25 July 2007
Royal Institute of Architects, London
David Hanson spoke to the Fawcett Society about how we can best treat women in our criminal justice system.
[Check against delivery - this is the prepared text of the speech, and may differ from the delivered version]
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak at the launch of your annual report. I'm grateful for this opportunity to discuss the important issues of how we can best treat women in our criminal justice system.
Corston report
Let me be disappoint you right at the beginning. Today I will not be giving the Government response to the Corston Report. It is a report which we have welcomed and which we have recognised as an important and serious piece of work. It therefore requires a serious and fully considered response. I want our response to be as comprehensive and informed as possible - so we are making sure we consider the views of all involved right across of Government.
I have given an undertaking that we will respond in full in the autumn. It is an undertaking I will honour, and so as you might expect there is a great deal of activity going on right across Whitehall to ensure that we make the most of the opportunity for change that the Corston Report provides.
Government's penal policy
Today I want to speak about the direction of our penal policy. And I hope also to allay some of the Fawcett Commission's concerns. I want to argue that as a society we need to look again at who is in prison, and who should be in prison.
We need to ask hard questions like: How do we make sure prison is operating at its most effective? When should custodial sentences and non-custodial sentences be used? What is the right balance between rehabilitative and punitive sanctions? How should women be treated? Questions which I believe the government cannot answer in isolation, but which society needs to consider collectively.
Recently the Justice Secretary called for a 'national conversation' about the use of prisons in a bid to start to answer some of these questions. We believe there is need for a debate which provides the public with the facts about length of sentence, the effectiveness of sentences and the costs involved for different sentences. Only then can we reach a consensus about how prison and its use best fit into an effective criminal justice system which maintains the confidence of the public.
Prison for those who are a threat
Prison is and remains the only option for those convicted of serious, violent and sexual crimes. The public needs to be protected from those who are a threat to society. Since 1997 we have built over 20,000 new prison places, and 9,500 more will be added by 2012. Crime has fallen by 35% - and we have convicted and imprisoned 40% more violent offenders since we came to power.
Yet our commitment to protecting the public through severe sentences for serious crimes does not mean that prison should be the only punishment available. The fact is prison is not always the best place for certain offences or offenders. It is not always the best way to rehabilitate and reduce re-offending. And it is not always the best or most effective punishment.
Taking a tough and effective stance on crime does not mean sending all offenders to prison. Being tough and effective means ensuring there is effective sentencing using the right sentence for the right case.
Use of custodial and non custodial sentences
The challenge faced is to ensure that the sentences which are most suitable, are the sentences which are used. That challenge can only be really met if there is public understanding in the need for a range of sentences. And that there is confidence that whatever sentence is handed down, it has a punitive element. All sentences whether custodial or non custodial need to be safe, tough and effective.
Prison will always be the right place for violent dangerous offenders, or for those who have committed an offence which is so serious that prison is the only option.
But for non violent or dangerous offenders where the court are thinking of passing a prison sentence, particularly if it is for less than 12 months, they should consider whether a community penalty would better reduce re-offending and be a more appropriate penalty.
The offender in the community subject to intensive surveillance and supervision for 12 months, may well re-offend a lot less than the offender who is sentenced to six months in prison, and who is out without any supervision in not more than three months. And the cost to the taxpayer is dramatically less for the community penalty. The figures speak for themselves.
Offenders who are given tough community penalties are 20% less likely to re-offend than those who are given a short custodial sentence.
There is a judgement to be made about balance within sentencing policy. It is a fine judgement, and needs a considered approach. The impact of such a judgement can have a considerable effect on individuals and also the community. But its impact on particular distinct and vulnerable groups is even more pronounced, and therefore in need of even greater consideration and attention.
As the Ministry of Justice was launched we committed to and remain convinced of the need for 'implementing different approaches for different offender groups to ensure they are treated equally and not just the same'.
Women in prison
And it is this context that I am grateful for the work of the Fawcett Society and the Commission in so ably representing the interests of women. You have been ardent campaigners for equality. And your voice is very welcome. I am proud that as a Government we have delivered something you have long campaigned for a legal duty to promote equality that is now enshrined in the Equality Act 2006.
And rightly you are encouraging us to rethink how the criminal justice system treats them. We are listening.
Sadly too many women are in custody. Between 1995 and 2005 the women's prison population increased at a rate nearly 3 times higher than that of the men's. Not because of an increase in the numbers of women offenders nor as a result of an increase in the severity of offending. But because courts were using custody more frequently and for less serious offences than before. Whilst the proportion is dropping the number is still too high.
Compounding this problem is the fact that over a fifth of those in custody are there on remand - in custody for a period of only 4-6 weeks. And of those only around 40% are then given a custodial sentence. Prison is too frequently being used pre-trial but not post-sentence.
For those who are sentenced to custody, the majority are only in prison for periods of less than 12 months.
But we know that such short prison terms are not as effective as community penalties in reducing re-offending. They are not able to tackle the factors which contribute to offending with the same intensity.
The factors which affect why women offend are as many as they are complex - drug misuse, mental health problems, housing, childcare difficulties, history of abuse to name but a few.
Short prison terms can exacerbate these problems leading in some instances to a spiral of serial offending. And so if we are to reduce re-offending then we need to address these problems.
That will only come by tackling them safely and effectively - and as far as possible in the community rather than in custody. The long term effects of short term imprisonment can be far more significant and detrimental for women than other groups. It can have the effect of feeding rather than stopping the cycle of crime. Imprisonment can cause huge disruption for children who, when the mum is the sole carer, are often put into care. It also can lead to huge problems with rehabilitation for the offender. Shockingly one third of women prisoners lose their homes and their possessions whilst in prison.
Breaking the cycle of re-offending
We must break the cycle of re-offending. But we cannot break it alone. We need to do it partnership with other departments and agencies. The success of the Women's Offending Reduction Programme has only been achieved because of its multi-agency approach. By drawing on the experience and the skills of a range of partners we are making real progress in developing policies and delivering interventions and services which are meeting the needs of women. We know there is no one size fits all nuclear option. Instead success rests on providing a range of bespoke solutions which are effective and which make a real difference.
Take for example the Together Women Programme in the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside. Set up using £9.15 million of funding provided by this Government the project is developing an integrated approach to routing women to the appropriate services. Meeting their needs at various stages of their offending history- from prevention and diversion from custody, to resettlement on release - and building on the good practice already taking place in existing services. The Programme is intended to demonstrate how a multi-agency one-stop-shop approach in the community can better meet the multiple needs of women and avoid the use of custody as far as possible.
Much has been delivered, but there is still much to be done. The Women's Offending Reduction Programme has shown what can be achieved through working together right across the piece. The future direction of the Programme is contingent on the Government's response to the Corston report. We want to use the Corston report as a catalyst for moving the work forward and make the most of the opportunity it has provided to have a long and hard look at the services we are delivering. I do not want to pre-empt what we might do in advance of our formal response.
Can I now turn to something I know that the Fawcett society has very strong views on, the links between being a victim and committing offences.
Links between victimisation and offending
If we are to ensure that women are treated fairly by the system we need to look at the areas where they are particular vulnerable to being victims. It is a sad fact that many women who end up in the Criminal Justice System are themselves victims of crime. Violence against women whether within the family or at large, has terrible long lasting affects which can have a deep impact on the lives of victims and their families.
It affects their mental and general health, their economic well-being and blights their lives. Some reports estimate rates that half of all women prisoners have suffered domestic violence. And a third have been victims of sexual assault. The scale of this problem is something we cannot fail to take seriously, nor attempt to tackle. No women should be subject to such violence. Reducing the number of offences against women could well reduce the number of offences committed by them.
The violence that is perpetrated does not just have one victim. We know witnessing domestic violence can profoundly affect a child's development, educational attainment and health and they are more likely to be subject to suffer abuse in a domestic violence household.
Domestic violence
The Government is committed to addressing violence against women in all its forms and in whatever circumstances. There is a great deal we are doing. This includes the National Cross Government Delivery Plan for Domestic Violence which sets out a strategic framework ranging from early intervention and prevention to rehabilitation of perpetrators and resettlement of victims.
There are now 64 Specialist Domestic Violence Courts, who are ensuring that women receive justice in a way which takes account of their situation. We have also developed victim focussed Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences which are proving to be effective in protecting victims and their children from serious assault and homicide. We will have 100 of these in place by April 2008 with independent domestic violence advocates working in each one as a result of the Governments provision of £3 million from the Victims Fund.
A Cross-Government Action Plan on Sexual Violence and Abuse is also being developed - focusing on prevention, support to victims and improving the criminal justice response to sexual crimes. Nearly £7 million has been provided to improve services for victims over the last three years.
We are taking a number of steps to minimise the effect violent and abusive crime will have on women. Steps we hope will have the longer term impact of reducing the number of women in prison.
Conclusion
We need to look again at who we are sending to prison. The rhetoric that we should just keep building prisons is an over-simplification of a far more complex problem. Building more prisons is not an answer in itself although this Government has increased prison capacity by nearly 20,000 places. And 9500 more will be provided by 2012.
The real answer lies in reducing offending. Stopping those who are likely to become offenders before they do and removing those who are in a cycle of crime from it. Preventions and rehabilitation will bring benefits for the individual and for community. It will improve family welfare and as a society I believe we will start to see real change.
Prison is an important institution in our nation. But it needs to be used for the right people if it is to be effective. We need to get the balance between custodial and non-custodial right if we are to have a penal policy that is tough, safe and effective. A penal policy that protects society, and which reduces re-offending.
Women's needs and their interaction with the justice system need to be taken seriously. We need to ensure that we have a justice system which treats all who come into contact equitably and with decency, but which is effective. I believe that means we need to look at those women who are in custody and ask the hard question; is this the most appropriate and effective environment to punish and to rehabilitate.
Often that answer will be no. In those circumstances we need to make sure that there are a range of interventions and penalties which really do meet their complex needs and which encourage rehabilitation. Ultimately our success will not be seen by less people in prison, but by less offences committed.
To do this we need help. There has to be collaboration. We need organisations like the Fawcett Society to move the debate on, to work with us and to make real, solid and workable proposals. We need to make the most of your expertise.
Today, I know you are going to challenge me during the question time with difficult questions, so let me try and just get in there first and leave you with some challenges of my own.
We all agree something needs to be done to change the way the penal system treats women, but the questions we face are, 'the how' and 'the what'.
How do we break the cycle of offending?
How do we best encourage a national conversation about what the most appropriate use of prison for women should be?
How do we give the public confidence in the use of non-custodial sentences?
What sentence options should we provide?
Hard questions with important answers. What is required is not instant sound bites but long lasting solutions. I look forward to discussing these questions with you now and, in the coming months.
Thank you