AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT CRIMINAL JUSTICE
(NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 2007
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Probation Board for Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland
12 December 2007
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Alban Maginness (Chairperson)
Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Alex Attwood
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Alan McFarland
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Mr Peter Weir
Mr Jim Wells
Witnesses:
Ms Rosemary Bailie ) Probation Board for Northern Ireland
Ms Louise Cooper )
Mr Graham Kelly )
Ms Cheryl Lamont )
Mr Brian McCaughey )
Mr Ronnie Spence )
Mr Kit Chivers ) Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland
Mr Brendan McGuigan )
The Chairperson (Mr A Maginness):
I welcome representatives from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI), including its chairman, Mr Ronnie Spence; Mr Brian McCaughey, the chief probation officer; Ms Cheryl Lamont, the deputy chief probation officer; and Ms Louise Cooper, who is head of information and research. I also welcome the supporting cast of Mr Graham Kelly, the assistant chief officer of policy and planning division; and Ms Rosemary Bailie, the area manager of policy and planning division. You are all very welcome to the Committee. I thank Mr Spence for his written submission, which the Committee has had an opportunity to read it. I invite Mr Spence to introduce his team.
Mr Ronnie Spence (Probation Board for Northern Ireland):
I thank the Committee for the invitation to give evidence on the draft Criminal Justice ( Northern Ireland) Order 2007. I am the chairman of the Probation Board and I am joined today by several of our senior staff, including the chief probation officer, Brian McCaughey. I shall say a few words of introduction and then invite Brian to add a few points from his professional point of view.
This is the centenary year of probation in these islands, as it was established in 1907. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland, as a separate public body, has been in existence for 25 years. It is a public body, which, at present, is under direct rule and is appointed by the Secretary of State. It has 350 staff and spends around £16 million a year — mainly on staffing — and has premises across Northern Ireland.
The Probation Board deals with a significant number of the most difficult and challenging people in our community. They range from the extremely dangerous to those who are, sadly, inadequate and damaged. They include many people who have already caused considerable harm to others and some who are capable of doing further serious harm if not properly managed.
The Probation Board produces around 6,000 reports a year to the courts to assist judges and magistrates in setting appropriate sentences. It manages nearly 4,000 people in the community, which is close to three times the number of people who are in prison. The proposed legislation will increase those under our supervision by around 50%.
We are consulting about PBNI’s next corporate plan to cover the three years beginning 2008-09.
In preparation for that planning process, in the past year we have held a series of blue-sky seminars, under Chatham House rules, in an attempt to take a fresh look at the levels and causes of crime in Northern Ireland, to examine the effectiveness — or otherwise — of the existing responses to crime, and to see what we could learn from what had worked well in other jurisdictions. The Probation Board is in broad agreement with the proposed legislation, and we welcome its giving the board a central role in the future management of offenders in Northern Ireland.
The Probation Board’s draft corporate plan for 2008-2011, on which we are consulting, has two broad central themes. The first is the need for more joined-up thinking and action across Government in dealing with offenders, as they often have serious mental-health or substance-abuse problems. Offenders tend to have low levels of educational achievement, poor skill levels, and so forth. Therefore, we support the decision announced earlier in the year by the Northern Ireland Office to develop a Northern Ireland offender-management strategy. There must be more joined-up thinking and action throughout Government, both on matters that remain under direct rule and on those for which responsibility has been devolved.
The second theme of the plan is the need to develop, as quickly as resources allow, end-to-end offender management, which means that one professional probation officer manages an offender throughout the probationary period. The same probation officer should take care of the initial pre-sentence report, ensure that the offender signs up to the appropriate offender-behaviour courses while in prison, and manage the offender during the probation period and after release from prison.
As set out in many of our documents, the aim of PBNI is to help reduce crime and the harm that it does.
We have no illusions about the challenges that we face in trying to limit reoffending. We know — and the evidence exists to prove it — that probation can work, and can help many offenders to become more positive members of society. We are equally aware that some offenders are so dangerous that imprisoning them is the only safe way to protect society.
To sum up, we welcome the legislation and the proposed increase of the role of probation. The new roles and responsibilities will help to reduce crime and the harm that it does.
Mr Brian McCaughey (Probation Board for Northern Ireland):
Thank you for the invitation to appear before the Committee. We are delighted to be here.
The Probation Board for Northern Ireland and other criminal justice organisations have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Office on policy development and on the development of instructions to counsel in the draft legislation. I shamelessly say that the staff who are with me today have worked tirelessly to get the legislation right. It is important that we have the opportunity today to outline our understanding of the proposed legislation, the opportunities that we believe it affords to Northern Ireland, and, above all, to answer the Committee’s questions.
It is important for Probation Board staff to take this opportunity, for which we thank the Committee, to assist, advise and work with the Assembly on its aims and on the Programme for Government. As our chairman said, the Probation Board welcomes the broad thrust of the draft legislation. Specifically, we welcome: the emphasis on increasing public protection; the introduction of new sentences for dangerous and violent sexual offences for which release from custody is dependent on verified reduction in risk; the supervision of all offenders on licence after release to address offending behaviour and reduce the likelihood of reconviction; the reserving of prison places for those who merit them; the provision of alternatives to custody for those who default on fines, and the provision of additional powers, such as curfews and electronic monitoring, to strengthen the management of offenders in the community.
As our chairman outlined, the Probation Board has evidenced significant achievement and success in offender management over the past 25 years. Although not well publicised, reconviction rates in Northern Ireland are lower than elsewhere throughout these islands. Above all, the Probation Board has a reputation and a track record as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) that works at grass-root level in all communities in the statutory and voluntary and community sectors to reduce crime and the harm that it does.
The Probation Board already contributes significantly to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. As the Committee has heard, the introduction of the Order will increase our workload by up to 50% over the next number of years.
My experience is that working to achieve public protection requires accurate assessment, clear focused offender-management plans and, more often than not, a multi-agency and multi-disciplinary approach. No one organisation has all the solutions. Therefore, a well-resourced probation service is essential to deliver on the legislation.
The Probation Board is aware that the legislation will require it to evidence new approaches to partnership and innovative and creative measures and initiatives to safely manage sexual and violent offenders. The legislation will expect the board to evidence itself as an organisation that can work flexibly and demonstrate responsiveness to Government, courts and communities. The board believes that it possesses the knowledge, skills and experience to meet the challenges of the legislation and to demonstrate itself as a leader in offender management.
I extend an invitation to any MLA to visit the Probation Board to observe our practice. Chairman, I thank you again for your invitation. We are happy to take questions.
The Chairperson:
Thank you for your submission and for your written comments. A potential result of the Order would be the need for greater involvement of the Probation Board in offender management. There will be a step change in its involvement, which, inevitably, will mean that greater resources will be given to the Probation Board. Do you have any specific comments to make on that? I take it that you generally agree with what I have said.
Mr McCaughey:
Graham Kelly will be able to provide the exact details of the costings. The Probation Board has been involved in all of the discussions and debates about costings. I said that the delivery of the new legislation will require a well-resourced probation service. That requires that it be resourced on its current basis, on which the board intends to build.
Therefore, I need to review the current funding and examine what is required to deliver on the new legislation. The board is thoroughly involved in the preparation of pre-sentence reports at the court stage, and it follows prisoners into prison. During the prison sentence, we intend to have a much more involved role to ensure that the issues that are identified at the assessment stage are delivered on during the prisoner’s period of imprisonment. Otherwise, under the legislation, the prisoners would not be released because they would not have had the opportunity to have evidenced a reduction in their risk levels, in respect of public protection. That is based on experience from England and Wales, where court cases have resulted when offenders have not been in a position to attend behaviour-change or educational programmes during their period of imprisonment.
The board sees itself assuming an offender-management role to ensure that those programmes are delivered in prison and that the prison regime operates to meet the delivery of those programmes. With continuous assessment, we will follow the prisoner out of the prison gates and monitor them with our colleagues in other statutory organisations, voluntary organisations and, I must add, with the community.
Mr Spence:
We have had lengthy dialogue with the Northern Ireland Office about the resources that we need to carry out our existing responsibilities and the resources that need to be built up over the next few years to deal with the new legislation. We await the final outcome of those deliberations. No public body in Northern Ireland, when asked, would say that it had enough resources, but we are confident that we are engaged in sensible, well-based dialogue with the Northern Ireland Office about what we need.
People want to work for the Probation Board. A few years ago, when posts were advertised, we tended not to get many applicants. However, the last time that we advertised, a few months ago, we had a very healthy response. That is partly because the organisation has a good professional reputation. There are people with the necessary skills and experience who can help to tackle the increased roles that our staff will have.
Mr Weir:
I appreciate that you are in discussions with the NIO, but what is the resource implication of the legislation, particularly from an operations point of view? Do you have a ball-park figure?
Mr Graham Kelly (Probation Board for Northern Ireland):
We have based our estimates on prison receptions over 2003-05 according to Prison Service and Northern Ireland Office figures. The ball-park figure for the three years up to 2011 is £10·7 million.
Mr Weir:
You said that your officials worked hard to get the legislation right and that the Probation Board broadly welcomed it. However, “broadly welcomed” sets alarm bells ringing. Is your support qualified? Is the detail of the legislation right or is there room for change?
Mr McCaughey:
The legislation is correct in that it reserves imprisonment for the most dangerous and violent and for those who are a threat to the public; prison should be reserved primarily for such people. It also bolsters supervision in the community by providing curfews and electronic monitoring, and that will be of value to the Probation Board in its efforts to challenge offenders and supervise them safely in the community with statutory, voluntary and community partners.
I have no reservations about the legislation, although there are little areas that I would like tidied up. For instance, the legislation on article 26 licences — which deals with convicted sex offenders and which will continue for some time to come — is not retrospective; therefore I have a question about the applicability of curfews and electronic monitoring. However, I will comment on that in our response to the consultation.
The public in Northern Ireland expects a prison sentence to be served; it does not expect automatic 50% remission. I am wary when I see the word “discretion” and the title of some sentences. The word “discretion” should be avoided if we are to instil confidence through this legislation.
Mr McCartney:
You say that your workload will increase by 50%. Will that be in the pre-sentencing, imprisonment or post-release phase?
Mr McCaughey:
It will be at the post-release phase because we supervise 60% of the prison population, and under the new legislation everyone will be under supervision.
Mr McCartney:
It is predicted that there will be an increase in the prison population and that there will be different categories of prison. Have you discussed with the Prison Service the sort of regime there should be, how it should be managed and whether there is enough staff to carry it out?
Mr McCaughey:
You say that it is assumed that there will be an increase in the number of prisoners. There has been much discussion between Probation Board representatives and others on whether that would be the case, given the balancing out of supervision in the community. Moreover, some people who go to prison under the present system would not do so in future; they would be managed more safely under the new measures.
We are having full discussions with the Prison Service about the regimes that will be required to deliver the behaviour-change programmes, which will be central to the operation of any prison. If such programmes are not delivered for those who are serving public-protection sentences, the prisoners will not be released early by the commissioners because there will not be the evidence that there has been a reduction in risk.
Mr Wells:
You suggested that your workload would increase by 50%. Are you confident that the necessary resources will be made available to cope with the extra workload? Could such a rapid expansion in the workload of the Probation Board lead to difficulties in training, recruiting and getting people up to speed with the new legislation?
Some high-profile cases in Northern Ireland and across the water have caused problems. Will the extra workload not put tremendous strain on the board over the next few years? Can the board deliver in those circumstances?
Mr Spence:
We recognise that increasing the size of a professional organisation quickly risks incurring such pressures and dangers.
Ms Cheryl Lamont (Probation Board for Northern Ireland):
Mr Wells referred to some of the serious cases that have been dealt with. Plans are already afoot between the board and the Police Service of Northern Ireland to form a co-located public-protection team that will be responsible for supervising the small number of the highest-risk offenders when they are in the community.
Mr McCaughey:
The Probation Board cannot eliminate risk and neither can the legislation. With the assistance of psychologists, psychiatrists and other experts, we will assess people as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible; we will provide them with relevant programmes that have been identified in the assessment that is presented in court.
It will be important to ensure that the programmes are delivered so that offenders can be continually assessed, which will enable us to establish whether the risk has been reduced. Offenders will be thoroughly supervised through a multi-agency approach in the community, and the Probation Board will take swift action to return them to prison if they do not adhere to the requirements of their order or licence.
The Probation Board has a big responsibility: we supervise 4,000 offenders in the community, compared to the 1,500 who are in prison. The profiles of those groups are exactly the same. We supervise the vast majority of offenders in Northern Ireland, many of whom have addictions, mental-health problems, relationship problems and alcohol problems. We manage them in the midst of all the factors that contributed to their offending in the first place.
That is the challenge for Probation Board staff, and we are proud of our success to date. We are up for the challenge, Mr Wells, and we will ensure that training, recruitment, knowledge and skills are available to our organisation. However, we will not make false promises by saying that we will deliver what we cannot.
Mr Wells:
You are performing an unenviable and extremely difficult task; no one would want to be in your shoes in having to carry it out. Can the Probation Board for Northern Ireland increase its staff so quickly without compromising its service in other areas?
Mr McCaughey:
The Probation Board for Northern Ireland does its difficult task on behalf of the Government and communities of Northern Ireland. The offenders that the Probation Board for Northern Ireland works with reflect society in Northern Ireland; we provide our service to help to make Northern Ireland safer.
People’s interest and enthusiasm in working for the Probation Board is gratifying; they recognise the valuable contribution that we make to public protection, despite the difficulties. I hope that in our continued interactions, Members begin to understand fully our vital role in public protection in Northern Ireland.
Mr Spence:
Mr Wells raised a fundamental point. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland has encouraged an open and positive culture in the organisation; we have done more to develop staff and to improve communications, and that is producing results. However, increasing staff numbers by between 20% and 50% over a short time will place a strain on the organisation. The most important thing is that we recognise that and build steps into the process to deal with it.
Mr McCaughey:
We have studied the legislation and considered when numbers will increase so that we can phase our recruitment to meet the anticipated demand.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Reference was made to the voluntary and community sector’s input into the supervision of offenders to reduce their likelihood of reoffending. Would you expand on that? It sounds almost as if it were added as an afterthought. I am keen to know how it would work in practice.
Mr McCaughey:
As an employee of the Probation Board since 1982 and as the present Chief Probation Officer, I have emphasised the delivery of probation services in, with and through the community. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland allocates £1·2 million per annum to the voluntary and community sector to help us to manage offenders in all communities. The Probation Board has had a presence in every community in Northern Ireland since its inception 25 years ago. We grant-aid and commission small groups and voluntary organisations to help us to manage offenders in the community.
There is a lack of understanding about the criminal justice system in our communities, so we must engage them in managing offenders. I see a world with community and voluntary organisations prepared to help me to complement the work of my staff in the supervision of offenders in the community, particularly at times of risk. I envisage a partnership approach in which all voluntary, statutory and community bodies, subject to their remit, work with me to help to make our communities safer.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I appreciate that. I know that the Probation Board has delivered, managed and provided resources for various programmes. My concern is that young people in interface areas who are on probation may get involved in rioting and violent activity. More often than not, there is a perception that the community is on its own in keeping children and young people, including those on probation, away from such activity. There is not much sign of a joined-up approach; it may exist on paper from nine to five, but after 5.00 pm there is no sign of joined-up anything.
The legislation may not change things significantly, but it should encourage a joined-up approach between community, voluntary and probation sectors, the PSNI, social services, the Probation Board and other statutory bodies.
Can I have your thoughts on that — if not now at some other time? It is a perennial problem; we discuss it after every summer. At the start of the following summer, we wring our hands and look for solutions. Now that the Assembly has emerged from suspension and Members are accountable, a difference must be seen to be made.
Mr McCaughey:
I am more than happy to continue this conversation to explore solutions on another occasion.
I must clarify one or two points, however, as there are misconceptions about the role of the Probation Board. Our legislative remit changed some years ago: we were asked to secure the rehabilitation of offenders and contribute to public protection. That, enshrined in legislation, moved us away from preventative activities and from diverting people — mainly young people — from offending. I mentioned a budget of £1∙2 million for allocation to voluntary, statutory and community sectors; today, it is spent mainly on managing adjudicated offenders who have been through the courts and who may be violent and dangerous. It assists Cheryl and me through the multi-agency procedures for the assessment and management of sex offenders (MASRAM) process to manage dangerous offenders.
Of the 4,000 offenders that we supervise, approximately 250 are young people; the remainder are managed or receive services from the Youth Justice Agency. That said, the Probation Board has a long history of working with community groups in diversion and prevention.
I am keen to discuss the options with Ms Ní Chuilín later.
Mr McFarland:
I need further clarity in three areas.
First, under the traditional system offenders went through the courts and then to prison, where the Prison Service looked after them; it was given plenty of money to keep them occupied and to put them through courses and programmes. The Probation Board looked after them when they were released to try to ensure that they did not reoffend. However, I gather that the Probation Board has now taken over a number of what were formerly in-prison programmes. It is present at the sentencing; it monitors the prisoner during his term of imprisonment; and it looks after him, in its traditional role, on his release.
Will the Prison Service transfer a load of money to the Probation Board to pay for the in-prison activities, which the board is now encouraged to do through its programmes? How much discussion has taken place between the Probation Board and the Prison Service about that? Where do the lines of demarcation run? They used to be fairly clear: the Prison Service ran the prisons, and the Probation Board supervised former prisoners on their release. Now that the Probation Board is involved with offenders throughout, how does one clarify who does what and which money goes where?
Secondly, I heard on the radio this morning that some 54% of those in prison are there through fine defaults. The logic is that if most of those could be dealt with in the community, the prison population would drop by 54%. The issue of sentencing was raised earlier: the public expects prisoners to serve their terms.
Thirdly, where does punishment come into it? Society is worried that the idea of punishing people for crimes has been lost. The witnesses said that offenders were incarcerated to protect the public; traditionally, however, prison has partially been about the loss of liberty as a punishment. The public expects those who have done wrong to be punished.
The public does not regard making serious fine defaulters grow tulips for the council as punishment. Where does punishment come into the Probation Board’s remit? My question is long, but it has three parts.
Mr McCaughey:
I will try to deal with some of your questions and ask my colleagues to keep thinking rapidly while I talk.
The Probation Board will have statutory responsibility for prisoners when they leave prison; previously, prisoners agreed to work with us voluntarily. With the introduction of custody probation orders in the late 1990s, more people were sentenced to imprisonment followed by a period of supervision. That is why the Probation Board is supervising 60% of the prison population when they are released.
Delivering the legislation depends on a well-resourced Probation Board; that is critical. Discussions are ongoing about who gets what share of the cake. However, the Probation Board needs the resources that it has asked for in order to manage people safely in the community. It might involve a reallocation of budgets, but that is a matter for other people.
Sending people to prison and depriving them of their liberty is punishment. However, once we have incarcerated someone, we are obliged to address why they are in prison in the first place. I see the Probation Board as offender managers: urging, promoting, encouraging and being satisfied that the necessary services are delivered. We must make progress on how we manage people while they are in prison. Prison regimes must change slightly — and in some cases considerably — to focus on criminogenic needs and the reasons for people offending in the first place; programmes must be available so that when offenders leave prison they will be much less likely to reoffend.
An analysis of the prison population shows that many have problems with literacy, have rarely worked and have addiction or mental-health problems. Those issues are not simply criminal justice matters; they will affect every Department. The Probation Board will seek, advocate and promote an interdepartmental strategy to reduce offending; that is how we will deliver our services in prisons.
Mr McFarland:
I suspect that Robin Masefield would say, fairly emphatically, that that is part of the Prison Service’s remit; whether it is effective is another matter. Mr McCaughey may disagree with that.
Mr Masefield would say that that is exactly what he does: he is responsible for ensuring that prisoners have courses, that their needs are identified and that they can become new people. Has the Probation Board agreed with the Prison Service that the Probation Board will henceforth rehabilitate people while they are in prison?
Mr McCaughey:
Robin Masefield is responsible for prisoners when they are in his prisons; he holds them in secure containment. From 2007 onwards, the Probation Board has much more to offer in working with prisoners to change their distorted thinking and behaviour. The Probation Board, along with the Prison Service, has agreed a resettlement strategy and a resettlement implementation plan, and that is why we are both using similar words.
We agree that prisons must change, that programmes must be delivered and that the reconviction rates for some offender groups are much too high and require a radical change.
Ms Louise Cooper (Probation Board for Northern Ireland):
I also heard the figure that was quoted this morning on fine default. I refer the Committee to figures on prison receptions in 2006. The figures, which were published by the NIO, show that there were about 6,400 receptions to prison during those 12 months; of those about 1,300 were received under sentence of immediate custody, and 1,951 were for fine default. Therefore 30% of receptions to custody were for fine default. Those people tend to serve between four and 11 days in custody, but on any given day fine defaulters make up between 2% and 3% of the population in custody.
Mr McFarland:
Therefore the figure that I gave of 54% was a bit off the mark.
Ms Cooper:
I am not sure where that figure came from.
The Chairperson:
We might also hear from the Criminal Justice Inspection (CJI) on that issue as it is mentioned in its written submission. Someone may inadvertently have a mobile phone on, as I am told that it is interfering with reception. Will everyone check their mobile phone, or any other electronic device, to ensure that they are switched off?
Mr Attwood:
I am tempted to ask the representatives of the Probation Board their view on the proposed new prison at Magilligan, but I am sure that they will not want to go into that now.
My questions return to themes that were raised earlier. First, the evidence given to the Committee by the CJI, which will be speaking next, shows that the number of prisoners in England and Wales with indeterminate sentences increased from about 5,500 to 9,500 when the scope for indeterminate sentences was increased. I am mindful that Brian said that the prison population here is less than that in England and Wales, so is 50% your best guess of the likely increase in your work? After all, there was an increase of 80% in England and Wales in the number of people who came under a new regime. That has consequences for resources.
Ms Cooper:
Several elements in the Northern Ireland legislation have tried to take account of the changes in England. First, there is to be more discretion in sentencing, whether a life sentence, an indeterminate sentence or an extended custodial sentence. Secondly, the legislation proposes the removal of the presumption of dangerousness in Northern Ireland. That means that the presence of dangerousness in an individual case would have to be demonstrated in court. Therefore an increase in our workload of 50% is our best estimate.
Mr Attwood:
Although one cannot compare jurisdictions, more seems to have happened in other jurisdictions than is anticipated here.
My second question is about resources. The devolution of justice and policing may have become more uncertain in the past 24 hours; however, I understand that when those powers are devolved, the budget for them will not be ring-fenced but will be part of the overall Budget. There will be a temptation to borrow from the policing and justice budget to use it for other purposes. Given the severe comprehensive spending review, and given the belief of the Probation Board and the CJI, among others, that the biggest consequences of the new proposals will be financial, why do you say that there has been sensible and well-based dialogue with the NIO about resources?
I am sure that that may be the case, but does it ensure a sensible and well-based outcome, taking into account all the various factors? As you said, Brian, if you do not secure the necessary money, the new architecture will become much more unstable.
Mr Spence:
The member is profoundly correct. There has been serious discussion about the resources that will be required, based on the available evidence, which has enabled us to ask for the staff resources that we need. We have also spoken to the Northern Ireland Office about the level of the resources that have gone into probation over the last five years in GB, which is considerably higher than the level for Northern Ireland, although care must be taken to compare like with like.
We are reasonably happy that the facts have been put on the table. We do not yet know the final outcome — how much of the cake we will get over the next few years. If devolution of authority for policing and justice takes place, there will inevitably be a fight about what aspects of the law-and-order budget should be increased, remain the same or decreased to pay for other services.
Mr Graham Kelly:
That sums it up.
Mr Attwood:
I have one more question, which I ask to afford the Committee a bit of narrative. With respect to the critical aspects of the new legislation, the public is most interested in the MASRAM developments. Elements that were not previously on a statutory footing will become statutory; and there will be more inter-agency work. For the benefit of the Committee and the public, could the witnesses explain how the new statutory — and other — proposals, arising from the Order, will be better? How they will ensure that the risk to the community from dangerous offenders and sex offenders will be minimised?
Ms Lamont:
In 2005, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland recommended that existing arrangements within MASRAM, which were then voluntary, should be put on a statutory footing. The rationale was that that would ensure that agencies take responsibility for delivering public protection.
Some of my colleagues have already said that it is everyone’s duty and responsibility, in that respect, to add to the protection of the public. One feature of that will be that resources are dedicated to the co-responsible agencies: the Probation Board, the Police Service, the Prison Service and the various trusts. They must sign up to, and deliver, those responsibilities.
That work will be enhanced enormously by another recommendation by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland: for development of a co-located public-protection team. It is only right that resources be dedicated to ensure the oversight and management of those offenders who present the greatest risk in the community. Plans are already afoot within the Probation Board, and with our other partner in this, the Police Service, to create that team. That will be firmly in place before the Order becomes law. The mandatory regulations and the cohesiveness of the co-located public protection team are two major factors ensuring that current delivery, within MASRAM, will be enhanced. I am mindful that it will extend to violent offenders as well, so that the range of offenders to which it applies will be broadened.
Dr Farry:
Most points have already been covered, but I seek clarification of one small aspect. Comments were made earlier about the need to protect society from certain offenders in the long term. Were the witnesses suggesting, at one stage, that there could be difficulties with the burden of proof for someone on an ICS, in demonstrating that he or she is no longer a threat and is fit to come off that type of sentence? Do you think that the burden of proof, with respect to that matter, is correctly balanced? Does it need to be rebalanced?
Mr McCaughey:
My view is that the assessment that is completed at the court stage will clearly identify the factors that cause the person to offend and what the risks are, and it will require certain programmes to be delivered to that individual while he or she is in prison. The assessment must be ongoing, and it must be supported by psychological and psychiatric expertise, and whatever other services are necessary. My major concern is that we must ensure delivery of those programmes.
Ms Cooper:
One of the aligned issues is the role of parole commissioners. Those arrangements must be in place ahead of time, with structures and procedures clearly set out for the new system.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much. For the sake of completeness, who will carry out the assessment of dangerousness? Will that be done by the Probation Board or by another agency?
Mr McCaughey:
As I understand the legislation, that will be done by the Probation Board, supported by psychology and psychiatry services.
The Chairperson:
One final question concerns supervised activity orders: what type of activity do you envisage offenders carrying out? Some members have raised concerns that people might be involved in rather frivolous activities that might not suit —
Mr Wells:
Flower arranging and pottery?
The Chairperson:
Those are very fine pursuits.
Mr Weir:
I presume that those go hand in hand. Once one has made the pots, one can put the flowers in them.
Mr Wells:
I do not see those as punishments.
The Chairperson:
They might represent punishment for some people.
Mr McCaughey:
I shall ask Graham Kelly to answer that question in detail. My understanding is that, if people are in default of fine payments, we will examine the issue of victims, and the need to make reparation for what they have done. The Probation Board’s thrust will be for transparency in saying that if a person has committed an offence and says that he or she is sorry, we will ask them how they intend to make amends. The areas that the person identifies may not be the same as those in the Probation Board’s mind. The Probation Board must identify areas of need with community and voluntary groups and ask them how it can work productively with them to allow offenders to show that they really are sorry for what they have done.
Mr Graham Kelly:
The activities will be purposeful, unpaid work. They will be relevant to the offences, bearing in mind that they are an alternative to paying a fine. For example, if a person were fined for daubing graffiti on a wall, he or she would have to remove the graffiti. It is not dissimilar to our current community-service work. The difference is that fewer hours would be worked, because the work will be in proportion to the amount of the unpaid fine. Offenders will undertake purposeful, unpaid work for the benefit of the community, and relating to the offence for which they were fined.
The Chairperson:
That concludes the session. Thank you.
Mr McCaughey:
So that the Committee is absolutely clear, the new legislation will definitely expand the Probation Board’s role and place it at the centre of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. I do not wish the Committee to have the impression that there are any issues between the board and any other criminal-justice organisation.
I wish to emphasise that the working partnership between the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and the Prison Service is at the highest level, and that we will deliver the new legislation only through that partnership.
The Chairperson:
Once again, I thank you for coming. Your evidence has been useful and helpful. If any other points arise, we will contact you and, hopefully, you will be able to respond.
I now invite the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice, Kit Chivers, and his colleagues to come to the table.
You and your colleagues are welcome, Mr Chivers. I thank you for the written submission that you have made, which has been helpful to the Committee.
Mr Kit Chivers (Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland):
I am Kit Chivers, the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice, my deputy is Brendan McGuigan, and Tom McGonigle is the inspector who specialises in the downstream end of criminal justice — in other words, prison and probation. He is the author of the reports that relate to public-protection issues.
We are glad to have an opportunity to give evidence on the draft Order because it addresses one area of business to which we have devoted considerable attention. Over the past three years — in March 2005, December 2006 and November 2007 — we published three reports relating to the management of dangerous and sexual offenders, which Ms Lamont referred to during the previous evidence session.
In the first report, we called for the ending of automatic 50% remission for those categories of offenders, and the introduction of a regime more like that which was introduced in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, involving extended and indeterminate sentences regulated by our parole board. At the same time, we noted that there were difficulties with the arrangements in England and Wales, where the Parole Board was struggling to cope with the volume of cases. Over the following two years, it became increasingly clear that the legislation for England and Wales was defective. The prisons and the probation service there were overwhelmed by the number of prisoners who had been given indeterminate sentences for relatively minor offences, often with a ludicrously short tariff. An extreme example was a case in which 28 days was the indeterminate sentence.
We were concerned that Northern Ireland should learn the lessons from that experience. The draft Order addresses those concerns in several ways, as I am sure that the NIO will have explained to the Committee. It gives judges more discretion and there is no presumption of risk, so it is an open question for the judge to decide in each case whether there is a real risk of a serious further offence. The judge then has a choice between ICS and ECS, whereas in England they were forced into imposing an indeterminate custodial sentence. Public-protection sentences here will be able to be imposed only on indictment, which will cut out a lot of the minor offences, such as minor bodily harm, which received ICS in England. There will be a minimum two-year tariff for an ICS and a one-year tariff for an ECS, which provides another safeguard against the inappropriate use of those sentences. That is all to the good.
I am confident that judges will use the new provisions wisely. Nevertheless, as has been said, there will be a substantial additional burden for the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and the Prison Service.
It is difficult to estimate how many additional prison places will be required, although the Minister has mentioned that there might be a need for 120. The total will build slowly over many years, and the eventual total will depend on a number of variables, particularly the policy and practice of the parole commissioners. The life sentence review commissioners have been cautious, and I suggest that any forecast be based on the assumption that the parole commissioners behave likewise. The parole commissioners — similar to the parole board in England — will be subject to criticism when a further serious offence is committed by someone who is released on licence. Furthermore, the parole commissioners will have a higher public profile than the licence and review commissioners have had.
The Prison Service must raise its game significantly in how it manages lifers and indeterminate custodial sentence prisoners. It has been slow to introduce new standards for lifer management. Opportunities for lifers are limited, and much more use could be made of the existing prison estate — for instance, the working-out unit and Foyleview — to provide them with opportunities for progression.
Prison officers must be more involved in the organising of offender programmes. The lack of involvement of prison officers in the running of courses is, as Mr McFarland said, why the Probation Board is so involved. The Prison Service has not pulled its weight in that regard, and Tom McGonigle’s work on resettlement has shown that. The current outcomes are disappointing, and the demand for effective courses will be increased dramatically as a result of the draft Criminal Justice ( Northern Ireland) Order 2007. There is no specific regime at present for women or for young male offenders at Hydebank Wood, where there are six lifers in each category, and that will have to change. The increase in the burden on the Probation Board will be proportionately greater than that on the Prison Service, particularly as it will be providing programmes for fine defaulters. It will be crucially important that the Prison Service be properly resourced.
The workload of the parole commissioners will be much heavier than that of the life sentence review commissioners, and they will need to be resourced to cope with that workload. There are a lot of life sentence review commissioners, and I do not think that there is a need for any more. However, a significantly higher input will be required from the members of the commission. Fewer members, in fact, might help to ensure consistency of practice, because that will be important when they are exposed to criticism. There must be consistency of practice in making decisions that will be in the public eye and subject to public criticism.
In my letter to the Committee, I mentioned other areas of the justice system in which CJINI is working. My main reason for doing that was because this is our first opportunity to appear before a Committee. I am delighted that this meeting happened during my time of office, because the CJINI was set up with the purpose of serving the Assembly. I am glad to be here, and I am happy to receive your questions and engage with you on any of the topics that have been raised.
The Chairperson:
Thank you for your interesting and challenging presentation. Will you expand on the English experience? What pitfalls should we be aware of, bearing in mind the changes that will be made?
Mr Chivers:
Safeguards have been built into the legislation. In England, it was made possible for the magistrate’s courts to impose public-protection sentences for what were often minor offences. Therefore, the whole system — including the Prison Service and the Probation Board — was overwhelmed with short-tariff sentences; for instance, many three-month tariffs for indeterminate sentences. If an offender is in custody for less than a year, it is impossible for him or her to do the courses that are required to satisfy the Parole Board that they are safe to be released. Some people have appealed decisions on the grounds that they were denied their human right to show that they were safe for release.
That is clearly unacceptable. Sufficient safeguards are in place, provided that the judges use the sentences wisely, which I have no doubt they will, and that the life sentence review commissioners, or parole commissioners as they will become known, are robust in their decision-making. There is a danger that they might be overcautious, which could lead to a silting of people not being released when they could be. As long as the judges are robust and make fair decisions that releasing an individual into the community presents a reasonable risk, it should be OK.
The Chairperson:
The changes represent a radical shift in sentencing in Northern Ireland. Is it not quite different from anything that went before?
Mr Chivers:
It is a major change, but one that many consider long overdue. The calls for improved public protection have been strong, and it seemed to my inspectorate, and to many other informed bodies, that such provisions are essential.
The Chairperson:
In the main, you are supportive of the changes. Quite rightly, you highlighted the problems that arose in England. Nonetheless, do you consider that the changes represent a move in the right direction?
Mr Chivers:
Yes; very much so. We strongly support the legislation, which is in accordance with recommendations that were made in 2005.
Dr Farry:
I welcome you and your team, Kit. A topic that you did not cover in your oral presentation, but was included in your written submission and in the legislation, is the juvenile justice centre, in which you and I have a great interest. You essentially argue that there ought to be a default presumption that 17-year-old males should be directed towards the juvenile justice centre, rather than Hydebank. However, you suggested that the practice, at present, is the other way round. Will you elaborate on that?
Mr Chivers:
It seemed to me that the legislation was drafted in such a way that 17-year-old offenders would be sent to the juvenile justice centre only if Hydebank was unsuitable. I am sure that it should be the other way round: the presumption should be that any child should be sent to the juvenile justice centre, where there is a much better regime for juveniles, except in the case of extremely difficult 17-year-old males, and possibly a few younger males. I will invite Tom to comment on that in a moment. We found that the regime for juveniles at Hydebank was totally unsatisfactory: they should not be sent there if it can possibly be avoided.
Dr Farry:
Before Tom contributes, I want to expand on that. Is the intention of the Order different to the current practice, which I understand is geared towards sending juveniles to Hydebank?
Mr Chivers:
It seemed to be different. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the text of the Order but, as I read it, it seemed to state the reverse.
Mr Tom McGonigle (Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland):
The point is that we were not involved in the drafting of the legislation. It may be that that issue can be explained, but, on first reading, we thought that there was a question to be raised, and we considered it appropriate to raise it in this forum. We are particularly concerned about the custodial care of juveniles, and that issue must be dealt with properly.
When we recently inspected Hydebank Wood Young Offenders Centre, several 17-year-olds were there, and the regime is not at all ideal for them. One improvement is that very few 17-year-old girls were sent to Ash House at Hydebank over the past year, and we want to see the same improvement in relation to young males.
The Chairperson:
To assist Dr Farry and other colleagues, through the Committee Clerk, we have asked NIO officials to comment on that aspect of the draft Order, and they should come back to us. They have received a copy of the comments made by the inspectorate, and we await their response.
Mr McFarland:
I am keen on the planned changes, because they accord responsibility. If something goes wrong, it is clear who should be held to account. I am still not clear on who will be responsible when offenders are in prison for rehabilitation. Traditionally, as I understand it, that has been the responsibility of the Prison Service, for which it was allocated money.
It sounds like the task of monitoring and administering programmes to offenders will be within the Probation Board’s remit. Where is the line of demarcation? Co-operation is great, in an ideal world, but in this case, empires are being interfered with. Who will get the glory if the strategy succeeds, or carry the can if it fails?
Mr Chivers:
Tom wrote the book on the resettlement strategy, so I will let him answer that.
Mr McGonigle:
The Prison Service currently has service-level agreements with the Probation Board to deliver welfare services and offender-behaviour programmes to prisoners.
Mr McFarland:
Is the Prison Service still responsible for that?
Mr McGonigle:
Yes; it is primarily responsible for administering those services to serving prisoners. Although we welcome the new legislation, we are concerned about the delivery of programmes while prisoners are in custody. For example, of the some 1,300 people who were given custodial sentences in 2006-07, only 250-odd participated in programmes. Therefore, there is a major issue over the eligibility of prisoners for programmes — if a prisoner denies the offence they were convicted of, appeals their sentence, is not deemed sufficiently high risk, or has insufficient time of their sentence left to serve, they cannot take part in a programme. That significantly reduces the number of prisoners who can take part in programmes.
The other main problem is that there is not enough prison staff who are trained and willing to do that work to run the programmes. As the Chief Inspector of the Probation Board said, we have seen the problems that arose in England and Wales and have seen successful challenges in the High Court by prisoners. That undermines the criminal justice system, which is something that we want to avoid in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, we have resolved to probe the issue of programme delivery for people who are on ECS, ICS and life sentences, because if those prisoners are prepared to undertake the programmes, which society expects them to, but are not able to because the system cannot deliver them, the criminal justice system looks bad — particularly if there are successful High Court appeals.
Mr McFarland:
I got the impression from the evidence of the Probation Board witnesses that they believe that they are taking over the Prison Service role by monitoring offenders during the court phase, delivering the programmes during the prison phase, and carrying out their traditional role when offenders are released. I got the impression that the Probation Board thinks that it has an empire on the rise and will need the money to finance that. Will the service-level agreements still be with the Prison Service? Despite the Probation Board’s increased role, is the Prison Service still responsible for delivery?
Mr McGonigle:
Service-level agreements will continue. The role and expectations of the Probation Board will be increased mostly after a prisoner finished their sentence. However, while the prisoner is in custody, the Prison Service is responsible for delivering those programmes.
The Chairperson:
What incentives are there in the new system for prisoners to undertake programmes?
Mr McGonigle:
The incentives are the parole commissioners, whose introduction we advocated in our submission. That should deal with those prisoners who deny the offence that they were convicted of, which is positive.
Ms Ni Chuilín:
The witnesses have been very clear when talking about the programmes. However, I am concerned about the implications for women prisoners in Hydebank Wood. If there is a finite budget, what impact will that have for women, particularly the younger ones, in the system?
Mr Chivers:
Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland has made it clear that there should be a separate facility for women. That is an absolute priority. When the Prison Service is considering the new estate that it needs, it must make provision for a separate facility for women. In that separate facility, there must be proper provision for the relatively small number of life-sentence prisoners housed there.
They must have proper provision, because it would be intolerable for females to be less well treated than male prisoners. Whatever the budgetary restraints, I regard that as a priority.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
It has happened before.
Mr Chivers:
In the past, women were seriously neglected and regarded as a relatively insignificant addition to the prison population. By modern standards of human rights and equality, it is unthinkable that female prisoners should be treated in such a manner. To be fair, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee endorsed that in a report that it published today, and I am confident that the treatment of female prisoners will feature in the plans for the Prison Service.
The Chairperson:
How many women are we talking about?
Mr Chivers:
Forty-four, who have committed offences from fine-defaulting to murder.
Mr Brendan McGuigan (Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland):
For females, there is no alternative to prison; there is no hostel accommodation, which is appalling because it is not necessary for many female offenders to be in prison. Hostels would be much more appropriate.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I am pleased to hear that.
Mr McCartney:
Are there already enough life sentence review commissioners?
Mr Chivers:
Many commissioners work only a few sitting hours. For greater consistency, there should be fewer of them but they should work longer.
Mr McCartney:
In the past, they dealt with life-sentence prisoners. Will the new category of prisoners affect the commissioners’ ability to do their jobs?
Mr Chivers:
They will be responsible for three categories of prisoner: people with mandatory, indeterminate and extended life sentences. That will entail a much greater volume of work, and the sentences will be subject to much more public scrutiny. Therefore they will have to demonstrate that decisions have been taken properly and consistently and can be defended in public.
Mr McCartney:
On the subject of programme delivery, would the public be better served if all prisoners were held under a single regime? Given the proposed additional facilities in the prison at Magilligan, the temptation might be to spread the prison population around. In order to use resources better, should the people in those three categories be held in a single place?
Mr McGonigle:
That is a fair comment. A difficulty for the Northern Ireland Prison Service is managing the logistics of a small estate. Good practice suggests that remanded prisoners should be kept separate from sentenced prisoners and that sentenced prisoners should be able to access programmes. In addition, the Prison Service must also keep republican and loyalist prisoners separated, and it must deal with fine-defaulters, women, and young prisoners. There will also be a separate category of recall prisoners. It is well known that such prisoners are more difficult to manage and pose a greater suicide risk because they are more unsettled. That will introduce yet another category to the complex mix. Mr McCartney’s suggestion is good, but it would probably be difficult to deliver.
Mr Weir:
How are recall prisoners defined?
Mr McGonigle:
They are offenders who have not complied with probation requirements while on licence.
Mr McFarland:
One of the problems with placing such prisoners is their families’ human rights. Are prisoners who live in the north-west put in prisons there so that their families can have easy access to them?
Mr McGonigle:
Compared to across the water, where families must often travel hundreds of miles, ease of access is not really an issue in Northern Ireland. Ideally, prisoners should be close to home —
Mr McFarland:
The issue is cited in relation to families’ rights to easy access.
The Chairperson:
Distance is relative.
Mr McCartney:
A prisoner’s security rating is what matters here. Maghaberry is a high-security prison; that is where a high-security prisoner will go, whether they are from Derry or not.
The Chairperson:
We are straying into matters relating to the prison establishment. The changes will affect the Prison Service, which is to give evidence to the Committee. How does the Criminal Justice Inspection view the changes? The Probation Board has already discussed them in its submission.
Mr Chivers:
The figure that the Minister gave for the increase in the prison population is some 120 additional places, which will build up slowly over many years. That would accord roughly with our feel for the additional number of people who would be likely to end up in the system.
The Chairperson:
Therefore the Prison Service will not be flooded with people.
Mr Chivers:
There is a strong upward trend to begin with; the prison population has been rising steadily at the rate of about 100 a year for the past few years. There will be some offset as a result of reducing the number of fine-defaulters, but fine-defaulters comprise only 2% or 3% of the prison population.
The sentencing decisions will be critical. Engaging with judges about how the legislation will be used and about sentencing policy generally will be crucial if we are to avoid an explosion in the prison population. Northern Ireland has the lowest proportion of the population in prison than any part of the United Kingdom — almost half that of England, Wales or Scotland. We must try to keep to that level if at all possible.
The Chairperson:
Since the prison population will increase, how will an indeterminate sentence affect prisoners’ lives in prison? Will it make them more or less co-operative? The increase will not be huge, but could such prisoners be more disruptive, more unco-operative and more unhelpful with the regime?
Mr Chivers:
As Tom said, I hope that they will have every incentive to be good prisoners; they will be trying as hard as possible to get a good report for the parole commissioners.
Mr McGonigle:
A great deal depends on the tariff; prisoners should know when they will be considered for release. However, a significant change of culture in the Prison Service is equally important: prison staff must engage more with prisoners, and the Criminal Justice Inspection advocates that strongly. Traditionally, that has not been the case in Northern Ireland. Staff engaging proactively with prisoners and helping them to plan in prison for life after release — even though that may be some distance ahead — is a fundamental requirement of the Prison Service. There is a journey to be travelled.
The Chairperson:
How would you characterise the relationship between prisoners and prison staff at present?
Mr McGonigle:
It is very much an arms-length relationship with the majority of prisoners. However, there are some notable exceptions where there is good interaction, but most prison staff have limited engagement with prisoners: there is no personal officer scheme in any prison. A fundamental expectation in most good prison services is engagement between a prisoner and an officer who has some responsibility for their welfare.
The Chairperson:
There is to be supervision rather than just locking people up.
Mr Chivers:
We have to consider the history of the relationship between prisoners and prison staff: in the past, prison officers in Northern Ireland felt threatened by prisoners. Their defensive reaction was not to talk to prisoners or to be on first-name terms with them: prisoners were just locked up and let out. As Tom said, that must change. The Probation Board has had to step into the gap and do most of the creative work in prisons because there was no interaction and no personal-officer relationship between prisoners and prison staff. In an English prison, officers engage fully with prisoners, work with them and encourage them to take courses in education that will help them to make a success of their lives when they leave prison.
It will be a huge cultural change for Northern Ireland, although Robin Masefield is very much seized of it. It will be a huge mountain to shift.
Mr Attwood:
I found the CJI’s submission particularly useful because it broke the subject down into manageable sections. Has the annex to the submission, which deals with the broader matters, been given to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee?
Mr Chivers:
Yes.
Mr Attwood:
Parts of the submission are relevant to the work of that Committee; we might return to it again.
I want to find out more about the potential increase in the number of prisoners that the Probation Board will have to deal with. Unless there is certainty about the figures, resource planning may go to the wall. It seems that the rise in the prison population in England since the scope for indeterminate sentences was increased has caused tensions, and your evidence suggests that there has been an 80% increase in the prison population there. While taking on board the obvious differences between England and here, we can, nonetheless, expect an increase of perhaps 120 prisoners.
At the same time, you said that people will act very cautiously as regards prisoner management, for obvious reasons. I am worried that, as a consequence, there will be more prisoners and probation work, but that we will be working from a financial baseline that is too low. Given the increase in the prison population in England, could the projections for here be too low, and is there a risk that the budget will be too low?
Mr Chivers:
That is a question for the NIO rather than for us. We look at matters as they are, but we are not policy formulators; we do not foretell the future in that way. However, we are conscious of the risks. You are absolutely right to identify that risk, and much will depend on the behaviours of the various decision makers. We must do whatever we can to constrain the growth of the prison population, because the fact that Northern Ireland has a fairly low prison population is one of its greatest assets.
Mr Attwood:
Are you still prepared to validate the projected increase of 120 prisoners?
Mr Chivers:
It feels about right to us, given the characters we know to be out there.
Mr McGuigan:
There were hugely disparate projections in England and Wales, which ended up being totally inaccurate. We must be mindful of that, too.
The Chairperson:
Over what time do you predict the increase of 120 prisoners?
Mr Chivers:
It might be over 10 years; the numbers would build up gradually as decisions are taken.
The Chairperson:
Taken over that period, the impact would not be huge.
Mr Chivers:
No. That is a slight reassurance for the Probation Board; although it will be taking on a much bigger burden of work, the numbers will build up quite slowly as the sentences are introduced.
Mr McGuigan:
If the projections are correct, the increase should not be immediate, and that is important. It is also worth mentioning that this matter will affect not just the Prison Service and the Probation Board — although, obviously, as statutory agencies, they will be centrally affected — it will also affect the voluntary sector. CJI is carrying out an inspection of offender hostels, whose work is absolutely critical. Such hostels take in prisoners who have been released from prison — usually the highest-risk prisoners — so that there is some supervision as they return to the community. Therefore, if more prisoners are classified as dangerous and a risk to society, the voluntary sector will require additional resources, too.
Mr Chivers:
Brendan mentioned the importance of a hostel for women, and we strongly endorse the view that good, well-run offender hostels can make a significant contribution; they are well worth investing in.
Mr McGuigan:
We will publish a report on offender hostels early in the new year. I am sure that the Committee has heard presentations on the possibility of establishing co-located public-protection teams. The CJI has examined the management of sex offenders over the past three years, and we hope that such a proposal is not simply aspirational but that steps will be taken to establish such teams.
They are not covered in the legislation, but we view them as another useful tool in the armoury of public protection. The sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice ( Northern Ireland) Order 2007 are one useful tool, but a co-located, multi-agency public-protection team is required.
This is a small jurisdiction of 1·7 million people, in which there is a significant number of registered sex offenders. However, the small number of really dangerous sex offenders could be thoroughly monitored by a co-located public-protection team.
The partnership working that has been established is the best that we have seen regarding statutory agencies working together to achieve results. One small extra push is now required. I fervently hope that the Committee does not lose sight of that. If the Committee receives presentations from the criminal justice organisations, perhaps it could probe to ensure that establishing such a team is high on their agenda.
Managing such offenders when they are released is critical; the offender hostels do amazing work, much of which is not recognised. The other element that is required is strong public-protection teams that can step in and work effectively with people who present risks. The arrangements are fit for purpose, but, in this small jurisdiction, we can make a significant difference with a little additional push.
Mr Attwood:
Should the inter-agency public-protection team have a statutory basis rather than be subject to guidance from the Secretary of State or from any future justice Minister?
Mr Chivers:
Yes; it will be promulgated as part of the guidance, which will give it a statutory basis. The guidance will be statutory.
The Chairperson:
How many commissioners are there?
Mr Chivers:
Twenty-four.
The Chairperson:
You suggested that perhaps there could be fewer. How many people should make up such a group?
Mr Chivers:
I do not have a view on that, although you may wish to discuss it with Mr Peter Smith.
The Chairperson:
Mr Smith is to attend our meeting next week.
Mr Attwood:
You made some rigorous comments about the prison establishment. As the Chairperson said, Mr Masefield will be attending a Committee meeting in January. I have a sense that Mr Masefield will be a more reforming, free-thinking Director General of the Prison Service. Is the Prison Officers Association fit for purpose in establishing a new relationship with prisoners in future?
Mr Chivers:
I would rather not comment on that. [Laughter.] Robin Masefield has taken important strides to achieve progress in the relationship with prison officers. However, there is much more to do.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much. That was an intriguing answer. I thank the witnesses for attending today, in particular Mr Chivers. That was an interesting session and was helpful to us in our deliberations. If we need to ask any further questions, I am sure that you will answer them.
Mr Chivers:
We are always at your service.
The Chairperson:
Thank you.