Examination of Witnesses (Questions 425
- 439)
TUESDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2008
DAVID SCOTT
AND PAUL
TIDBALL
Chairman: We welcome David Scott of the
Probation Chiefs' Association and welcome back Paul Tidball of
the Prison Governors' Association. We have some time pressure
so we will move very quickly to questions. I ask Dr Palmer to
start.
Q425 Dr Palmer:
Welcome to the session. I assume you are aware that what we are
attempting to do is look at the whole concept of justice reinvestment
which we define as reducing the number of prison places and using
the savings from that to take measures which we hope will reduce
the demand for prison places. First, as a general question do
you think that is something that the Government ought to be doing?
Paul Tidball: I was delighted
that this Committee was to consider this subject because it was
something that had attracted us. Of all the evidence submitted
to the Titan prison consultation—people will groan when
I mention that in the first five seconds of speaking—the
piece that struck me most was that of Professor Andrew Coyle.
I do not know whether he appears as a witness. In that he differentiates
between demand and need. There are a number of drivers of demand
which include the popular press, political rhetoric and to some
extent the business lobby as private prisons now exist and there
is a difference between the demand created in that way and what
communities, victims and offenders themselves need if I dare say
it, though that appears very recently to have become a bit unfashionable.
I believe that to put into the hands of communities and their
representatives decisions about justice and sentencing, or to
take those decisions nearer to communities, stands a chance of
bringing some downward pressure on the imprisonment epidemic that
we have experienced in recent years.
David Scott: Perhaps I may take
a very brief time to explain who I am and why I am here. I chair
the Probation Chiefs' Association and represent the leadership
voice of 42 probation chief officers in England and Wales. We
have been incorporated as a company limited by guarantee and are
independent for less than two months. We are not a trade union
or a political voice. I say that by way of introduction. Our concern
is very much with the promotion of probation and securing public
consensus and confidence. Quite frankly, we believe that probation
is at a critical crossroads. We very much welcome the inquiry
and the opportunity to give evidence. There is a critical issue
as to what the balance is and should be between the prison population
and offenders being sentenced in the community. There is a real
risk that probation is drawn into the crossfire of that and is
seen as an alternative or otherwise to prison. We believe that
a really important starting point should be the merits of what
can be delivered effectively in the community and probation has
a very strong role to play in that. There is a critical issue
about the short-term prison population and we very much welcome
the investment of £40 million to try to provide services
which short-circuit the revolving door of people going in and
out of prison. I would certainly be pleased to say more about
that in a moment.
Q426 Dr Palmer: To clarify your last
point, do you believe that some body, whether it is the Government
or local decision-making bodies, as Mr Tidball suggested, ought
to take the plunge and say that they will have fewer prison places
because they hope to use the money to reduce the need?
David Scott: I simply make the
point that that takes probation into a crossfire so it is seen
to be arguing who should and should not be going into prison.
I believe that the prison population is a matter for political
decision—of course it is—and that individual sentencing
decisions belong to sentencers.
Q427 Dr Palmer: You are neutral on
that?
David Scott: What we would want
to do is raise confidence in the services we provide and have
the debate focus much more on the merits of community penalties
rather than discussion about the size of the prison population,
but instinctively I am with you. I would like to see a cap or
even reduction in the prison population.
Q428 Dr Palmer: To return to Paul
Tidball, do you think that at present we are sending too many
people to prison and the resources would be better used elsewhere
or are you agnostic on that and it is a matter that each local
community should decide?
Paul Tidball: It is a matter for
sentencers but, having been at the frontline over years and witnessed
people coming into prison, my opinion is that, whereas there are
serious or prolific offenders—which is an interesting debate—and
certainly serious offenders themselves agree that prison is where
they should be, there is a lot of disagreement about short sentence
people. If we were in the business of filling cells because we
could make money out of doing that we might take a different view,
but it is a fact that 70% of those who move in and out of a typical
local prison in any period of time—a month, year or whatever—are
sentenced to less than 12 months. That consumes a tremendous amount
of resources that could be better used to follow the risk which
I think is a good way to express it. Criminal justice resources
generally should follow the risk, so the greater the risk to the
community the more resources that follow it. Therefore, we are
wasting a lot of money on people who serve less than 12 months.
The statistics, which I do not have in front of me, demonstrate
that short-term prison sentences are the least effective, which
is no surprise given that they are very much in the revolving
door. We would prefer to spend our shrinking resources or static
resources on which there are increasing demands on prisoners who
will be the greatest risk to the community. Scotland proposes
to make it virtually impossible to pass a sentence of six months
or less. I recall that even the great liberal Lord Woolf who gave
evidence to this Committee, or a forerunner of it, said that if
someone was a huge nuisance to the community day after day he
or she—usually he—should be restrained in some way.
I think it is impossible to generalise and say there should not
be such a thing as a three-month prison sentence. Occasionally,
the control of a custodial sentence is necessary even if it is
only for a short time for a certain category of people.
Q429 Dr Palmer: Do you see any drawbacks
or things about which we should be careful if we adopt this approach?
For instance, do you feel it would be necessary to build up resources
to reduce offending first and then reduce prison places afterwards,
or do you believe it is justified to take the plunge and reduce
short-stay prison places first?
Paul Tidball: This is probably
a question more for David Scott, but I shall be very glad to give
my view on it. My understanding of the concept of justice reinvestment
is not just that we shift the balance from spending on prison
places to alternative sentences but we put the money into things
that stop people offending in the first place, like jacking up
the amount spent on youth schemes, local community leadership
schemes and those measures that stop people getting on the slippery
slope in the first place. It makes sense to me to shift, however
gradually, to invest in preventative and alternative sentences
rather than spend a lot of money on six-month prison sentences.
David Scott: I have already indicated
that there is a lot of focus on capacity in the prison system.
People understand when the prisons are full. There is not such
a sophisticated understanding of the capacity to deliver community
penalties which is the key role of the Probation Service. But
we are clear that involvement at local level with criminal justice
boards and crime and disorder partnerships is absolutely critical
in terms of working with the local authority and particularly
the police on prolific offenders and higher levels of risk but
also increasingly with voluntary and other sectors. The two have
to go hand in hand. I do not believe that one must wait for the
other, but I have very real concerns at the moment. I have talked
about probation being at a crossroads. I think that probation
is being pulled in a number of different directions and it is
vitally important that its strength as a local delivery arm is
built on and secured.
Q430 Dr Palmer: Paul Tidball is on
record as being a strong critic of the Titan prison concept. The
defence of it we have heard is that effectively by sharing security
measures through a number of different sub-prisons it would be
possible to provide the same number of places at lower cost. To
put it the other way round, if we did not have Titan prisons we
would end up having to reduce the number of places purely because
of lower efficiency. Is the Prison Governors' Association comfortable
with that? Do you say it is so important to have more localised
prisons that you are willing to accept lower efficiency or do
you not accept that and believe they would be more efficient?
Paul Tidball: We certainly would
advocate those small prisons that are in reasonable physical shape
and on which it is not necessary to spend huge amounts of money.
There may be one or two London prisons that do not fall into that
category, but in the part of the world where I have spent most
of my service, South Wales—the Cardiffs and Swanseas—the
prisons have been fully refurbished. Both find themselves at the
top nationally in terms of performance and both fulfil a community
prison role, that is, they cover a catchment area which is specific
to the population of the prison. Therefore, although it does contain
some strangers or an overflow from other parts of the country
a significant majority of the prisoners are from the locality.
There are huge benefits to be achieved by having that community
prison concept in place. One thing that is a challenge certainly
in terms of justice reinvestment is that not every part of the
country is blessed by prisons bang in the middle of communities.
If you tried to extend it to all areas of the country having prisons
right at the hub of communities it would mean a huge reconfiguration
of the estate at great cost because many of the existing prisons
are not located by design; it is more a matter of a redundant
wartime airfield becoming available. That is a typical criterion
for locating them where they are. In terms of Titans the consultation—I
am sure Lord Ramsbotham will have something to say about it—was
not about whether or not they should go ahead but people were
very firmly marshalled and told, "They are going ahead and
we are going to take your view on what they should look like."
The PGA is now on record as saying that if they do go ahead it
will be so rigorous about ensuring they are as least damaging
as they can be that it shall require that not many resources are
pooled within the perimeter. For instance, in the case of young
offenders, minor and serious offenders—we are still not
absolutely certain whether women will be tucked into the perimeter
of these places—perhaps all being in different five residential
units within the walls, the notion of their sharing a visiting
facility is not acceptable to us because we know it will not work;
people will find it alien and terrifying to be in huge shared
visiting facilities. You then look at all the other supporting
regime facilities. Perhaps healthcare is the only one we can identify
where there might be benefits from economies of scale and having
a shared facility.
Q431 Chairman: Is the objection that
there will not be many economies of scale?
Paul Tidball: I think it could
come down to saving a bit of fencing if we distance ourselves
in the way the Justice Secretary wishes from the notion that otherwise
it will be a penal warehouse.
Q432 Chairman: Both of you have made
reference to local decision-making and running programmes locally.
If you look at the whole question of dealing with actual and potential
crime there is a myriad of bodies and partnerships with all sorts
of names. I cannot even keep pace with the range of partnerships
in my own area, let alone the pattern across the country. Is there
a coherent structure which can relate the various kinds of spending
we now undertake as a result of people's tendency to commit crimes?
Is there a coherent system which can enable rational decisions
to be made, or would you have to reconfigure the system to do
justice reinvestment?
David Scott: I do not believe
you would have to reconfigure the system. One would be wise to
appreciate some of the progress that has been made. I particularly
cite the development of local criminal justice boards in recent
years which for the first time bring together decision-makers
in all the criminal justice agencies. For example, in London we
have a very clear reform plan around criminal justice and recognise
that we must take ownership of that ourselves. What then becomes
crucial is the interface with the myriad of other groups you have
described, but I believe that the local criminal justice board
offers an important environment for doing that and forges links
with all of the local authority crime reduction development partnerships
and so on. My point is that a lot of investment must be made to
make those networks operate and much more attention should be
paid to the enablers centrally so they deliver effectively. I
do not think there is a need completely to recast it to seek new
solutions. One of the remarkable developments in criminal justice
in recent years has been the move to see criminal justice much
more as a service than a system. There is a long way to go but
I believe that steps have been taken in the right direction. The
other crucial area is to ensure that the criminal justice service
is well connected and linked with local communities. At the moment
part of the difficulty is that there is such a gulf between the
language and whole paraphernalia of criminal justice and local
experience. One of the things my association is determined to
do is forge much better links with local and national media. Last
weekend I attended the conference of the Society of Editors which
dealt with exactly this point, that is, to find ways in which
to reach out and engage much more with local people, communities
and journalists. I certainly do not want to blame the media, but
in this country there is a culture of too easily criticising what
is not working instead of looking at some of the successes and
patient work being done at local level. There are good examples
of that practice up and down the country and certainly in London.
Q433 Chairman: Do you get a feeling
in the Prison Service that you are part of this or does the distribution
of prisons and the very centralised organisation of the service
make you feel that you are apart from this structure?
Paul Tidball: In all honesty,
the Prison Service is able to say that it is a player and has
been for some years. David has mentioned the local criminal justice
boards. We have been involved in them ever since they were set
up. Although in the past we have had criticisms of the National
Offender Management Service, of which both of our services are
part, for being over-bureaucratic and overstaffed at the top it
has certainly demonstrated some success in bringing together not
only the services but also the voluntary organisations to which
you have referred. I do not think the fact that the Prison Service
remains a national one is overall a bad thing; overall it is probably
a good thing because Her Majesty's Prison Service has become an
incredibly successful outfit in recent years. The number of escapes
is almost nil and the reconviction rates following prison custody,
though not much was made of them in the media recently—it
is an example of what David Scott said—are at an all-time
low and have gone down by several percentage points. I understand
why any inquiry into justice reinvestment will consider whether
prisons should or could be managed in a different way, but there
are dangers of babies going out with bath water if we return to
some romantic notion of local prisons locally administered being
best because I am not aware of any track record of that in any
country.
David Scott: Perhaps I may return
to the point about the important relationship between "local"
and "national". Across England and Wales we have very
diverse communities. It seems to me self-evident that the solutions
to unlocking and tackling crime will often be located at very
local level in those communities. In terms of its engagement with
sentencers probation is very well placed to understand the concerns
of local courts. At the moment the struggle is with what the fit
should be between the national direction and framework and enabling
local agencies, local authorities and the voluntary sector to
develop solutions that are seen to be effective and are owned
at local level.
Q434 Mr Heath: I understood what
you said about the efficiency of the Prison Service as a whole.
I also understood what you said earlier when you talked of your
own experience with the Welsh prisons. You said that predominantly
they catered for a local clientele which many of us believe is
a good idea. I am not quite sure how you marry up those two. You
do not necessarily need to disintegrate the Prison Service to
have prisons that cater for criminals in their areas, or at least
their regions, and have much better linkages therefore with the
Probation Service and perhaps also provide better information
to sentencers on the outcomes of the sentences they hand down.
That is really a statement rather than a question.
Paul Tidball: I absolutely agree
with that. I know that some people ask whether prisons should
be locally administered and so local authority-run. Although there
may be a case for that in the case of the small women's units
of which we have yet to see a single drawing, never mind a brick,
for them to be run by people other than the Prison Service may
be an appropriate way forward particularly if they are low security
units that are less about secure imprisonment than rehabilitation.
I think that prisons, whether or not run by the Prison Service,
should be as responsive as possible to local community needs as
should sentencing itself.
Q435 Alun Michael: I ask a question
supplemental to something David Scott said. He said he did not
want to criticise the press and media for their almost universally
cynical and negative attitude. Who does he want to blame?
David Scott: I do not want to
blame anything or anybody, but my learning as a probation officer
and chief probation officer is that blame is usually a diversion
and avoids taking responsibility.
Q436 Alun Michael: Can you take responsibility
for telling us who we ought to tackle to change that environment,
to use your professional skills?
David Scott: I do not want to
rest our new association on the basis of a knee-jerk criticism
of the media. I believe we have a responsibility to communicate
much more effectively what we do. We have to persuade sentencers.
I believe that you cannot get to the public without first getting
sentencers on your side, if I may put it that way. We are pretty
clear what sentencers want. They need to know whether probation
will deliver something and they want consistency, certainty and
an outcome. They want to see probation as a visible and credible
presence. I am confident that we can rise to that challenge.
Q437 Alun Michael: You are looking
for the persuasion of sentencers through an evidence-based approach?
David Scott: I think that is well
put and absolutely right. We will tackle some of the lazy stereotypes
in the media. It is too easy to write about people walking free
from court and denigrate my officers for being a soft option.
My staff and probation officers up and down the country work day
by day with the challenges of crime. I am simply saying that we
want to get a much more informed and balanced media coverage if
we possibly can.
Q438 Alun Michael: It is nice to
know that we have an optimist in your role. I turn to the question
of local authorities and local partners investing in initiatives
that can prevent people entering custody in the first instance.
This is not a new concept but one that continues to be as challenging.
Do you have any suggestions about how the disincentives can be
overcome, not least the fact that very often we are asking, let
us say, a local authority or another local organisation to invest
something where the benefit will be for somebody else?
David Scott: I think there are
some real difficulties in terms of the movement of budgets and
the benefits. The reason I chose the example of the criminal justice
board is that we are beginning to see an environment in which
if we work collectively to find solutions we can reinvest that
money at the front line. One of the examples I give in the context
of London is our interest in developing what we call virtual court
technology to increase the potential for swifter justice. There
are other examples one can choose in terms of working with the
local authority. The projects in which we are engaged at the moment
with the short-term prison population are a good example. If we
invest in meeting people at the prison gate and ensuring that
we see them quickly and back their compliance with orders we can
save further downstream in court appearances, all the expense
of recall and so on.
Q439 Alun Michael: Are they benefits
that you are able to quantify and for which you are able to provide
evidence?
David Scott: Increasingly, we
are able to do that. We have to get better at it, but I am hopeful
that in two weeks' time we shall be able to talk to you about
the London example of the Diamond Districts which begin to show
some of the potential in putting people in multi-agency teams.
The police and ourselves work with the voluntary sector and others
to bring very real benefits in reducing reliance on imprisonment.
| 
