go over them again.
I think what we need to do is get much better research. We, I
think, under-researched this area in the past. If you look at
last year's research—
Q9 Chairman: Community Orders have
been in use for years. It is incredible. The whole point of this
is to try and reduce re-offending yet your evidence of how much
good they do on re-offending is so weak. I would have thought
this would be fundamental.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: If you look
at part two at the beginning, there is actually quite a lot of
new data which is now presented by the NAO which shows some of
the research evidence coming through, but it is recent. This is
true, and we are obviously acting on it. Paragraph 2.12 shows
quite a lot of review and research work on the accredited programmes
and unpaid work, research which has been used. We have increased
the research budget. It used to be only 10% of the total research
budget in this area; it is now 40%, so a big increase. We have
a major study which the NAO Report records in paragraph 2.13 which
will give us much better data and much more granular data about
offenders, what types of interventions work and where. So the
research base is improving but I am not claiming that it has been
a wealth of research up to now.
Q10 Chairman: Mr Wheatley, can I
ask you one question. We have had many sessions in this Committee,
have we not? I particularly am very dubious about the effectiveness
of prisons in terms of rehabilitation; indeed, all the research
proves is how ineffective they are and they are universities of
crime, and therefore a lot of us put a lot of belief in alternatives
such as Community Orders, but how much belief do you have in them,
as somebody who is actually running the whole prison system? I
have talked for the last ten minutes about the weakness of evidence
and the lack of national reporting, but presumably you have faith
in Community Orders as an alternative, do you not, or perhaps
you do not?
Mr Wheatley: The best evidence,
and my faith normally relies on evidence—I am interested
in evidence—is the cohort studies which are reported each
year, which take the first quarter's discharges of every year
and then follow them up over a two-year period, and allowing time
to get them convicted over the two-year period, so that the study
takes place six months after the end of the two-year period, and
then compares actual re-convictions with what the very powerful
predictor says would happen in the ordinary course of events.
What that shows is that short-term imprisonment, under six months
in particular, has next to no effect on re-conviction: 0.2% in
the last cohort, which is 2004, positive effect. 0.2% is so small
as to be nearly risible, but it shows that for community sentences
there is a distinct effect. The community sentences look as though
they are more effective, and the main community sentences are
an alternative to short-term imprisonment, so best compared with
short-term imprisonment, and we are showing there that there has
been over a 3% reduction in re-offending as a result of those
community sentences. I think that shows that community sentences
have an effect. They are not a complete answer to crime but they
are more positive and usually cheaper than the much more expensive
use of imprisonment in very short periods.
Q11 Chairman: That is entirely my
view. Have you said that to the Home Secretary: there is no point
in locking people up for less than six months?
Mr Wheatley: Those facts are published
and drawn to the attention of Ministers.
Q12 Chairman: You have said this
to the Home Secretary, have you?
Mr Wheatley: We work for the Lord
Chancellor.
Q13 Chairman: All right, the Lord
Chancellor, and what has been the response of the Lord Chancellor
to this?
Mr Wheatley: It informs the Government's
policy, which is that challenging community sentences should be
considered by courts wherever they can be safely used in the interests
of public safety.
Q14 Chairman: What has been the effect
of all this in terms of getting rid of sentences of less than
six months, which, from what you tell us, do no good at all for
anybody?
Mr Wheatley: The number of short-term
sentences has been largely static. There was an increase at the
beginning of this year. It runs at about 8,500 out of our population
of just over 82,000.
Q15 Chairman: It is still a hell
of a lot, is it not?
Mr Wheatley: Yes, and the courts—
Q16 Chairman: And it apparently does
no good at all.
Mr Wheatley: The courts must be
free to decide—
Q17 Chairman: Eight thousand, and
this is a complete waste of time in terms of re-convicting.
Mr Wheatley: It makes no difference
in re-conviction on our latest data.
Q18 Chairman: So it is purely a punishment.
Mr Wheatley: It is a punishment.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: What has
been quite interesting, Chairman, is when this Report came out
how many people in the Probation Service then used it to show
sentencers| Actually, although you say the evidence base can be
stronger, the data is in there, that there is a 3.6% improvement
if you put them on Community Orders rather than in prison. It
is quite interesting that people are beginning to use this evidence
now to talk to sentencers about what the right approach should
be.
Q19 Dr Pugh: Just following on from
that, in comparison with prison and Community Service Orders,
clearly, you have to look at similar client groups, and the people
being sent to prison may actually differ in important respects.
They may be recidivists or whatever, people who have a long record
of crime; people who get Community Service Orders may actually
have not such a track record. Are you able to judge that? In other
words, in terms of looking and assessing what you are doing at
the moment, you are also looking and assessing the people you
are getting in the first place; in other words, your case-mix?
Mr Hill: Yes, we can, and we use
the OASys assessment system, which is a comprehensive assessment
process, to identify what we call criminogenic needs, those needs
which if they are not met would be likely to lead to re-offending,
and we will make proposals to courts, who then sentence. We do
not pass the sentence, as Phil Wheatley said a moment ago. The
courts must be free to sentence.
|
