Women offenders: after the Corston Report - United Kingdom ...

Justice Committee: Evidence Ev 2729 January 2013 Juliet Lyon CBE, Frances Crook OBE and Clive MartinThere was a commitment last year by Lord McNallyto introduce a strategy on women offenders, which wewelcomed. That is still awaited. I understand that theGovernment want to get it right, but at the same timeit is very disappointing because with each month orday that passes more women go to prison who do notneed to. Compare it briefly to the Scottish report byElish Angiolini, the former Lord Advocate in Scotland,who has led a Commission on Women Offenders inScotland. She reported that the Justice Secretaryresponded immediately. If I could just read the lastrecommendation under “Making it work”, what sherequired and what actually happened was that “TheCabinet Secretary for Justice reports to the ScottishParliament within six months of the publication of thisreport, and annually thereafter, on the steps taken toimplement the recommendations in this report.” Thatis indeed what is happening in Scotland.Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Martin.Clive Martin: I would agree with both my colleaguesbut would add that I think Corston achieved threethings in addition to the focus on women. One wasthe Corston Independent Funders Coalition, which issymbolic of a civic and Government coalition to tacklea wide social problem. That included investment,buy‐in and a will to look jointly at an issue. That wasa huge success of Corston and that has gone verywobbly. In some ways—without wanting to use toostrong a word—it could be seen as almost a breachof trust between Government and civic society, whereyou had an agreement on something and how we couldprogress.The second is about the women’s centres themselvesin terms of what the criminal justice system was tryingto do, which was almost to stop the flow of peopleinto the criminal justice system. The women’s centreswere the best bet we have of doing that so far. That isnow, of course, in jeopardy with the combination of areduction in funding and confusion about the fundingmechanisms by which they will exist.The third thing I would say is that the whole role ofthe voluntary sector which Corston promoted andencouraged was, in our view, absolutely essential.Many women offenders have a bad and negativeexperience of statutory services—that is part of thereason they are not really engaged with them—andthis offered a chance for there to be decent services,decency for women. Those three factors seem to havedissipated over the last 18 months. Our feeling is thatprogress is certainly stalling very badly. The engine isstalling.Q139 Steve Brine: As to the “TransformingRehabilitation” paper—and I am guessing everyonehas read it and keeps it under their pillows at night—what is your view, and we will start with Juliet Lyon,of the implications of the proposals in that paper forany forthcoming strategy on women offenders? Thereis at least one paragraph in the document that relates tofemale offenders, which you could say is a bad thing,but you could also say is a good thing because maybethey are keeping their powder dry. What is your viewon the document?Juliet Lyon: I think the document itself is mixed.What we do welcome is an emphasis on rehabilitation.That is hugely important. In particular in relationto women offenders, I think there are one or twounintended consequences that the Government needto be mindful of before they bring anything intoplace. The proposal, for example, to have supervisionand support for people, even those serving shortsentences, will disproportionately apply to womenbecause, disproportionately, they do serve very shortsentences. I suppose, because all the major reports andwork that has been done that I have referred to earliersignificantly say that the solutions do not all lie withinprison, there are two risks. One is that the courts willfeel encouraged that they can send women to prisonknowing that, even though they are serving a veryshort time and there will be massive disruption andseparation from family, they will then get the supportand supervision they need. That is essentially usingcriminal justice as a gateway to the kind of treatmentand support they have needed in the past. That is a riskthat needs to be mitigated in some way.The other thing is that, in terms of the support andsupervision, it comes with a bit of a price in that therewill be an issue about compliance so that, if womenbreach a particular requirement, then they may befurther taken through the justice system and end upserving more time behind bars. I think it is a mixedblessing, although, in principle, for anyone who needsto go to prison for whatever length of time becausethe courts deem it essential, having support andsupervision afterwards is good. So that is one area thatis potentially a bit problematic.The other area is probation itself and the proposal tofragment the service. At lot of the women’s centresI have seen—and I was at one last week with theMinister, Helen Grant, and her officials, the ISISCentre in Gloucester—the contribution of probation isreally significant. The very good centre in Bristol isrun by probation. There is probation in the Calderdalecentre. Again, the partnership between probation andthe women’s centre is what makes it so strong andeffective. I do not think sufficient thought has beengiven to the particular role that different probationtrusts have been playing in relation to the developmentof the most effective women’s centres. There arespecific things that are going to need attention.Q140 Steve Brine: From what you have said, doI take it that you say “fragment” but others may say“introduce new providers with new ideas that can getdifferent results” because the status quo is clearly notgreat? With probation leading, if two probation trustsdecide to work together, pool resources and introducenew providers into it, why is that “fragment” and not“improve”?Juliet Lyon: It is always important to look to innovateand you should not just accept that things are as they are,but community sentences in general are outperformingshort prison sentences by a factor of 8.3%, so nearly10% better already. It always seems to me that if theGovernment has a success on its hands it should lookto build on that success rather than try and dismantlesomething. So why not try and make sure that all theprobation trusts and services are up to the highestpossible standard of the very best ones? Of course I amnot saying do not introduce providers, but there is the