CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY Lord Jeremy Beecham, Shadow Justice Minister Speech to Second Reading of the Offender Rehabilitation

Bill 20 May 2013 The whole House will join me in welcoming efforts to reduce re-offending and with it the costs to the public purse and the life chances of the offenders themselves, and above all the damage to society at large and to the victims of crime in particular. That said changes should be evidence based, practical, and cost-effective. A rehabilitation revolution is unlikely to be achieved on the cheap or by an ideological obsession with the market. Members will wish to probe the details of the scheme for offenders on short-sentences as well as those serving longer terms of imprisonment, to consider the implications of a binary system in which what are described as a low to medium risk offenders are dealt with by one set of providers with high risk offenders by another set, and to discuss the future of our successful probation system which is , effectively, to be nationalised and then privatised under the provisions of the bill. We will wish to examine the case for payment by results, the degree to which all relevant agencies, including local government, health, and DWP to name but three, and the third sector can come together and be involved in the planning and delivery of services tailored to the needs of the individual offender and the society to which we all want to see them return and in which they can play a useful part. I begin with the proposals for offenders serving short-term sentences. The lack of supervision and support for this group has clearly been a major contributor to the high rates of re-offending. Welcome though a change in this position is, its as well to recall that a thought-through policy would address the issues which lead many of these offenders into trouble in the first place. We are familiar with the early symptoms of a significant proportion of those who commit crime- low literacy and numeracy skills, truancy, early parenthood, mental health issues, and, yes, poverty. But in addition to addressing those matters, involving as they do policies across a range of government and local authority departments we need to look at the justice system itself. As both Nacro and Drugscope in their responses to the consultation point out, greater use of community sentences would avoid custodial sentences, especially short custodial sentences, in the first place while still allowing the effective support envisaged under the Bill. Experience of community sentences, however, demonstrates a potential problem with the Bills proposals to provide a sanction of two weeks imprisonment for non-compliance with the sanction order. There is a widespread view that in the existing regime there is an over reliance on this expensive and ineffective approach. The Criminal Justice Alliance suggest recall to custody should be a last resort, but that sentence review powers should be available to all magistrates courts. The Bill envisages supervision of all short sentence offenders. Is this really necessary? Should it apply , to pick an example at random, to someone convicted of a road traffic offence, possibly combined with perverting the course of justice? There is surely a case for concentrating resources on offences and offenders where it is most likely to be relevant, otherwise , in a payment by results system the low hanging fruit will be readily plucked. In relation to the split between who supervises low and medium risk offenders as against high risk offenders there are real concerns. These matters , like payment by results and the radical changes to probation, are not part of the Bill as it stands. So in addition to a binary system of dealing with offenders we have a binary legislative and policy process. This is an unsatisfactory, piecemeal approach, made worse by a flimsy, and belated, impact analysis.

The NCVO point out that a quarter of offenders change risk category during their sentence and call for a clear and consistent process for changing levels of risk. Where this a change of risk and therefore of responsibility they call for a system of managing the transition, including a clear process for the attribution of payments. What proposals does the Government have in relation to these matters? Would change to a higher risk category constitute a reason for withholding payment in whole or in part, or would that only happen in the event of re-offending? The House may wish to consider amendments to the Bill designed to address some aspects at least of the radical changes to the probation service which form part of the Governments agenda but are not, as yet, encompassed within the Bill. The need to do so is highlighted by this issue of risk. The category of medium risk would appear to include sex offenders and those guilty of violent crime. There must be a concern that such offenders will or may be dealt with not by the established probation service on release, but by providers in the new and untested pbr regime. Given the recent revelations about the soaring number of cautions for what seem to be potentially serious offences there is likely to be legitimate public anxiety about the issue, especially as offenders can move up the risk scale. The whole question of pbr itself raises huge doubts. The Lord Chancellor has form on this- hes a high risk offender as the progenitor of the staggeringly unsuccessful Work Programme. Why did he cancel the two schemes in Staffs & the West Midlands and Wales, and why has the MoJ refused an FoI request to release details of the evaluation? I repeat these questions which I voiced in the Queens Speech debate and to which I have received no reply. Such a radical change should, at the very least, be properly be piloted and evaluated before being rolled out. The notion of G4S , Serco and the like extending their growing take over of public services is not one with much public appeal, even if occasionally dressed up with a modicum of bid candy in the form of modest third sector involvement. Why will public providers be excluded from working with the low and medium risk offenders? And what will constitute a failed result? Any offence or one of similar or more serious character, and if the latter how is the gravity to be measured? And for how long is the period of nonreoffending to be measured before payment is made? And what discussions have Ministers with potential bidders about how the scheme might work? What proportion of the payment will be related to success, however defined, and when will it be paid? There are also problems with the centralising thrust of the Governments approach. Local justice is already being undermined by the continuing process of amalgamating magistrates benches and court closures, coupled with increasing reliance on full time district judges. Probation trusts, arguably too large already, will disappear as commissioning will be carried out nationally. How will this help to promote the necessary joint working so obviously required between the justice system in its various manifestations and other relevant agencies? We know that housing and employment are the key drivers in preventing re-offending, and health issues, particularly in relation to substance abuse and mental health problems,also loom large. There is a clear need for local authorities as deliverers of key services and support to be engaged alongside clinical commissioning groups, the NHS national commissioning board, Police Commissioners and DWP at local level, together with the courts. That will be extremely difficult given the proposal to establish with only 21 areas for the new contract packages.

Moreover with contract areas as large as this the opportunity to involve third sector organisations which so often bring innovative approaches to difficult areas of social policy such as those we are discussing is likely to be much more difficult. All the promises of involving such bodies in the Work Programme disappeared as rapidly as the Prime Ministers resolution on the question of a referendum on Europe. What concrete measures will the Government take to ensure that the role of the third sector, and in particular small local organisations, will be secured in the commissioning process? Does the Government recognise the risk that, as the NCVO puts it using a pbr model alone threatens to significantly reduce the potential range of providers (their split infinitive not mine, Mr Gove please note!) And will the Government ensure there are no gagging clauses in the employment contracts offered by providers? For that matter will the Lord Chancellor lift the gagging order he made on probation officers and court staff in relation to the probation proposals and the interpreters fiasco respectively? Will the Government, as NACRO urge, make quality, and not price, the key criterion when commissioning services, and for how long will contracts run? Who will evaluate performance, and will such evaluations be made public? There are clearly a host of doubts and questions, not about the Governments objectives in reducing re-offending, nor about many of the proposals, for example in relation to drug testing and the like, but in addition to the matters I have raised, and those which others will air, including Lord Ponsonby whom I welcome to his guest appearance on the Front Bench, I wish to suggest a new way of dealing with the problems of one particular group of offenders, namely ex-service personnel. I recently attended a presentation about Veterans Courts, now established in every US State. They do not replace the ordinary courts, but in cases not involving serious and violent crime for which probation would not be an option, after conviction or a guilty plea in the ordinary court veterans are offered referral to a veterans court, presided over by a judge, where with a veteran mentor they enter a period of supervision and help to overcome the problems they both face and pose. They return to the court monthly, and if they fail to co-operate, or re-offend, they are returned to the court of first instance. There is a remarkably high rate of success in reducing re-offending and is also cost-effective.. So much so that In Buffalo NY I understand out of 300 cases the success rate was 100%. Given the particular problems of a group of men and women who have served their country, and the relatively high incidence of mental health problems and offending with which they are involved it would be a fitting complement to the military covenant to pilot such an approach. As the North East is proportionately the biggest contributor of recruits, and as work is already under way in the region around the mental health problems of veterans I suggest that a scheme of this nature be piloted there, and if successful rolled out more widely. If, in a slightly different form, we can have special traffic courts, domestic violence courts and the community court in Liverpool, we should at least see whether what the US has adopted so successfully could work here. ENDS