The Parole Board. Working with others to protect the public.
News
23/01/2008
Jack Straw has given the first Sir David Hatch Memorial Lecture on the 17th January 2008 at the Gladstone Library, Whitehall
Good evening. It is a great privilege to be delivering the David Hatch Memorial Lecture. My gratitude goes out to Sir Duncan Nichol and to Lady Hatch for extending me the honour.
As a Secretary of State, one has to make recommendations for a wide range of public appointments over the course of a career: permanent secretaries, ambassadors, chairmen, chief executives. Rarely, if ever, has a more intriguing and extraordinary CV landed on my desk than David's back in 2000.
However, for me the recommendation to appoint the Chair of the Parole Board turned out to be very easy: someone accustomed to working with a Python and a couple of Goodies could scarcely be better placed to take the vagaries of life in public office in his stride.
David wonderfully described his time in showbiz at the early part of his career as 'better than yet more Latin' - I hope that he felt the same way about his time at the Parole Board.
For my part, I have nothing but gratitude and admiration for what he achieved as Chair, appointed as he was at a crucial point in the 40-year history of the Parole Board. David arrived at a time when its role was changing significantly and was dealing with a rising and increasingly complex workload. Everyone who was fortunate enough to work with him will remember his ceaseless good humour alongside his calm assurance and professionalism. But I think that the characteristic which best defined him was his determination to protect the independence of the work of the board and to ensure that every decision arrived at was scrupulously fair.
On my way in tonight I was shown your new Parole Board website. It looks to be a terrific site, very accessible
On my way in tonight I was shown your new Parole Board website. It looks to be a terrific site, very accessible. So accessible in fact that even I can use it. It is striking that on the site home page the very first thing that you come to is a section giving advice to victims and their families, followed by a section with advice for prisoners and their families. That must be right.
The Parole Board has been well served by its chairmen over the years and that applies just as much to David's successor, Sir Duncan Nichol. Duncan has announced that he will be stepping down when his term comes to an end in March. I know that you would all agree that he will be greatly missed.
Duncan will be a hard act to follow
Duncan has been a shrewd and highly respected chair. He will be remembered not least for championing what he rightly described as 'the quality agenda', looking beyond meeting performance targets, those pesky things, and focusing on the quality of the Board's decisions. I refer in particular to the changes he has made to the Review Committee, placing individual decisions under independent scrutiny and enabling the Board to learn from that process. Duncan will be a hard act to follow. On behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank him warmly for his contribution and wish him the very best for the future.
Before I turn to my central theme for the night, I wanted to speak about two cases currently in the public eye. I mention these, not because they affect the Parole Board, but because of their impact on the criminal justice system.
The murder of Garry Newlove was an appalling act. He was killed because he decided to stand up for his family and his community and he will be remembered as a good man trying to do the right thing.
His case has been linked in the public eye with that of Garry Weddell, because like one of Mr Newlove's killers, Mr Weddell was on bail when he allegedly killed his mother-in-law, before then taking his own life.
The decision as to whether to grant bail to a defendant is always a difficult one for judges and magistrates. These must be independent judicial decisions based on the law as it is, and they do so to a very high standard. I appreciate, of course, that none of this will comfort Mr Newlove's family or those affected by the actions of Garry Weddell. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. I have spoken to the Prime Minister about this and if any changes in the law are necessary we will of course make them.
These cases highlight the desperately difficult decisions facing judges and magistrates, and I know it is no different for panel members in the Parole Board. It is in the context of recognising the difficult job all those in the criminal justice system do, that I speak tonight.
The theme I have chosen is one which I hope David would have approved - that of working towards ensuring a more stable and better defined arm's-length relationship between government and Parliament, and sentencers including Parole Board members. And, as part of that, ensuring the Parole Board continues to be free and able to make decisions, unfettered, on individual cases.
This process was started in 1967 by the then Labour Government. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 began the move towards increasing objectivity and autonomy in determining whether and when to release offenders. Over the 40 years which have followed, significant progress has been made. The Parole Board's independence is now more important than at any previous time. Its role in the system has grown and its significance in protecting the public has never been greater.
In 1967 the prison population was just 35,000, not the 80,000 it is today. And although crime made headlines, as it always has, it featured much less as one of the dominant issues of the day. But whilst budgets, workloads and the variety of cases on which they adjudicate has changed beyond recognition, the purpose of the Parole Board remains the same. As Roy Jenkins summed up so simply 'you exist to keep out of prison those who need not be there'.
Strengthening this purpose remains central to increasing the Board's independence
Strengthening this purpose remains central to increasing the Board's independence. Tonight I want to talk about moving forward, building on the work started in 1967 and pushed on further since we came to Government in 1997, 30 years later.
The system we inherited has changed beyond recognition. This administration has presided over the only sustained reduction in crime in the postwar period. Even though there is understandable concern about some crimes, crime - all crime - has dropped by a third. The chances of being a victim of crime are the lowest since accurate recording began in 1981. There are record numbers of police on the streets. More crimes are being brought to justice - around 1.5 million last year. More violent and dangerous offenders are being imprisoned - 60% more than in 1997 - and they are staying there for longer. Sentences are of greater duration, and are more rigorously enforced. The considerable increase in recalls is of particular relevance to the Parole Board and I will address this point in detail later in my speech. We have already provided an additional 20,000 prison places and have committed to 20,000 gross more by 2014. This is all set in the context of a transformation in the conditions in prison; I have been stuck by the improvements that have been made in the prison service, especially with regard to healthcare, which is now looked after by Department of Health, unprecedented investment in probation services, a tenfold increase in funding for drug treatment, record numbers completing education and training programmes whilst in prison and in the community.
I do not describe this record to suggest that we have reached such a state of grace in the penal system that everything is operating perfectly, because it is not. But I do so to illustrate the significant and substantial progress that has been made over the last decade. These improvements are often overlooked in the narrow focus on prison capacity that has so dominated discourse over the past year and on the simple fact that the perception of what is happening is different from the realities.
I do accept that because of numbers, the penal system is under strain. Yet this pressure is not, as some would have us believe, bringing the system to a crashing halt. Our justice system is continuing to deliver. Within that the Parole Board is performing a difficult and crucial job of which I am enormously appreciative. But I know it is nonetheless feeling this pressure, manifest in a caseload that is heavier and more complex than at any point in its history. The Board has to handle some of the most dangerous and the most vulnerable in society, and therefore plays a critical role in protecting the public.
As with judges and magistrates when they determine the initial sentence, panel members are required to make a judgment based on the information in front of them - and it is a predictive judgement. Overwhelmingly, the Board makes the correct decision. Even so, it sometimes attracts the opprobrium of the press, the public and (on occasion) politicians. It does not deserve, however, this criticism. As Lord Chancellor, I have a statutory responsibility to defend the independence of the judiciary, in private and in public when necessary. And while this function is not bound in statute with regard to the Parole Board, the principle is the same. As with the judges, Parole Board panel members must be free to come to their decisions in individual cases without interference. And there must be a better appreciation of the care and professionalism which you all show.
Another excellent aspect of the website is its educational element - the facility on it for members of the public to have a go at making decisions themselves in example case studies. This facility shows the complex and often conflicting information that Parole Board members have to assess when they are making decisions. Highlighting not only the dangerous nature of some of the offenders the parole board has to deal with, but also the vulnerability of many prisoners.
Reasserting this principle leads me to what steps could, and I emphasise the word 'could', be taken to ensure we have a more stable and better defined arm's-length relationship between government and Parliament, and sentencers.
a building programme which will modernise the prison estate and bring total net capacity up to around 96,000 by 2014
As you are aware, shortly before Christmas, I presented to Parliament the findings of the review by Lord Carter of Coles into the long-term supply and demand of prison places. As part of our response, I agreed with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor funding of £1.2 billion (for this CSR [Comprehensive Spending Review] period) towards a building programme which will modernise the prison estate and bring total net capacity up to around 96,000 by 2014. This includes plans for up to three 'Titan' prisons (which will be located in areas of particular pressure such as London, the Midlands and the North West), which will house 2,500 prisoners in more modern, efficient accommodation.
Alongside the provision of additional places, one of Lord Carter's key recommendations was that there should be a working group set up to look at the feasibility, the advantages and disadvantages of creating a structured sentencing framework, with a permanent Sentencing Commission.
If we are serious about moving forward, and establishing this more stable and better defined relationship between Ministers and MPs, those who decide the allocation of resources for the criminal justice system and set the law, and those, the sentencers and equivalent decision makers, who make the individual decisions, then we may need significant reform of parts of the sentencing system. That is why, as recommended by Lord Carter, I was pleased to agree with the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, to set up a working group to look at the issues around the possible establishment of a Sentencing Commission. The working group will be chaired by Lord Justice Gage, and it is I believe an important step forward. Whilst no decisions have been made, until we see the outcome of the working party, it heralds the prospect of far-reaching and radical reform.
Other jurisdictions have shown through the development of sentencing framework that they have been able to bring greater transparency, predictability and consistency to sentencing. Minnesota, one state of the Union, has had considerable success in developing one such indicative framework. Meeting a growth of over one third of its total population in seven years, yet managing this increase in a sustainable and planned way, without chronic overcrowding or erosion of sentences.
Projecting the prison population, as anyone in my seat knows, is far from an exact science. As Lord Carter pointed out, the complexity and uncertain effect of external factors makes the current sentencing framework opaque. Predicting the factors which determine and influence sentencing is difficult and this inhibits the ability to manage resources in a sustainable and planned way.
Contrary to some comment on Lord Carter's recommendations, this proposal has nothing to do with linking individual sentences to the availability of correctional resources.
Respecting the independence of sentencers to pass the sentence they believe is appropriate in the individual cases is essential to the integrity of the judiciary in a free society. Decisions about the sentence to be handed down in a particular case must be a matter of judgment for the trial judge or magistrates. But Parliament has a critical role to play in setting the framework for sentencing and in deciding on the taxpayers' money to pay for the prison places and probation services which arise from that framework.
Looking at a Sentencing Commission, and what it would involve, is a positive step forward for the long-term stability of our penal policy. But it is a debate we do not want to conduct in isolation. I hope we can move beyond simplistic and reductive arguments which consider prison the only option.
I do not believe the British people have ever believed in the 'prison or nothing' approach. Yes, prison is a key part of the solution, but it is not the only solution. I would hope that there is now an all-party consensus on this. Yet there are those who still argue that we should build as many prison places as it takes, claiming that prisoners should serve their full nominal sentence in custody without parole, or any automatic release on licence for short-term sentences.
I don't need to tell people here tonight what the impact of such policies would be - but the public should be made aware of those implications. In addition to the economic and practical considerations of such a scenario: thousands and thousands of additional places on top of what is already planned, all at a cost of billions of pounds in construction and running costs; higher taxes, fewer hospitals, less money for education, prisons in or near everyone's back yard. We have to question whether that approach would actually provide a remedy to the problems it seeks to solve: Would crime fall even further? Could prisons and prisoners be managed? Would reoffending rates come down if prisoners had much less incentive to reform themselves whilst in prison?
I have to say no.
A change in the Sentencing Commission framework would be a big one and I hope we can secure wide agreement for it. It is bound to take time. And meanwhile I am aware that some short term changes are needed as well.
If we are to ensure the Parole Board has the freedom to do its job that fairness demands, then as well as being given space publicly it also need space administratively. I am keen to see improvements which will free the Board of some of the 'administrative churn' with which they deal, and allow a greater focus on the individual cases which really matter.
It is to this end that the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill contains some measures which should have a big impact on your work.
Firstly, fixed term recall. The success we have seen as a government in driving up enforcement from breach of licence has hugely increased the Board's workload. This creates an understandable tension; the sheer volume of recall work can deflect the Board's energies from where it adds the greatest value, namely considering the cases of those prisoners convicted of the most serious offences. The solution to this, it seems to me to be is not to be any less rigorous in enforcement, but to ensure a better focus of resources on the highest priority cases.
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, through introducing fixed term recalls of 28 days for offenders who do not present a risk of serious harm provides a proportionate and balanced answer. It removes offenders from an often rapidly deteriorating situation; it gives the Probation Service the opportunity to review its supervision arrangements and consider whether additional licence conditions are required, and it sends a clear signal to the offender that non-compliance will not be tolerated. From the Board's perspective it doesn't tie up valuable time dealing with lower level cases. It will free up the Board, to concentrate on the work where it's most needed. The right to make representations in respect of the recall will still be in place, but it seems to me a waste of panel members' expertise to continue with the status quo of dealing with large numbers of low level recalls. The proposals were discussed in general terms with Duncan before introduction, and I hope the relief they should provide is welcome. That is, of course, if Parliament agree them.
Indeterminate sentences for Public Protection have similarly contributed to a large increase in the Board's workload. Duncan has been a persuasive advocate that the practical operation of IPPs is causing the Parole Board problems. I understand and accept these concerns.
Duncan has described situations where offenders do not have the opportunity to persuade the Board they are not dangerous because, being subject to an IPP with short tariff, there is not sufficient time for them to complete courses and training. This is something we need to address and rectify.
As well as investing additional resources in the management of IPP prisoners, we need to make some changes so that the sentence operates more effectively, whilst still retaining the very real public protection benefits it offers in the case of the truly dangerous offenders. The Bill proposes that in future IPPs will normally be available only where the offence merits a minimum tariff of two years. IPPs were intended to be used for those who pose a danger to society, to combine protection for the public with a mandatory programme of rehabilitation - ensuring those who were released, were only released when they were not judged to pose a threat. Setting a two-year tariff will enable us to meet that intention.
I talked at some length with David Blunkett who said when this policy was first going through parliament it was assumed that they would be used in this way, for IPPs with a two-year tariff, not for short tariff prisoners.
there is absolutely no dilution here of our pledge to keep those who are dangerous behind bars
Let me be clear about the other effect of our proposal - there is absolutely no dilution here of our pledge to keep those who are dangerous behind bars. Quite the opposite. We are recasting the sentence so that IPPs can continue to be used by the judiciary as they see fit for those they judge to be a real threat. We are not excluding those who commit offences like rape and other cases of serious violence. IPPs remain a very important part of the sentencer's armoury and the intention remains the same: to target those convicted of the most serious offences. The provisions in the Bill are to enable us to take sensible steps to ensure that judges can do their jobs properly and that our resources are focused on those who pose a real threat. We are also giving judges discretion so that in cases where the offence would not meet the two-year threshold, but the offender has a previous conviction of a sufficiently serious nature, or there are other factors involved, the courts can award a public protection sentence.
The changes we are making to the extended public protection sentence should also remove lower-end work, and allow a greater focus on more dangerous offenders. We are proposing to change extended sentences so that offenders are released automatically halfway through the custodial period. The offender will then be on licence for an extended period. So there will no longer be Parole Board involvement in the release date for extended sentence prisoners. With extended sentences, the period at the Parole Board's discretion can often be very short, serving in many cases little useful purpose.
The fourth and final area of amendments to the Bill which will impact on the work of the Board is that we are aiming to streamline the consideration of parole cases in respect of prisoners sentenced to four years or more under the 1991 Act.
We are proposing that those prisoners not sentenced for a sexual or violent offence will be subject to release arrangements identical to those for fixed term prisoners sentenced under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In other words they will be released automatically on licence at the halfway point of their sentence and will no longer be required to apply to the Board for discretionary release. So prisoners would be released on licence halfway through their sentence rather than the three-quarters point.
This action will ensure that all such prisoners are on licence and subject to probation supervision for the whole of the second part of their sentence. They will be liable to recall at any time if their behaviour gives cause for concern.
I hope tonight I have reassured that we want the Parole Board to have the space to be able to better focus on individual cases. This will in part come from the administrative changes we are making which will allow the Board to concentrate on the cases where its expertise really tells, and in part from our intention to move towards a position where this better relationship between politicians and sentencers of the kind I've described.
Moving towards such a position will, I hope, help to reduce the overblown rhetoric which can be very dangerous in penal policy and facilitate instead a sensible debate about the sort of penal system we want - one that gives the judiciary and equivalent decision-makers, like the Parole Board, clear room to make their judgments on the merits of individual cases before them, but in a framework which ensures greater stability and public confidence.
In 1967 we started the process of increasing objectivity and autonomy in determining when an offender should be released. In 2008 we need to look forward and take part in a vigorous debate on what the next steps of the process should be.
I would like to finish by thanking all of you again for your dedication and professionalism in maintaining such high quality decisions and your commitment to protecting the public, and being fair, both to victims and also to prisoners.
Thank you.
The Parole Board is an independent body that works with its criminal justice partners to protect the public by risk assessing prisoners to decide whether they can safely be released into the community.
For further information please call Tim Morris, Head of Communications for the Parole Board, on 020-7217 0564 during office hours, or on 07725-927954 out of hours, or e-mail tim.morris5@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
ENDS
PR/1/2008
Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX
Telephone 0845 251 2220