Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Beith and Alun Michael

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael]

I am very pleased to be able to defend the Youth Justice Board, which was established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, for which I had responsibility as deputy Home Secretary. The Act is widely respected as a practical and effective piece of legislation, which also established the youth offending teams, the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and antisocial behaviour orders, changes that have all been effective in cutting crime and reducing reoffending.

The success of the youth offending teams is due in large part to the insight, independence, creativity, leadership and clear focus on cutting youth crime that the Youth Justice Board has provided, and which a Government Department cannot provide. The facts of that success are clear. Around 90,000 young people under 18 were brought into the youth justice system for the first time in 2000, and there were about 50,000 first-time entrants in 2010, a reduction of 45%. Reoffending by young people was reduced by 27% between 2000 and 2009, the latest year for which figures are available. The number of young people under 18 held in custody is down by more than 25%. In August 2000, 2,968 young people under 18 were in custody, and in August 2011, 2,106 were in custody. The Audit Commission has confirmed that the system works well.

In 2010, the incoming Justice Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), pledged to use the justice reinvestment report of the Justice Committee as their textbook for their time in office, but to do away with the Youth Justice Board signals that they have abandoned that promise. A wide range of organisations is appalled by the proposal to do away with the Youth Justice Board, but I will mention just two.

The Association of Chief Police Officers said:

“The recent disorder in London and indeed other areas of the country have shown that crime committed by young people should be carefully and seriously considered. The performance of the youth justice system under the leadership of the YJB has been considerable.”

It went on to warn that we would lose some of the successful joint initiatives that have been developed between the police and the Youth Justice Board. Finally, it makes the damning comment:

“There has been no evidence put forward to date that demonstrates the proposed transfer of the YJB’s functions to the Ministry of Justice will deliver better results.”

The fact is that it will not.

The Magistrates Association, speaking of the Youth Justice Board, said that

“the Magistrates Association from first-hand experience would say that it has a vital and continuing role to play in the justice system. Its very raison d’etre for magistrates is that it provides continuity of policy, strategy and implementation in a way that a general approach through the wider Ministry of Justice cannot deliver.”

It warns that

“the coherence that is now one of the successes of the system will be compromised and seriously damaged.”

By implication, the Government know that the Youth Justice Board has been a success, because they are not abolishing its role, but nationalising it. I did not know that Ministers were quite so left-wing or old-fashioned in their approach. I can only assume that No. 10 is demanding a tick in the box for abolishing a quango and does not care about the damage that will be done.

Over time, if the Youth Justice Board is taken into the Department for Justice, the Department will lose the expertise that has been drawn together within the board. If those who work in the board wanted to be civil servants, they would have applied to join the civil service. I hope that that attrition will be slow, but it will be inevitable. Government Departments are not good at running things, and the strength of the board is its focus on cutting youth crime, the independence and respect that it has earned and its capacity for working in partnership with others, which is why new clauses 11 and 12 are important. That point about partnership is demonstrated by the two organisations that I quoted and many others.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman has a very good record both in the work that he did as a Minister and in the work that he did on the Justice Committee on this matter, but I think he would acknowledge that it would be wrong to ascribe to the board, for all its good work, the achievements that are really those of youth offending teams at local level, where partnership really matters.

[Alun Michael]

The point I made, and the point that is made by the Magistrates Association and by chief police officers, is that success at the local level depended on the coherence, independence and energy of the Youth Justice Board in supporting their work. All of them value the Youth Justice Board and all of them say that a Department cannot do it. From my experience in government I am convinced that a Department, working internally, cannot effectively replace the work of the Youth Justice Board.

New clauses 11 and 12 would protect the partnership approach between the Youth Justice Board and the Welsh Assembly. I pay particular tribute to the Minister responsible in the Welsh Assembly Government, Carl Sargeant, for his engagement in this issue and to the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, for his commitment to the cause of cutting crime, particularly youth crime. Criminal justice is not a devolved matter, but the devolution of children’s services, education and health policy means that a significant part of the delivery of local youth justice services is subject to Welsh Government oversight, and the Youth Justice Board has specific objectives in Wales to take account of this.

The Youth Justice Board has worked closely with the Welsh Government and other delivery partners in Wales to improve the youth justice system, and that partnership working must not be underestimated. It works. The inclusion of a board member for Wales on the Youth Justice Board has been critical in navigating the different arrangements that exist in Wales for youth justice. The board member has lead responsibility for Wales and enabled the Youth Justice Board to work effectively in Wales and develop key stakeholder relationships.

I pay particular tribute to my good friend Professor Howard Williamson—we worked together when I was a youth worker—for the massive contribution he made to enabling that partnership to work. I could illustrate that in detail at some length and wish I had time to do so, because there is a tremendous amount of important material that I would like to expand on, particularly how ensuring that placements in England have worked for young people who are returned to Welsh communities. Essentially, it is the partnership that has worked, and it is the partnership that would be put at risk unless Ministers accept, preferably, that the Youth Justice Board should be allowed to continue and, in particular, that there is a need for partnership arrangements to continue.

New clause 11 would put the current committee arrangements between the Youth Justice Board and the Welsh Assembly Government on a statutory basis, which implies the board’s continuation. The alternative, as set out in new clause 12, would be to create a partnership, through a joint committee, between the Ministry of Justice, or any other organisation to which the Government transferred the powers, and the Welsh Assembly Government.

When the Home Affairs Committee recently took evidence in Wales, we heard from an individual who was working in the Assembly as a result of a joint appointment by the Assembly and the Youth Justice Board. It is that joint working that has built up the confidence that is needed. The Youth Justice Board has developed a model that works, and it should be the model for other Government agencies and Departments, many of which still do not understand how to get the best out of the complementary roles they share with the Welsh Assembly.

I urge Ministers to accept the new clause and not include the Youth Justice Board within the ambit of the Bill. I urge them, in any event, to accept that the partnership arrangements between the Government, or their agency, and Wales should be put on a statutory basis and to understand and support the importance of partnership, because it has been effective in reducing youth crime and we need it to continue.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The Justice Committee has taken a close interest in this matter, as it did when the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) was a member; he contributed extensively to our work on it. We have been considering it lately but are yet to take a formal view on whether the Youth Justice Board needs to survive. However, we have explored thoroughly what needs to happen if it is abolished. The Youth Justice Board has done a lot of good work, not least in leading a reduction in the use of custody for young people. That led to the closure of a youth offenders institution in my constituency, but the places have of course been taken as a result of the prison system’s other requirements.

I want to make three points about what is essential in this field, whether the Youth Justice Board survives or not. First, the crucial element is that youth offending teams work at local level. The Youth Justice Board has given the initial leadership to develop youth offending teams, following initiatives taken by the right hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister. The ability of all relevant agencies at local level, including the police, social services, local authorities and housing authorities, to work together is crucial.

Cutting Crime (Justice Reinvestment)

Debate between Lord Beith and Alun Michael

Thursday 21st October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Beith]

It must be remembered that that was the response of the previous Government. I found that part disappointing because it got into a circular situation. If we simply look at the present prison population, we are looking at the failures of the past. If we do not change the policy, the situation will continue. I will return to that theme later in my remarks. Catching people early is of vital importance. The people who initially commit relatively minor offences sometimes go on to become those who, through drug dependency or something else, get into more serious offences and become subject to repeat custodial sentences because of the ever more serious or frequent crimes that they commit.

In 2007, the Texas state legislature rejected plans to spend $0.5 billion on new prisons in favour of a justice reinvestment approach. Half that money was spent on expanding the capacity of residential and out-patient treatment for substance misuse and mental health, community-based sanctions for offenders and post-release support to prisoners. Parole revocations were reduced, and the increase in the prison population was 90% smaller than had been predicted. Significant savings were made within two years, because the costs of increasing the capacity of treatment and residential facilities were significantly less than the cost of increasing prison capacity.

The Committee gave a great deal of detailed consideration to how justice reinvestment approaches could be applied to the system in England and Wales. We believe that the system as a whole should be revisited through a lens that looks at crime as a problem to be managed in a cost-effective way. A longer-term rational approach must be taken to policy and the diversion of resources. That would enable prisons that are currently stretched to deal more effectively with those for whom incarceration is necessary for public protection, and prevent the need for continued expansion in the number of prison places. Few hon. Members in the Chamber will not have visited prisons and seen the pressures under which prison officers work. Such officers desire more time and opportunity to devote to rehabilitative work. Ideally, they would work with smaller numbers of prisoners who need that kind of support, and they are anxious to provide it to them by using the skills that they have built up over the years.

We also suggest that probation services should be able to pay greater attention to those offenders who represent the greatest risk to the public. Lurking at the back of that is a problem to which I will refer later. We must find a way other than imprisonment to signify society’s disapproval of crime. For some, community sentences can be more demanding than prison. The week before last, we took evidence from four ex-offenders during our work on the probation service. Two of those offenders said that they had committed offences in order to get back inside, because that was easier than the community sentence on which they were engaged. In one case, the sentence did not seem to work well, because the daily supervision requirement prevented the person from taking a job. In both cases, people had committed offences that they knew would put them back in prison, which was the easier option. That is not often recognised by the public, who see prison as the only way of saying that society will not put up with crime. We must demonstrate that community sentences can fulfil that function, as well as reduce the risk of reoffending.

A priority for the Government is to find a mechanism to overcome the fact that we treat prison in the system as a “free good.” If the sentencer—judge or magistrate—has an offender before them, they may consider whether some form of rehabilitative treatment such as intensive supervision or a course of drug treatment, residential or otherwise, would be the right thing. Inquiries must then be made into whether that is available. If the sentencer says “prison”, the van pulls up outside the door and takes the person away. The prison system and the National Offender Management Service recognise that it is their obligation to take whoever the court sends. However, there is an imbalance between the automatic availability of prison, and the uncertain availability of an alternative, which might be much better in a given case.

We thought that the most promising way to deal with that issue was probably the devolution to local agencies and communities of resources that are spent on corrections. The first step would be to look at how money is currently spent on offenders across the system in Government Departments and statutory agencies. We felt that a business case could be made to move resources from a significant part of the prison building programme, if the numbers entering or re-entering the system could be reduced by a sufficient margin before contracts were signed for new prisons.

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy looked at the cost of imprisonment to the state, and developed an alternative model of investment that primarily involved investing in rehabilitation programmes that would break even over five years and yield considerable savings thereafter. It is therefore possible to reap significant rewards by adopting justice reinvestment approaches over a 10-year period.

Fundamental change in the pattern of public expenditure is entirely appropriate during times of economic difficulty. When is it more necessary to look at how we are spending money than when we realise that we have not got as much as we would like? That requires the Government to recognise that change must be facilitated by some movement of money and spending in other areas. When changes cut across departmental boundaries and involve transfers between central and local government budgets, it is rarely an easy process. We are looking not only for justice disinvestment but for justice reinvestment.

In order to release resources in the medium term by halting the prison building programme, investment is required in the shorter term. We must identify where resources are currently being wasted or duplicated, and where quick wins could be achieved by reducing the prison population if that money were reinvested. The amount required for reinvestment is relatively small when compared with the resources that would have been committed to building and running 96,000 prison places.

The Committee’s proposals are in line with what the previous Government sought to do—and significantly achieved—in diverting women away from crime. That explicitly linked the reduction of expenditure on women’s prison places with the funding of new initiatives to improve community provision. For two years, £7.8 million per year was committed to provide additional services in the community for women offenders who were not a danger to the public. That was an attempt to reduce the female prison population by 400 by 2012, as recommended by Baroness Corston in her 2007 report. Those initiatives have already borne fruit in reducing the number of women in prison. The investment required was a tiny sum in the context of spending on prisons.

The previous Government had some similar success in reducing custody for young offenders. We may no longer need a free-standing Youth Justice Board, and it is going, but we should recognise that it helped to achieve a sharp reduction in custody as a way of dealing with young offenders.

In both cases, the significant element was that there was a commissioning process, which created the opportunity to change the mix of custody and alternatives to custody that were available to sentencers. We argue that similar approaches should be adopted to deal more effectively with other groups of offenders, including low-level but persistent offenders, who frequently have problems with drugs, alcohol or mental health, or some combination of those things. The severely mentally ill could be dealt with more appropriately in the health care system.

Local services such as housing, drug agencies and mental health trusts, which could help to prevent people from reoffending when they are no longer in contact with the criminal justice system, are often under-resourced. Targeted investment in the areas where offenders and victims are known to live could ensure that services were more readily available, without having explicitly to prioritise access to offenders, whom the public would regard as a not particularly deserving target in themselves.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth brought to the Select Committee his knowledge of what was happening in Cardiff and the work done by an accident and emergency consultant there. I hope that he will find an opportunity to refer to that in the course of this afternoon’s proceedings.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is just possible.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am giving the right hon. Gentleman a prompt, but I am sure that he does not need it.

Short-sentenced prisoners frequently end up in custody after repeated community sentences. There is a need to examine why community sentences are breached and why some offenders continue to offend. We concluded that that was partly because the sentences are under-resourced. There are waiting lists for offender behaviour programmes and assessments for mental health and treatment. Probation officers typically have extremely large case loads, and often we are talking about people with completely disorganised lives who just do not get up in the morning. What they need is not a very short prison sentence but someone to bang on the door and get them out doing the community programme that they are supposed to be carrying out. They need someone to exercise some authority.

In the course of the inquiry on probation, we have spoken to ex-offenders, and what they said was very illuminating. They made it clear that they needed probation officers to challenge them, not simply to offer friendship and a cup of coffee, however desirable it is to establish a relationship. They needed probation officers to challenge them because, as they openly admitted, their behaviour needed challenging. Their unwillingness to do some of the things that they needed to do to turn their lives around needed someone with authority to challenge it.