Women offenders: after the Corston Report - United Kingdom ...
Women offenders: after the Corston Report - United Kingdom ...
Women offenders: after the Corston Report - United Kingdom ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Ev 24 Justice Committee: Evidence15 January 2013 Peter Kilgarriff, Jackie Russell, Sharon Spurling and Joy Doalmore commercial. He quoted that an organisation hadspoken to him and said that it was only being offered acontract with a prime, which would mean <strong>the</strong>y wouldlose money. His response was, “Why would you takeit?”You have <strong>the</strong> voluntary sector here. They take itbecause <strong>the</strong>y are concerned about <strong>the</strong> woman. Theyare working <strong>the</strong>re because <strong>the</strong>y are concerned aboutgetting that woman into employment, not about saying<strong>the</strong>y are providing a service that takes somebody else’soutputs and claims <strong>the</strong> profit. There is a real need tounderstand <strong>the</strong> motivation behind voluntary sectororganisations and why <strong>the</strong>y behave in a way that isnot necessarily commercial, because by behavingcommercially <strong>the</strong>y have to walk away. That is whatPBR is doing.Q129 Steve Brine: All of which is why <strong>the</strong> coalition—your coalition, not our happy family—says that what isbeing planned is a confused jigsaw without any clarityof vision.Peter Kilgarriff: Yes.Q130 Chair: That brings me to something you bothsaid earlier. Is it your belief that <strong>the</strong> Governmentare not going to produce, as <strong>the</strong>y said <strong>the</strong>y would, astrategy for women <strong>offenders</strong>?Q131 Steve Brine: Before you answer that, perhapsI may raise <strong>the</strong> gloom from my depression and let in<strong>the</strong> sunlight. Last week, when <strong>the</strong> statement on <strong>the</strong>rehabilitation revolution was put out, one of <strong>the</strong> MPssaid, “Will <strong>the</strong> Justice Secretary assure me that he willuse <strong>the</strong> consultation period to reflect carefully on howa payment-by-results method will need to be adaptedto meet <strong>the</strong> particular needs of women <strong>offenders</strong>?”,to which he replied, “I can give <strong>the</strong> hon. Lady thatassurance.” He went on to say <strong>the</strong>y recognisedcompletely that <strong>the</strong>re were different challenges foradult males, young people and women in prisons.He mentioned <strong>the</strong> new Minister, <strong>the</strong> Member forMaidstone and The Weald, Helen Grant, a formermember of this Committee and now at <strong>the</strong> MOJ, whohas taken responsibility for women in prisons. Doesthat provide any sunshine?Peter Kilgarriff: We have asked to meet Ms Grant butshe has said, “Not yet.” Obviously, she is new in postand needs to get a handle on her brief. I spoke earlierabout PBR. There have been attempts to look at this.We have attempted to look at what we might do withPBR. Was it feasible to do something with women?Because of <strong>the</strong> small numbers it seems a really difficultthing. There may well be possibilities, though, outside<strong>the</strong> criminal justice system on some of <strong>the</strong> issues likechild care and children going into care. There may wellbe some possibility of PBR on particular issues thataffect women going into <strong>the</strong> criminal justice system,but it is difficult to see it replicated on a greater scale.Q132 Steve Brine: Coming back to <strong>the</strong> Chairman’squestion, you said you did not believe <strong>the</strong>re would bea women offender strategy, which <strong>the</strong> Government hadlong since promised.Peter Kilgarriff: They did promise.Q133 Steve Brine: Do you not believe <strong>the</strong>m? I guessin a way it is a “Does anyone care?” question.Peter Kilgarriff: I do not think we will get a strategy.At <strong>the</strong> very best, we will get a set of guidelines forpractitioners. Even that is difficult now, because for <strong>the</strong>practitioners, <strong>the</strong> probation service, it looks as thoughnearly all <strong>the</strong> women—Joy’s and Sharon’s clients—will be shifted out of <strong>the</strong> responsibility of <strong>the</strong> probationservice, if what is in <strong>the</strong> document comes to pass. It isdifficult to know to whom you will be talking. One of<strong>the</strong> more depressing things we have found in talking topolicymakers, civil servants and Ministers is that <strong>the</strong>reis very little leadership from <strong>the</strong> top at <strong>the</strong> moment.In talking to officials, <strong>the</strong>y see <strong>the</strong>ir role as advising,guiding and helping, and <strong>the</strong>re is no real leadership.Chair: In relation to women.Peter Kilgarriff: In relation to women; that is what Imean, yes.Q134 Chair: Your contention would be thatleadership is really being exercised by taking forward<strong>the</strong> payment-by-results programme and is determinedmainly by <strong>the</strong> predominant part of <strong>the</strong> criminal justicesystem, which is men.Peter Kilgarriff: Yes, absolutely.Jackie Russell: There was an opportunity beforeChristmas when <strong>the</strong> Ministry of Justice put out acontract for infrastructure organisations in VCS todevelop an action plan by March for how <strong>the</strong> VCScould be better engaged in PBR. The reason I say itwas an opportunity is that <strong>Women</strong>’s Breakout didexpress interest and did not succeed in that. There willbe various reasons of course, but it was an opportunity.Our expression of interest was to say, “So far, you havedesigned everything around men and tweaked it forwomen. This is an opportunity to look at PBR througha women-specific sector, which will have <strong>the</strong> sameissues as o<strong>the</strong>r small voluntary sector organisations;so we will have transition and transferability.” I thinkonly two of us bid for that and <strong>Women</strong>’s Breakout didnot secure <strong>the</strong> contract. It was a lost opportunity. Eventhough we might not have had a strong organisationalsize behind us, we were very specific and focused intoone area, which could have been a microcosm of <strong>the</strong>sector as well. So I think that was an opportunity lost.Loraine Gelsthorpe and Carol Hedderman, who areboth academics—I know Loraine submitted writtenevidence to you—produced a paper for <strong>the</strong> ProbationJournal just before Christmas about why PBR didnot work for women. You may wish to refer to that assomething that may help you.In response to your question, “Does anyone ingovernment care?”, it is very difficult for people tounderstand what goes on for those who are not in <strong>the</strong>irexperience. If you look at government, it is people,isn’t it? Government is people. If you look at <strong>the</strong> livesof those people, often <strong>the</strong>y are quite narrow; <strong>the</strong>yare not lives that can in any way connect to women<strong>offenders</strong> and women at risk of offending, with thatchaotic sense of <strong>the</strong>ir lives and that trauma that <strong>the</strong>yhave gone through. Their whole experience is verydifficult to connect to. For instance, if you were sittinghere looking at services for older people, you couldthink, “Well, this might be my parent”, or, “This iswhere I’m going to be.” We all know older people and