Stonnall Road, Aldridge

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Westminster Hall

13:29

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

First, I want to thank the Minister for meeting me yesterday, together with Mike Flower who is a local councillor from Aldridge and represents the views of councillors in that area. This debate is on a subject that is uncomfortable for most elected Members of Parliament, and for the public at large, who are the one ingredient that always seem to be overlooked in such discussions.

On Monday 4 March, a resident of what is still referred to as the bail hostel in Stonnall road came to my surgery. Although I had never met him, he was known to me. A couple of years previously, his partner had sought to have this individual moved from a distant prison well outside the west midlands. He is a convicted paedophile, and as the single mother of a small child, she found it difficult to make arrangements for child care to enable her to exercise her visiting rights. I wrote to the prison authorities, and the individual in question was moved.

A while later in June 2009, his partner approached me again. It transpired that the prison authorities had withdrawn visiting rights for his very young daughter, and subsequently stopped telephone calls. I had not understood that the partner wished to enable her daughter to have continuing visiting rights, and I was concerned. My office spoke to the prison, which explained that it had withdrawn visits and telephone calls as they thought that the man might possibly be grooming his child. The purpose of his visit to my surgery in March was to see whether I could help him re-establish contact with his daughter. I said that I could not, and the visit greatly disturbed me.

The probation service placed this man in a hostel less than two miles from the child whom the prison authorities suspected him of grooming—I have said, Mr Hancock, that this would be an uncomfortable debate. My anxieties about the case led me into correspondence with the Staffordshire and west midlands probation authorities. I also notified those councillors who were actively involved in managing the concerns of local people and trying to establish the closure, or removal, of the hostel.

The site was originally a Barnardo’s children’s home that offered secure premises for children with difficulties. Councillors Anthony Harris, Keith Sears and Mike Flower have written a letter to the Minister, and I shall read a couple of passages:

“The journey for the site currently designated as an Approved Premise on Stonnall Road has been a troubled one. The site has changed from being a Barnado’s Children’s Home caring for children to being an Approved Premise housing sex offenders. It is a journey of secrecy, deceit, judicial defeat and change of use by stealth. It stands as the polar opposite of the localism and transparency agenda being championed by the coalition Government. Now is the time for the new Government to re-evaluate the status of Stonnall Road Approved Premises and correct a long-standing historical wrong.

The Approved Premise has never been through the democratic processes of planning consent and therefore does not have a democratic mandate. Originally, to change from being a Children’s Home to use as a Bail Hostel, it was deemed not to require change of use in planning terms as there was no material change in its use—”

that dogs the history of those premises across the past 20 years—

“yet since that decision the building has moved from housing children in need to sexual offenders released on licence. This is unacceptable in a democracy and is a change of material use by stealth, contradicting the very spirit of planning laws and local engagement.”

In January 1995, the extension application to add yet more places to what was still a bail hostel was refused by Walsall council on the grounds that

“The residents of the area and adjoining properties now experience severe problems and material problems and incidents arising from the existing use of the premises, which are incompatible with the surrounding residential area. The further expansion of a use which, in the considered view of the local planning authority, is unsuitable for that area has the potential to further exacerbate these problems, to the detriment of the amenities which local residents could reasonably be expected to enjoy.”

The letter from the councillors continues:

“At no point has the community ever had a say on what this building should be used for and people have watched powerlessly as the use of the building has materially changed. This venture into the planning process proved on three levels—”

that refers to the High Court judgment and the defeat of the probation service’s appeal against the planning application—

“that the Bail Hostel was having a detrimental impact on the local community—the case paperwork proves this locality is inappropriate despite denial from the Probation Service. Why have the Ministry of Justice and West Midlands Probation Trust dismissed the view that the facility has a detrimental impact on the local community?

If this wasn’t evidence enough, the sad cases of criminal behaviour caused on occasion by residents of the Approved Premises has further proven that it is a very real risk to the public it is meant to protect, and a problem for our community. Local head teachers, who have experienced some residents engaging in illegal activity around their primary schools (later convicted in court), agree with us that this is inappropriately located and that the type of offender placed in this location is unacceptable.”

They wrote to the Minister:

“You will be aware that the Bail Hostel was turned into an Approved Premises by decree of the Secretary of State under the last Labour Government. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed in writing, in an email from Sean Langley to Councillor Mike Flower, that no process was undertaken and that no process is outlined by law. We believe that this is therefore a breach of natural justice on the following grounds.”

They gave three grounds. First:

“A person must be allowed an adequate opportunity to present their case where certain interests and rights may be adversely affected by a decision-maker.”

Secondly:

“No one ought to be judge in his or her case. This is the requirement that the deciding authority must be unbiased when according the hearing or making the decision.

As the Ministry of Justice contracts the Probation Service to allow Approved Premises to house offenders released from prison, is it not a conflict of interests if the same body decides where and who these places are?”

Thirdly:

“Administrative decision making must be based upon logical proof or evidence material. Evidence presented by one party must be disclosed to the other party, who may then subject it to scrutiny.”

That question of scrutiny will return again and again.

“The Ministry of Justice does not have a process for approving Approved Premises and therefore no proof or evidence has been considered. No evidence has ever been presented or disclosed to the community or their representatives for scrutiny.”

They asked the Minister—as do I—to explain

“how the decision to designate Stonnall Road as an Approved Premises met the principles of natural justice and the Wednesbury principles? We would be grateful to see a copy of the paperwork that officially designated Stonnall Road as an Approved Premise. We’d also like to know what weight was given by Ministers to the past planning and Court judgements as referred to above.”

The councillors expressed their immediate concerns:

“Whilst elected councillors remain resolved in our aim to close Stonnall Road Approved Premises there are a number of practical issues we also wish to raise on restricting the admissions policy and in building trust and scrutiny with the community and their democratically elected representatives.”

They then go into the case of the individual under discussion, and want to know how many sexual offenders are currently resident in the hostel. They asked:

“How many have been recalled to prison since the Hostel/Approved Premise were opened? How many offenders have been convicted of crimes committed during their stay at Stonnall Road and what crimes were they convicted of?

Regarding MAPPA”—

the multi-agency public protection arrangements—

“Who audits MAPPA to ensure the risks they are calculating and managing are reasonable?”

Very importantly, the councillors ask:

“Who are the lay assessors on MAPPA charged with representing the views of the local community, how were they chosen and why are elected representatives not informed?”

The councillors also want to know about the admissions policy:

“We request a copy of the admissions policy for Stonnall Road Approved Premises and ask that it be made public.

There is a Ministerially imposed restriction on admission policy at Bunbury House in Ellesmere port, Cheshire that excludes the residence of offenders who have committed any sexual offence against a child under 16. We request that Ministers consider and impose the same restriction on Stonnall Road”.

They also request other things in their submission to the Minister.

I verify almost everything that the councillors say in that letter. It has been a frustrating and long journey to try to wake up the probation service to a judgment that it took by deceit—that is what the councillors call it. The reason why I say “by deceit” in the end is the frustration of this. I raised a previous debate in the House of Commons on the nature of this hostel. I said that Miss Macdonald, who was the assistant chief probation officer for properties—buildings—had made a statement to the planning committees. I am not going to find the quote immediately, but the substance of what she said was that the magistrates had supported the bail hostel being placed in the former Dr Barnardo’s property.

This is what the then Home Secretary said:

“My officials are unable to find any papers to support your comment that the West Midlands Probation Service ‘misinformed local Councillors and residents as to the specific support of the Aldridge Magistrates for the location of the hostel in Stonnall Road’”.

It was not the Aldridge magistrates; it was the Walsall magistrates, and I had an exchange of correspondence on that very subject.

The Stonnall Road bail hostel came into being because the then acting head of residential services in west midlands probation service assured elected members of Walsall metropolitan borough council at a planning meeting in September 1989 that

“Walsall and Aldridge Magistrates were in favour of the proposed bail hostel in Stonnall Road”.

It subsequently transpired from my inquiries with the clerk to the magistrates, Edward Jones, barrister, in the course of an application to increase the size of the hostel in 1995, that the chairman of the magistrates had written that

“it has never been the policy of the Bench to comment upon the location of the facilities required by the Walsall district Probation Service.”

Mr Jones in his reply said:

“Once you have studied this correspondence you may be of the same opinion as I am that Mr. Baker’s response was misquoted by Miss Macdonald in the meeting before the Planning Committee.”

That application was refused by the planning inspectorate, as I have said, and that decision was upheld by the judgment of the High Court.

In the years since, the hostel has caused, as the councillors say, much concern to local residents, the head teachers of two primary schools and their elected representatives. We have come to believe that the bail hostel houses convicted offenders released on licence—a fact that was finally confirmed by the probation service in a letter to me dated April 1999. It stated:

“The Stonnall Road Hostel was opened and run as a provision for bail residents only. Since 1995 however, it has been the policy of the West Midlands Probation Committee that the hostel could also be used for men subject to Probation Orders, or on Licence after a prison sentence. I apologise if that change was never communicated directly to you.”

Despite my recent correspondence with the probation service, this latest case seems to me to fly in the face of its assurances that the Stonnall Road approved premise was the most suitable location for the sort of man whom I have brought to the attention both of the director of social services in Walsall and, with much difficulty, of the principal officers of the probation service in the west midlands and Staffordshire. They have assured me that this man offends only against children he has groomed and within the family. It was on that point that the director of social services, whose operation is of course part of MAPPA, wrote to the west midlands probation service. MAPPA had conducted two reviews, both confirming the original decision, in the knowledge that I was concerned and that the director of social services was also concerned. At the moment, the man has been moved from the Stonnall Road bail hostel, but there is no agreement that he could not be returned to those premises.

The probation service wrote back to the director of social services. I understand from councillors that that was not a very happy letter, and I understand that the Minister would use the phrase “outside the envelope”, yet these very probation officers have referred to councillors as part of the process—they are involved in it. Now, there is rage. I would not want anything to happen to the director of our social services, who was also concerned as to why the case of a child who was possibly being groomed by an inmate of Stonnall Road should not be examined with the closest possible attention to the implications for that child. How is it that this organisation does not have to come back and justify why it is convinced that the most secure arrangements are within 1.8 miles of the child?

The fear of the probation service is that the name of the man will leak. I have here letters that ask that the name not be leaked. The first is from Dr Gerard Bates, director of operations. He says:

“If his surname enters the public domain, then the most likely consequence would be the identification of previous victims and other relatives including a young child and his very elderly and vulnerable mother. This would cause severe distress and could compromise safeguarding arrangements.”

I have no doubt that that is absolutely true, and no one has put into the public domain this person’s name, but the very fact that people have to write that indicates to me the possible insecurity of the location in respect of this individual. Mr Maiden wrote to me on 3 June in anticipation of this debate. He says:

“A primary concern of all involved is that the families”—

notice that it is families, plural—

“connected with the offender are not identified and, given his…name, this is likely to occur should the information enter the public domain.”

Those people know that this name is such that that child was at risk, either through the man’s activities or proclivities or through the name leaking into the public domain.

We can go round this again, as I have so many times with the probation service, but at the heart of it is the continual denial in respect of a small unit that accommodates 12 people, for which the probation service sought an extension far beyond anything that people were told by Miss Macdonald. The planning authorities are alarmed and concerned that this could happen. However, we are also mindful of the fact that there are 2,100 such people in this country and that there are inadequate places for them. That is why, having seized on an opportunity 20 years ago, those involved have now moved to create this nightmare in a local community of small houses—that is described by the inspectorate and understood by the community at large. We are talking about open, vulnerable, small spaces, local schools with small children and a major secondary school. All those children are under the age of 18, and if this man’s proclivities and interests extend beyond just members of his family—who is god enough to say that that is his only interest?—every one of those children will be at risk.

13:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) for raising this important subject. The security of our citizens is the first priority of any Government, and public protection is a central responsibility of the Ministry of Justice.

I hope that I can demonstrate to my hon. Friend and the House that we take our obligations in this respect extremely seriously and that our arrangements for managing dangerous offenders in the community are robust and effective. Approved premises, including Stonnall Road, raise challenging questions about how the criminal justice system deals with its most serious offenders, but the view of successive Governments has been that such premises are an important part of those arrangements and ultimately perform a critical role in keeping communities safe.

As my hon. Friend said, it was my pleasure to meet him and Councillor Mike Flower yesterday. If my remarks do not answer in full the letter that my hon. Friend drew on in his speech, he will, of course, receive a full reply later.

I share my hon. Friend’s revulsion at the offences committed by the offender, whose case led my hon. Friend to secure the debate. However, the offender has now served the custodial part of his sentence, and our priority, as with all offenders, must be appropriately to protect the public from future offences. That can mean difficult decisions being taken by the agencies involved and overriding the wishes of those who have committed no offence, and my hon. Friend alluded to that. Tragically, it is not possible to eliminate entirely the possibility that a known offender will go on to commit further crimes—in some cases, serious ones—but the Government are committed to doing all that we can to ensure that the risk of an offender causing harm is managed effectively and robustly in the wider interests of us all.

The main topics that my hon. Friend raised were the multi-agency public protection arrangements and the approved premises in Stonnall road. MAPPA and approved premises are two of the key measures that the statutory agencies use effectively to manage offenders who are known on account of their previous offending to present an ongoing risk of harm. I was going to speak in some detail about MAPPA, but I suspect that my hon. Friend would prefer me to address more directly the issues raised by Stonnall Road in the time available. All that I would say about MAPPA is that the arrangements are being validated by studies and are at the leading edge of international practice in managing serious offenders. We will continue to make sure that we improve and develop our practices, but the United Kingdom is well served by the arrangements that we have.

I turn now to the approved premises in Stonnall road, in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am aware, not least as a result of yesterday’s meeting, that there has been some local opposition to the approved premises over the years, and my hon. Friend laid out how long the issue has been around. However, those premises, along with others in England and Wales, must be understood in the context of a system-wide approach to the effective management of risk, so it might help if I explain briefly what approved premises do.

There are 100 approved premises in England and Wales, with a total of about 2,200 beds. They are the places that our most serious offenders go to when they are released on licence from prison, having served the custodial part of their sentences. Approved premises have 24-hour staffing and a structured regime, including overnight curfew. The principal aim of approved premises is to ensure that offenders are effectively supervised and monitored during the critical period immediately after release. During that period, the supervising agencies can best gauge how successful work in prison has been in addressing the underlying causes of an offender’s behaviour.

For certain offenders, such as child sex offenders, compliance with the restrictions in their licences, such as daytime reporting and exclusion from places such as schools or parks, can be more closely monitored in approved premises than if they are dispersed into alternative accommodation in the community. Residents in approved premises must take part in purposeful activity and in programmes designed to address their offending behaviour and to reduce reoffending. In addition, they are subject to drug and alcohol testing and are monitored on the premises by CCTV. Where the risk assessment deems it necessary, offenders can be escorted by a member of staff when they leave the approved premises.

The system is all about managing the risk posed by people who, having served their time in prison, are being returned to the community. If they remain a threat, approved premises are the best chance the system has to pick up their offending behaviour and to subject them, if necessary, to recall to prison. Staff working in approved premises are trained in risk assessment and to look for the telltale signs of risky behaviour. They work closely with offender managers and local police through MAPPA. They have daily contact with residents, so they are often the eyes and ears through which vital intelligence can be passed to other agencies. The whole idea is to monitor certain high-risk offenders much more closely than would otherwise be possible precisely, so that action can be taken promptly without the need to wait for a fresh offence to be committed.

Broadly speaking, the system is effective. Clearly, there will always be cases that slip through the net—risk can never be eliminated entirely—and each such case is one too many, but the available data show that offending rates for those held in approved premises are much better than for those who are not. In the last full year for which data are available, about 0.3% of residents were charged with a serious further offence. In addition, in many cases, prompt action is taken to recall offenders to custody before they can commit further offences.

The challenge is that communities where approved premises are situated understandably have concerns about being near offenders, especially those who have previously committed serious crimes and sexual offences. I hear and entirely understand my hon. Friend’s concerns that people are unhappy when they find they are living near somewhere where those who have done dreadful things are temporarily housed.

However, the alternative to offenders living in approved premises is not that they stay in prison. These people have been released from prison because they have served their custodial terms and they must be accommodated somewhere in the community. If they were not in approved premises, they would be somewhere else—somewhere less controlled and less suitable. The result would not be that there were no sex offenders in the community. Rather, there would still be sex offenders in the community, but not so obviously, so it would be much more difficult to provide effective supervision for them.

In the past, when we did not use approved premises as we do now, serious offenders leaving jail were much less effectively supervised. Too often, that included them being put in temporary accommodation, such as bed and breakfasts, alongside some of our most vulnerable families. Tackling that situation was the right thing to do.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about whether these approved premises are in the right place and about its history, so let me say clearly that the safety of the public is our first concern. Clearly, offenders returning to the community must go somewhere, but every offender is placed in every approved premises with a proper individual risk assessment.

Where any offender under statutory probation supervision, including one residing in an approved premises, is charged with a serious further offence, the supervising probation trust is required to undertake a rigorous review of the management of the case, but that was not the case in the circumstances that my hon. Friend raised. He told us that Walsall children’s services, no doubt prompted by his inquiry, became concerned that an individual was at risk. The director of children’s services wrote to the agencies involved and copied that letter to my hon. Friend and local councillors before there was a chance to review the case formally through MAPPA. She was clearly concerned that prompt action needed to be taken, and I am happy to look at the circumstances of the case to understand what happened. However, it is obviously of some satisfaction that necessary action was taken. The substantive result was that the offender was moved to another approved premises in the west midlands probation trust area, and no offence has been committed.

My hon. Friend may believe that the MAPPA process must have fallen short if the director had to behave in that way—

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, Minister, but I have to interrupt you, because time has caught up with us.

14:00

Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11)).