Unison Provides the Evidence!

A long read certainly, but no apologies for re-publishing the latest powerful and detailed evidence submitted by Unison to the Justice Committee Inquiry into the TR omnishambles:- 

Supplementary written evidence from Unison (TRH0102) 

Thank you for your letter of 5 February regarding the above. In answer to the further questions in your letter, I can respond as follows: 

1. Probation Workforce Strategy 

It is very difficult to see how a probation workforce strategy could be developed under the current circumstances, which could possibly cover both the CRC and NPS workforces.

The TR process was predicated on a complete split in the probation workforce between the public and private sectors. Many stakeholders, including UNISON, warned the government about the risks of putting the two workforces into their own silos, but Ministers decided to ignore our pleas. 

TR has erected insurmountable barriers to communication and information sharing between CRC and NPS colleagues and created, as we pointed out in our formal evidence to your Inquiry, a ‘them and us’ divide which has become a major obstacle to joined up thinking and working in probation. TR has also created a divide on pay, terms and conditions which could only be bridged by bringing both parts of the service back together again. 

UNISON therefore believes very strongly that a coherent probation workforce strategy could only work in the context of a re-unified probation service, which is UNISON’s aim and objective. The current structure would prevent any such strategy working in the interim.

Here are some of the employment relations problems which a probation workforce strategy would have to address: 

1.1 Three and a half years on from the split in the probation service and the creation of the NPS, we still have no formal negotiating body for NPS staff. Despite the best endeavours of UNISON, the NPS has shown little interest in moving quickly to replace the Probation Service National Negotiating Council (NNC) which was the negotiating body for probation staff pre-TR. There is agreement that we need a new negotiating body for NPS, but to date we have not been able to reach agreement on its constitution or terms of reference. This means that the NPS has tried to get the unions to make collective agreements on important pay and conditions matters without there being a formal negotiating body to do this. This is clearly not an acceptable way to conduct industrial relations, but is symptomatic of the informal way in which the NPS likes to do business. Some of the CRCs are in the same position, and have yet to agree their own owner level negotiating bodies to replace the NNC. 

1.2 The NPS unilaterally withdrew the facility for trade union members to pay their union subscriptions by deduction from salary. This was in line with the Cabinet Office policy to withdraw all check off facilities from unions in the civil service. The withdrawal of the check off facility resulted in a predictable fall in trade union membership and is symptomatic of a generally hostile environment within probation to the work of the trade unions. Pre-TR there was a well developed social partnership approach to industrial relations between the probation unions and the probation employers. Since the creation of the NPS we have witnessed the collapse of any social partnership approach to industrial relations in favour of a more confrontational approach which appears to have its roots in the way HMPPS does business with the prison unions. 

1.3 As well as creating a professional divide, where previously none existed, TR has set up the CRCs and NPS as rivals for scarce professional skills in a very small labour market. The two sides of the service now compete for these scarce staff in a way which threatens to destabilise the once cohesive labour market. 

1.4 Whereas the NPS offers the final salary Local Government Pension Scheme to its staff, the CRCs offer only inferior defined contribution pension schemes to their staff. Job applicants will naturally ask themselves why they should work for a CRC with an inferior pension scheme, when they could work for the NPS with a much better pension offer. UNISON campaigned to persuade the MOJ to fund the private contractors so that they could offer a decent pension scheme, but the government refused. Putting this right when the service is re-united will be a priority, and one which a future government will have to fund. 

1.5 The MOJ also refused to allow the CRCs to remain part of the Redundancy Payments (Modification) Order which means that local government, police or education staff are unable to carry over their continuous service into the CRCs if they are successful in applying for a job with a CRC. This is another powerful disincentive for experienced public sector staff to join a CRC. 

1.6 The NPS pay and reward structure has been badly mismanaged by NOMS/HMPPS. The following are examples of pay mismanagement: 

1.6.1 NPS has introduced a range of market supplements to attract new starters which has caused HMPPS to overspend its staffing budget. When the market forces supplements were first introduced in 2016, the NPS ensured that existing staff in the locations where the supplements were to be paid were given the same supplements to ensure that they were not leapfrogged in salary by new starters. This practice was discontinued in 2017, because the NPS overspent its pay budget, amongst other things on the market forces supplements, so existing staff are now being leapfrogged in salary by new starters. This has been very bad for morale as you can imagine. 

1.6.2 The NPS used TR as an opportunity to drive down the pay of key groups of operational staff, including: approved premises residential workers, victim liaison officers, business managers and enforcement officers. The probation unions appealed these down-gradings, but we were unsuccessful. The downgradings have created bad feeling and staffing shortages, particularly in approved premises. The NPS is now struggling to recruit approved premises residential workers in London and the South East on the new lower salary rate which it forced through in 2016. 

1.6.3 The NPS has recently confirmed that NPS staff will get no pay rise for 2017 and will receive only the contractual increment to which they are entitled. The value of the contractual increment on the NPS pay bill is well below the government’s 1% public sector pay policy, because 25% of NPS staff are at the top of their pay band and get no increment. Staff at the top of their pay band, who are some of the most experienced staff in the NPS, have therefore received absolutely nothing on their pay for 2017. By contrast, HMPPS paid the 2017 Prison Service Pay Review Body recommendation to prison staff in full, namely an average pay increase of 1.7%. It is hard for NPS staff to not suspect that some of the money, which was put aside for their pay rise, has been given to prison staff instead. Our members also believe, with some justification, that the CRC bail out in July 2017, the cost of which had to be met from existing MOJ budgets, was another pressure on internal costs which led to NPS not offering them any pay rise in 2017. NPS staff are literally paying the cost of the failure of TR. 

1.6.4 The NPS failed to deduct correct pension contributions for key elements of NPS pay for 8 months during 2017. This has led the NPS being reported to the Pension Regulator, as required by law, by the Greater Manchester Pension Fund. The blame for the pension deduction failure, we were told by NPS, lay with the MOJ’s privatised payroll provider SSCL and one of its sub-contractors. The NPS is now deducting the pension contributions, which SSCL failed to collect, from staff without their agreement. 

1.6.5 The NPS has failed to pass on the value of three years pay increments for staff who are entitled to unsocial hours payments, overtime payments and standby payments. The NPS has known about this for 12 months, but has been unable to calculate the back pay. 

1.6.6 The NPS has perpetuated acting up arrangements for staff which have effectively denied these staff, including groups of NPS managers, any incremental pay progression, in some cases for up to 4 years. 

1.6.7 The NPS Shared Services Payroll Provider, SSCL, has in key respects provided poor quality transactional services to NPS staff and this has led to considerable frustration and a drain on productive time for NPS staff and managers. UNISON suspects that this is in part caused by the likely failure of the MOJ to include the a requirement to understand probation pay and pensions in its contract specification with SSCL, and the fact that probation pay and conditions are so different from the prison service, or core civil service. Time spend sorting out interminable payroll problems is time spent away from NPS core business. I have attached comments from UNISON members about the service which they have received from SSCL at Appendix A of this letter. They make for very sorry reading, and UNISON hopes that they provide the Committee with some flavour of just how distressing and distracting the experiences described have been for NPS staff. 

There is no light at the end of this tunnel yet, despite the fact that the NPS acknowledged the problems as follows in December 2017: ‘It has come to our attention that there are some issues with HR processes within the NPS that are causing significant delays and difficulties to our staff. As a result, we are going to review the HR processes concerning starters, movers and leavers. Through collaborating with SSCL and NPS colleagues, we hope to establish which transactions cause the most problems, where faults are taking place and finally what solutions we can design in order to reduce the number of issues arising.’ 

1.7 The pay and grading system operated by both NPS and the CRCs was created in 2006 and is in need of review and refresh. All parties accept that the pay system has suffered as a consequence of the government’s public sector pay policy, which over the last 8 years has damaged the pay progression arrangements within the 2006 model. Whereas previously, staff progressed at a reasonable rate up to the top of their pay band, since 2010 this progression has slowed to a snail’s pace, as the MOJ restricted progression to the bare contractual minimum of one pay increment a year. The unions were expecting pay reform at NPS no later than the coming financial year, but talks on this essential work are now on hold pending a resolution of the stand-off between the MOJ and the Treasury over the Department’s budget going forward. 

1.8 The NPS has acknowledged that the CRCs have an interest in the outcome of the NPS pay reforms and that they will naturally want to reflect on the outcomes, otherwise they could easily find themselves unable to compete with the NPS on new starter salaries. The NPS has agreed that the CRCs can shadow the NPS pay reform talks, although they make the point repeatedly that they cannot influence the outcome of pay reform in the CRCs, as they are independent of government. Despite this stated position, any reasonably informed observer of the government’s apparent willingness to bail out the CRCs financially, would assume that the cash for any CRC pay reform is as likely to come from the public purse, as opposed to the cash strapped CRCs. 

1.9 The Prison Service Pay Review Body has recommended that the NPS pay system and the Prison pay systems are merged. This would be a complete disaster and would confirm our members’ worse fears that the MOJ wishes to subsume the probation service in the prison service and destroy its unique values and independence. In the 2017 Prison Service Pay Review Body report, it was stated: “The creation of the new organisation [HMPPS] has integrated a large, relatively new group of staff, those in the National Probation Service (NPS). This would seem a good time to develop a new, longer-term workforce strategy for the Prison and Probation Service and then review the various remuneration structures to ensure they are best placed to support that strategy. We therefore recommend that HMPPS, in its evidence to us for our 2019 report, presents plans for revised pay arrangements that properly integrate the various different pay structures, allowances and supplements currently in operation across the country. We would expect to be consulted and to contribute to such a review.” 

1.10 Working Links and Interserve, who between them own 8 of the 21 CRCs, have, like NPS, not made any pay offer to their probation staff for 2017, apart from paying staff their contractual increment. In light of the above on-going problems, UNISON believes strongly that only a reunified probation service could provide the basis for a coherent probation workforce strategy going forward. Such a strategy would need to include the following elements: 

• A return to sector level ‘national’ bargaining in a re-unified probation service, as was previously provided by the Probation Service National Negotiating Council pre-TR. 
• The reintroduction of the facility for all probation staff to pay their union subscriptions by deduction from salary 
• A properly funded, modernised and equality proofed pay and grading system 
• An end to government pay austerity for probation staff 
• Local Government Pension Scheme membership for all probation employees 
• Re-admission of the probation service to the Redundancy Payments (Modification) Order 
• Locally provided and accountable transactional HR services, i.e. an end to the privatised service provided by SSCL. 

2. NPS Undertaking Unpaid Work Orders for CRCs 

UNISON is aware that the NPS has set up specialist unit in London Division, apparently to help the CRC concerned to deal with the big backlogs in unpaid work orders for which the CRC is responsible. We also believe that the NPS is providing a separate funding stream, over and above what was provided in the original contract, to other CRCs to assist them in discharging their unpaid work orders, whilst not actually setting up specialist units in these other Divisions. The Committee may wish to pursue this question separately with the NPS, and also may like to ask the CRCs what changes they have made to their unpaid work teams which may have impacted negatively on their ability to discharge their contractual duties. Some CRCs have cut their unpaid work teams in order to achieve savings. 

The NPS specialist unit in London, recruited from and staffed exclusively by NPS staff, apparently review each unpaid work order which has gone over its 12 month expiry date, contact the CRCs’ offenders and then apply to the relevant courts for an extension to the order so that the unpaid work order can be enforced. On the face of it, this looks like the NPS managing a large amount of the work connected to the CRCs’ unpaid work order caseload. It is not clear what impact this assistance has on the payments which the CRC receives for discharging unpaid work orders? 

In response to an inquiry from UNISON, NPS confirmed the following on 28 February 2018: 

‘The purpose of this project is to help address a backlog of orders in London that are more than 12 months old and which have hours outstanding. These cases are returned to court, which can result in an extension being given or another sentenced being substituted. The NPS’s role is to assist with the preparation of paperwork for court, to ensure it is in good order. The special project applies only to London cases. It has not been necessary for the Authority to step in or to amend the contract. As you know, the financial arrangements between the Authority and the CRC parent companies are commercially confidential. The work undertaken as part of the special project will not impact on the workloads of NPS Enforcement Officers.’ 

It seems likely from this response that NPS is undertaking work which was originally meant to be the responsibility of the CRC concerned. The NPS response hides behind the usual commercial confidentiality clause in order to frustrate proper accountability over the spending of public money, but the response raises a really serious question over whether the contract is still compliant with EU procurement rules. 

UNISON believes that it is possible that the MOJ has amended the original contract with the London CRC owner in relation to unpaid work, to a degree which could leave the MOJ open to legal challenge. The Committee may wish to explore this further with the MOJ procurement team. 

I hope that these answers are of assistance to the Committee in its TR Inquiry. Please let me know if there are any other matters on which UNISON can provide assistance. We stand ready, as offered to the Committee at the hearing on 30 January, to conduct a survey of our members in relation to any questions which the Committee might want to pose directly to the workforce in relation to your Inquiry. 

APPENDIX A 

COMMENTS FROM UNISON NPS MEMBERS ON SSCL PERFORMANCE 

“My first experience was I asked for a copy of a pay slip that was not on SOP as I needed it for a mortgage application. I was on the phone for over an hour twice and they never sent me it. In fact they sent me a notification saying it was complete when it wasn't! I lost the mortgage and had to apply for another, meaning my credit rating was checked again. The second issue is regarding my pay and too complicated to explain in detail on here. I have been paid incorrectly since April and am now in debt by no fault of my own. The person on the phone was not helpful and kept saying I was wrong when I explained the situation. In the end I had to get my manager to speak to the person. It has been so stressful and I have had to tell my pregnant wife that I don't know what I will be getting paid (Every month my pay is different!). I intend to put a complaint about SSCL.”

“Are happy to try to help but once it is outside their own skills base are only too quick to pass it to someone else to try and deal with - namely myself. Like to also get behind the bit of "a manager is looking at this" but is unwilling to pass on to the person who might be looking at it. Service does not instil a lot of confidence.” 

“Feel like you are just speaking to a call centre rep who has no idea or understanding of individual.” “I was advised that my problem would be escalated to a senior colleague and that someone would get back to me. That was on 8 June. It is now 5 July.”

“They don't seem to have details of past documentation prior to the Probation split in 2014 - this is of great concern.” 

“To date I have not encountered any problems with SSCL?”

“Since its inception, start dates for staff in my office have been incorrect and yet despite repeated requests, this has not been amended. There is no direct point of responsibility. The call centre merely refer staff back to SOP. Emails are unanswered. It is failing staff and there is no support forthcoming.” 

“As soon as you tell them you are probation service they tell you to raise a service request. Totally ignorant unhelpful staff.” 

“Unclear who to contact. SSCL have poor knowledge of Probation policies.”

“Not very good in terms of annual leave calculations - I'm part time and every year it is left to me to calculate my leave allowance - surely this should be done by shared services and we should have an electronic form to record leave not a paper form.”

“We need someone else. They appear to be a filter through which you cannot get satisfaction. Not had an issue - yet!” 

“Information seems to be vague.”

“It took time for them to respond to my email.”

“Had to chase up a response as matter was urgent and resulted in a huge deficit in salary being paid on pay day.” “I had a query about my pay. It took a long time for SSCL to respond and then I was told the yearly backlog increment was £20 which had been paid in December in my salary. However the amount that is normally paid is a lot more than £20. According to SSCL that is what they have on their records and the case has been closed off. I have no contact number to call to speak to the person who handled the query and might not be able to get hold of them, if I called. I once spent an hour and a half being passed from one department to another in SSCL on another query.” 

“My tax code was incorrect due to the split (CRC/NPS) In the end I called HMRC to get it sorted myself.”

“Spend too long on hold and they often have to pass you onto someone else.” “A colleague has had problems which have taken weeks to resolve, for some reason they took a larger pension contribution, leaving her down in her wages and she is a single parent, Fortunately I haven't had issues myself.”

“Any contact with staff at SSCL has been frustrating. Contact with a number of different members of staff, most were unhelpful/couldn't give me a definitive date when the problem would be resolved (& always blamed another department for things not getting done).” 

“I'm not sure they could have ever sorted the TR pay declaration issue out. I had to get Inland Revenue Inspections Team to do it for me. SSCL appears to be more aimed at fudging issues until they get forgotten.” 

“I have seen colleagues go without the right amount of pay for months and ringing up, having to wait a long time on the phone to have a conversation with someone and still not having the issue resolved in the following months.”

“Very slow in getting a response from them if you have query and need to contact them via email or phone. Can take days?”

“I have not had to contact SSCL about pay/pension/ but I understand other people have had problems. My situation has not varied in any way and I do not claim expenses so very limited contact.”

“It doesn't work. Staff on the phones generally don't seem to know what they are talking about. On hold/busy time waiting is unacceptable.”

“The staff are friendly when you speak to them, but I think they are up against it as the rest of us are. I liken the experience to getting blood out of a stone - tiny bits of information were extracted each contact, so it took a long time and lot of effort to get the full picture. Very, very frustrating.” 

“No response to concerns for weeks. Little advice given and when advice given, an inconsistent approach.”

“We need named contacts in named areas to resolve common queries. Too many cooks syndrome!” “Some departments do not have phone numbers so you can’t contact them direct, this is not helpful when they do not respond to emails.” 

“On hold for very long time then given wrong info. Expensive rates - a single call cost over £20 when I called from home due to being off sick.” 

“They can never get it right and always blaming others a very poor service.”

“They do not respond to emails at all!!” “It took over a year to resolve my pay issues. The final person (Tier 2) who I dealt with was extremely helpful and got it sorted, but this took numerous phone calls, emails, and an entire spreadsheet showing that I was owed money from the NPS, rather than owing NPS money. I then received a letter a few months later again stating I owed money, which was incorrect.”

“I had to constantly chase them and when a manager eventually contacted me - they passed the buck. As a result I was late replying to the Inland Revenue. I said I wanted to make a formal complaint - I'm still waiting for a response. Really, really poor service.” 

“It is very difficult to get calls answered, which means that a lot of time is spent attempting contact. Emails are also not answered promptly and when they are they are of little to no help. I have difficulty understanding the new payslips and have also had errors in my pay which meant I did not receive my correct salary for more than one month. I have not received adequate assistance from SSCL to date. I am very dissatisfied with the service.” 

“Each time my temporary role is extended I have problems with my pay reverting back to the substantive pay band which then takes several months to sort out. My manager submitted forms pre SOP to extend my role which was due to end on 01/04/2017 and was told post SOP that she had completed the wrong form. She was told to complete a different form, and when this had been submitted told it was the wrong form she needed to complete another. To date my manager has completed 4 separate forms because of misinformation from SSCL and I am still waiting to receive the correct pay and back pay from April 2017.”

“I received an email saying the matter had been resolved many months after I had raised the issue........it had not been resolved but I had completely lost track of where the issue was and how much of a shortfall I'd received in my wage.” 

“It’s slow & difficult to navigate through.” 

“It is very difficult to get hold of anyone and even then you don’t get a straight answer. Processes are complicated, bureaucratic and time consuming. Poor communication.” 

“SSCL are in persistent breach of contract and statutory duty by not taking pension contributions on unsocial hours payments to literally hundreds of staff - they show no sign of urgency in trying to resolve the problem - additionally staff are not being paid for extra work undertaken in the correct manner and many staff not at all - they are a disgrace and their contract should be cancelled.” 

“Three months of no pay, formal complaints made by myself and my director, no responses from SSCL whatsoever.” 

“The service is appalling. They do not seem to care about problems and are very quick to make you think that you have caused the problem. I wonder how they would react in the same situation?” 

“We do not know which 'Instruction' regarding mileage expenses we should be using, resulting in claims being rejected. When asked for copies of whichever guidance is being applied, we have not received the guidance. Also, the way that sick pay is worked out and paid has also, apparently, changed. This has also not been communicated and so staff are in the dark about what levels of sick pay they should expect to be paid.”

March 2018

Learning From Scotland

This from the Holyrood website:-

Management of Offenders Bill proposes more electronic monitoring and less disclosure of past convictions

The Management of Offenders (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced to Scottish Parliament last month, has three objectives: more electronic monitoring of offenders (and more strategic uses of it), reduced disclosure times for past criminal convictions and more modern fit-for-purpose parole board processes.

The bill paves the way for GPS tagging and tracking to be introduced in Scotland, allowing authorities to monitor a person’s whereabouts and set ‘exclusion zones’ restricting them away from certain places for set times. An exclusion zone might be set around a victim’s home and workplace, for example, or tailored around a place linked with an individual’s risk of reoffending.

Research by myself and my fellow Stirling University criminologist Gill McIvor shows there is moderate consensus among Scottish criminal justice practitioners supporting the introduction of GPS location monitoring, alongside the existing tagging and home curfew-based option. The bill also allows for the introduction of alcohol and drug monitoring technology, such as tags which can detect alcohol consumption through sweat on a person’s skin. A person will have to give their consent to being tagged and monitored. 

Electronic monitoring (EM) numbers are expected to rise in Scotland under these proposals as they introduce the option of EM as a requirement within more types of orders and licences. The bill also seeks to let Scottish prisons use EM as a condition of temporary release from prison. Notably, the bill will enable the judiciary to impose a restricted movement requirement within a community payback order (CPO). This is significant because CPOs are one of the most common community sentences in Scotland, with 19,000 CPOs imposed last year, opening up potential use of EM to more people than it’s currently used with.

In 2017, just over three thousand electronically monitored community sentences, called restriction of liberty orders, were imposed, with an average length of three to four months. These new proposals may lead to criminal justice social workers doing more suitability assessments to inform authorities decisions about whether to use it with an individual or not, as well as supervising more people who are tagged.

International research evidence demonstrates that integration of EM with supervision and support is positive, where used proportionately and to promote rehabilitation. However, people with a tagging requirement on a CPO might potentially be electronically monitored for longer than if given a standalone EM sentence.

It’s fair to say these electronic monitoring proposals have been a while in the making. Recommendations for more strategic uses of EM featured in the Angiolini report on women offenders in 2012, Scottish Government consultations in 2013 and 2017, a Scottish Government-funded GPS tagging technology trial in 2016, and our two major research reports in 2015 and 2016. The Management of Offenders Bill reflects several of the recommendations made by the electronic monitoring expert working group, a diverse experienced group which was anything but a rubber stamp brigade. Cabinet Secretary for Justice Michael Matheson accepted their recommendations in full, and this bill seems to illustrate his commitment to seek more ambitious and strategic uses of EM.

EM is not just a priority for the SNP and Matheson. In recent years, there’s been moderate consensus across Scottish political parties about more and better uses of electronic monitoring. Justice spokespeople for Scottish Labour, the Scottish Lib Dems and the Scottish Greens have called for or broadly supported this, alongside queries about details, costs and timing. The Scottish Conservatives have voiced cautious support for more use of EM, underlining public protection as a rationale for GPS tracking and wanting strict uses of home detention, but they tend to decry its use where the person would otherwise be in prison, as they have done with other measures in community justice.

The bill also proposes changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974) to reduce disclosure time periods for many (but not all) types of past convictions, meaning swifter recognition of rehabilitation. An estimated one in three men and one in 10 women in Scotland has at least one criminal conviction and disclosure can substantially affect prospects of getting a job, education or volunteering.

In leaving crime and the criminal justice system behind, it is fundamentally important for people with past convictions to have real prospects of making a living legally and being recognised as someone other than an ‘offender’ – to have a bank account, get insurance and pay taxes, just like other citizens.

Research clearly shows that employment is one of the most strongly correlated predictors of reduced reoffending. But some of these things are made harder by having past convictions, and the lingering stigma and stereotypes that ‘sticky labels’ and ‘stale records’ can bring. Reducing disclosure times is a principled and pragmatic way to try to reduce barriers to reintegration. The bill will introduce a limited time period for disclosure of convictions given a prison sentence of between 30 and 48 months, meaning that they could become ‘spent convictions’ after a set time. Currently, they always have to be disclosed.

These proposals will continue to allow employers to be told about convictions that are recent and relevant, and rules about higher level system of disclosures needed for specific categories of work, such as working with vulnerable people, are not affected by this bill. In 2016-2017, Disclosure Scotland received the highest number of applications ever – totalling 1.92 million applications in one year. Reduced time periods will likely result in less disclosures.

In Scotland, crime is at a 43 year low, and the number of people convicted is falling, meaning fewer people are entering our criminal justice system. Yet new figures show the average length of custodial sentence handed down by the Scottish judiciary has increased by 26 per cent over the last decade.

This trend of longer prison sentences has serious knock-on effects: it feeds a stubbornly high Scottish prison population, and the length of prison sentence determines how long afterwards individuals have to disclose their convictions and whether they can become spent convictions or not. The bill’s plan to extend the prospect of becoming a spent conviction to people serving prison sentences up to 48 months is pragmatic in light of this trend.

What to keep an eye on if the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Bill passes

If the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Bill is passed by the Scottish Parliament, a few things will warrant being watched closely, including potential issues in practice that policymakers cannot easily influence. Chief among them will be how and where the judiciary and other authorities use or do not use expanded electronic monitoring options.

In 2017, sheriffs in Glasgow imposed electronic monitoring community sentences at a rate 339 per cent higher than Edinburgh sheriffs. Potential issues of postcode lottery justice linger.

Privatisation is likely to continue to be a contentious issue as any marked increase in electronic monitoring may mean more public funds being awarded to private companies subcontracted to provide those services. In countries with exemplary leading uses of electronic monitoring, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, electronic monitoring is not privatised but done by public services.

Something we don’t yet have enough information and evidence about in Scotland is the extent to which more electronic monitoring might be clearly associated with less use of imprisonment, as the Scottish Government hopes, or whether electronic monitoring will increasingly be added to orders and licences, while rates of imprisonment stay high.

Proportionality in sentencing remains paramount and more available information and research on this is needed. It will be interesting to see how the framing of electronic monitoring as an alternative to imprisonment in these proposals relates to the Scottish Government’s plan to increase the presumption against short prison sentences, as well as their plans to keep improving community justice.

The extent to which electronic monitoring will feature in future development of the Scottish Government’s digital justice strategy will also be of note. The Management of Offenders (Scotland) Bill grants Scottish ministers expanded decision-making powers to make changes to electronic monitoring in the future. If and how this is used will be of keen interest.

Proposed changes to past conviction disclosure times cannot easily mitigate the ‘Google effect’ and lingering stigma, where colleagues may still find out about a person’s past convictions.

While recent efforts to boost offender employability by charities like Recruit with Conviction raising employer awareness are commendable, there’s still more that needs to be done – collaboratively and creatively.

In future, alongside disclosure reforms, it may be opportune to engage with employers beleaguered by looming collateral consequences of Brexit, especially if patterns of migration change and employers encounter major difficulties in finding workers. Offender employability and employment may also be better championed in Scotland as a legitimate matter of corporate social responsibility – working with returning citizens to change their lives and life chances.

Dr Hannah Graham is a lecturer in criminology in the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research at the University of Stirling. 

International Women's Day

I notice that the BBC is highlighting Helen Taylor - Thompson and her wartime work for SOE but, as a direct descendant of Dr David Livingstone, her life has been remarkable for other reasons too.

International Women's Day: The 93-year-old spy still keeping war secrets

Helen Taylor Thompson sent coded messages to spies in occupied France during World War II. "One mistake and someone's life could have been in danger," she says. Ms Taylor Thompson signed the Official Secrets Act aged 19 and was part of what was known as then Prime Minister Winston Churchill's "secret army". She went on to set up Europe's first Aids hospice and is still working today with her education charity.

--oo00oo--

This from the splendid Spitalfields Life blog:- 

“The Mildmay was a little general hospital, much loved, with just a few wards and an A&E department. In the seventies, the District Health Authority had tried closing it but they were frightened to do so because it had such a good reputation. Other small hospitals were closing locally and many people felt the Mildmay had had its day, yet I believed it was still valuable because it was a Mission hospital and it worked with the most vulnerable people. I was chairman of the Hospital Advisory Council which I had formed to support the Mildmay and, when I saw that it was next in line to close, I got the community behind me to fight and we marched to Trafalgar Sq, and I clambered up among the lions and pleaded for the Mildmay not to close. It was fun but it didn’t do any good. They said, ‘It’s got to close,’ and it did. So then, a whole lot of people said, ‘We must go out in Glory,’ but I didn’t. I said, ‘We will fight for it and get it back.’

I had only one or two people who agreed with me, but a solicitor said, ‘Legally they can’t close it without giving the Mission the option of taking it back.’ So I went to the MP Peter Shore and said, ‘I want you to work with me to get it back.’ Then I wrote a letter to Kenneth Clarke to ask if I could have it back, and I knew it would have to be on a lease and seven years was too short and I didn’t think they’d give me twenty-one years, so I requested ‘a long lease.’ And two months later, I got a letter back offering it to me on a peppercorn lease for ninety-nine years – with strings attached.

As a Christian, I put this down to prayer. I was at the top of the stairs and I thought, ‘I can’t do this on my own,’ and the phone rang at the foot of the stairs. The caller said, ‘You don’t know who I am but I am the father of one of the nurses and I wondered if you’d like some help.’ He was working for the GLC and he could use the photocopier after hours. I employed an accountant to do a feasibility study and the plan was that we were going to work with young people who had suffered chronic injuries in accidents and people with Multiple Sclerosis, because they weren’t being taken care of.

But the District Health Authority didn’t want us to reopen the hospital, they wanted to sell it and get the money. We were examined and they told me we were incapable of doing it. If we hadn’t made a go of it after a year, they were going to take it away from me. I still had to find the money, so I sold the Mildmay Convalescent Home for half a million and I discovered there was a thing called ‘free money’ - the money which the hospital had in 1948 when it was taken over by the NHS. It had been put into a trust to be used for the hospital. I had no idea how much there was but I said, ‘You’ve got to give me that money.’ – it was £365,000! So we just had enough for eighteen months. The hospital had been closed for three years and vandals had got in, so I said to the NHS, ‘You’ve got put it right for us.’ I realised that we needed to get in six months before the contract was signed, so that we could sign the contract and admit the first patient on the same day. Elizabeth Willcocks, the previous matron who was in retirement, agreed to come back for two years and we reopened.

Thirteen months later, we were asked if we would take some AIDS patients. At that time, they were treated like lepers. So I went to the Matron and the Medical Director, and they both said, ‘The Mildmay has always looked after the people that nobody else wants to look after.’ We had the top floor which had formerly been the children’s ward and we didn’t know what to do with it, so I took the proposal to the board and I said, ‘I want a unanimous answer,’ and they said, ‘Let’s get on with it!’

Then we had big trouble – bricks thrown through the windows and a lot of Christians saying we shouldn’t be doing it and homosexual groups saying, ‘Boycott them, they’re Bible Bashers!’ We decided, ‘We’ll take no notice, we’ll open up and we’ll show love and great care.’ In October 1988, we opened the first hospice in Europe dedicated to treating people with AIDS. We had so many, we turned the whole hospital of thirty-six beds over to them. We had found our purpose, and the government were good and supported us with money.

The press used to be on the roof of the building opposite with telephoto lenses because we had some quite well-known people as patients. You’d think it was a sad place because people were dying, but it was happy because the patients were so well looked after and the doctors made sure they suffered no pain. Princess Diana came regularly and there was a patient called Martin who was dying and had lost touch with his family for eleven years. I said to him, ‘Would you like to give her the bouquet?’ The BBC were there and he gave Diana the bouquet, and they filmed her as she kissed him. Within twenty minutes, his mother rang and wanted to come to see him, and the whole family were reunited and shortly afterwards he died.

The Chairman of the District Health Authority, who had interrogated me, came to see me privately and he said, ‘I wish I hadn’t voted against you reopening the Mildmay.’ I said, ‘I’m very glad you did because it put more pressure on me to make the hospital independent, without that maybe I’d never have been able to get it back?’”

--oo00oo--

She helped set up the Community Action Network and Thare Machi Education:-

Helen Taylor - Thompson Biography Co-Founder & Life President

Helen was elected to the board of the Mildmay Mission Hospital in 1952 and afterwards sat on a number of Government NHS committee. She later fought the closure of the Mildmay hospital and became its chair when it reopened as the first hospice in Europe for people living with AIDS in 1988.

In 1995 Helen, alongside with CAN co-founders Adele Blakebrough and Lord Andrew Mawson, organised the Great Banquet - which saw 33,000 people in London sit down with people from every background to a meal. This event saw the beginnings of CAN, the launch of a network of social entrepreneurs who shared a commitment to tackle social problems through business.

In 2000 Thare Machi Education (originally Starfish Initiative) began and today Helen is chair of the organisation. Thare Machi Education (TME) uses interactive DVDs in local languages to educate children and young people against the disease. TME works with local partners in Uganda, Kenya, South Africa, Malawi, India and Cambodia, and soon will be in DR Congo, Zambia and China. In 1990, Helen was awarded the MBE and in 2005 the OBE. 

Thare Machi Education was begun by Helen Taylor Thompson after she grew alarmed at the increasing numbers of women who became HIV positive when poverty drove them into prostitution. Helen’s work with AIDS patients in Uganda and Kenya in the 1990s showed her the scale of the problem, and she realised that what was needed was a simple cost effective technology to deliver preventative education.

As a result, Thare Machi Education was registered as a charity and limited company in 2000. The name means “starfish” in the Marathi language of India, inspired by the story of a boy rescuing stranded starfish on a beach. We may not be able to make a difference to every person but we can each make a small difference to someone.

In 2002 we began work with our first local partners in India showing our lessons about HIV and AIDS. We now have 32 different lesson scripts, each of which is available in up to 60 languages. Our lessons have been seen by millions of people in countries throughout Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and South America. In 2008 we developed a lesson to help educate people about the threat from human trafficking in response to the growing numbers of people being forced into modern day slavery, and in 2014 our lesson “Avoiding Ebola” was introduced. We offer all our lessons free of charge for use wherever they are needed.

As Good as an Unacceptable Average

So, despite rumours of a considerable effort having allegedly been put into 'polishing' the cases expected to be reviewed - "seeing beyond the CRC’s extraordinary preparations for our inspection" - this is what Dame Glenys reports about MTCNovo, the London CRC contractor:- 

Foreword

This is our second inspection of probation services delivered by the London Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC). The first (in 2016) covered North London only. 

In this pan-London inspection we found that, with the exception of effective unpaid work arrangements, the CRC does now have the basics in place, albeit later than originally envisaged in its contract. The CRC had acted on our 2016 recommendations. It had used them as a catalyst for change, and adopted a more conventional operating model. Londoners under probation supervision are now being seen, and seen sufficiently regularly in the main. 

The organisation still relies too much for comfort on agency staff, and it is in the middle of a large-scale performance improvement project, with one in three professional staff affected at the outset. While maintaining this year’s focus on assessment and planning in each case, the CRC now needs to improve materially the extent to which it delivers its plans for each individual under probation supervision. 

The CRC is now turning its attention to two other key tenets of good probation services: local strategic partnerships, and the range of specialist services (interventions) required to make a real difference to people’s lives and prospects. Critical relationships with local strategic partners suffered under the CRC’s previous operating model, but CRC leaders are taking the opportunity now to re-energise these essential networks. We were pleased to see the CRC’s working relationship with the National Probation Service beginning to improve, from a low base. 

The consistent provision of specialist services is particularly difficult in our capital city, where the funding and other priorities of 32 individual boroughs and the Mayor’s office can differ. Even so, too many Londoners under the CRC’s supervision are not given the specialist services they need to make a difference to their lives and outlook. Things are set to improve: the CRC has well-developed plans to increase the range and quality of its rehabilitative services this year, and we hope to see not just plans but good provision, next time we inspect. 

Individual caseloads have reduced when compared with those we saw in North London a year ago. We gauge that staff morale is better overall. And seeing beyond the CRC’s extraordinary preparations for our inspection, we are in no doubt that the quality of work has improved from a very low base, and is still improving. Public protection and rehabilitative work are still not good enough, but rehabilitative work is at least comparable in quality to the average in other CRCs we have inspected. That is not acceptable – as that average is itself unacceptable, in our view – but it is a notable improvement and achievement for this CRC and its staff. There is much more for this CRC to do, but it has made significant progress over the last year. 

Dame Glenys Stacey

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Protecting the public 

The quality of public protection work was variable and not of an acceptable standard overall. The CRC has made clear progress since 2016. The quality of work is improving but it is still not satisfactory. Senior managers acknowledge that they are still implementing effective risk management arrangements. Most assessments focused on the right things, but many of the issues identified were not reflected in plans. We noted improvements in responding to changing circumstances in relation to risk of harm, but plans were not always reviewed to reflect these changes or the individual’s progress. In too many cases, there was an inadequate response to public protection concerns, and too few included interventions focused on protecting those at risk of harm. Some staff were not confident in addressing aspects of public protection and not all were doing this work to a good enough standard. Despite management oversight taking place, staff did not produce quality work in too many cases. We noted the positive contribution to public protection work of contracted providers and partners, however. 

Reducing reoffending 

The quality of work is not acceptable. We found significant improvements in several aspects of practice but, overall, services did not sufficiently support rehabilitation. Our inspection findings showed that the quality of work was close to the national average for those CRCs that we have inspected. Although that level of performance is not in itself acceptable, this is impressive progress in a short period of time. The improvements were in elements of core probation practice: producing assessments and plans, and seeing individuals under probation supervision. Most assessments of individuals were of sufficient quality, but they did not always feed into plans of work. Individuals were not involved sufficiently in planning or reviewing the work being done. A greater proportion of people were receiving specialist services (interventions) than in 2016, but this still fell short of being satisfactory.

Learning From France

According to this Reuters article, France is taking action to reduce their prison population:-

Macron's plan for packed French jails: more cells, fewer inmates

France will build thousands of new jail cells and use electronic tagging more widely under reforms being pursued by President Emmanuel Macron to remedy some of the worst prison overcrowding in Europe and protests by wardens over violence.

France's prison population of 69,000 is the fifth-largest in Europe, after Russia, Turkey, Poland and Britain, World Prison Brief data compiled by a London university shows. (bit.ly/2HbnkVC) But French jails are more overcrowded than those in Britain, with an average 115 inmates per 100 places. In some Paris area jails there are reports of inmates sleeping on floors with three or more prisoners squeezed into a cell. To address that, Macron pledged to promote outside-of-prison alternatives for lesser offenders.

“Prison sentences are not there to respond to society’s emotions,” Macron said, warning that prison sometimes created “monsters”. “A convicted individual is meant to return to society.” Prison sentences of less than a month will be banned, the 40-year-old president, elected in May last year, said. Those between one and six months will be mostly served at home with electronic tagging, thus shrinking jail capacity needs. Drug use will be punished with fines rather than prison time, he added.

However, it was only technically possible to add 7,000 news cells over the time of his mandate to tackle overcrowding, he said, less than the 15,000 he promised during his campaign. The changes, presented by Macron during a visit to southeast France on Tuesday, follow a rash of attacks by inmates that triggered protests by guards, who said violence was spinning out of control. The protests eased when the government offered 30 million euros for better training and pay, as well as moves to isolate Islamist militants from other prisoners. With his latest announcement, Macron is promising to go further..

Government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux said about one in three prisoners are behind bars for less than a year — some of whom could benefit from alternatives to incarceration. “For many of these people, going to prison is the best way to ensure they become repeat offenders,” he told RMC radio. Griveaux described the current system as incomprehensible, not least because first-time offenders who receive sentences of less than two years very rarely actually go to prison — a custom Macron says he will end. “Nobody understands how things work anymore,” Griveaux said.

Britain and the United States, the country with the world’s largest prisoner population, have increasingly resorted to the privatisation of prisons and correctional facilities to lower costs and improve efficiency. Macron did not venture an opinion on the subject.

Probation is Dead

"Probation as a capitalised Noun no longer exists. The Tory assassins have completed their covert task.

Gawke is only the latest in a string of temps who have never mentioned 'Probation' once, let alone 'probation'. Even the other newcomer Rory Stewart - a half-decent constituency MP & an educated man who understands the importance of language in history - refuses to accept 'Probation' as a part of his job title. He knows its part of the Tory narrative to totally erase the left-leaning legacy. He is bright, and he is ambitious; so he plays ball.

The NPS is so very close to being completely absorbed into HMPPS; which will be re-branded - perhaps 'Her Majesty's Prison & Rehabilitation Service' - as Spurr's final spiteful legacy before he sails through the revolving door into a luxurious life of a gilt-edged pension, a knighthood, honorary membership of the LTA & numerous lucrative ACOBA-approved directorships.

The work that a probation service provider does is already being reinvented, diluted & ersatz academics undertaking the KSS^CRC experimental research will unveil groundbreaking revelations in the coming months."

Of Drones, Drugs and Prison

Here's David Gauke completely missing the point and ignoring the Probation Service:- 

"Just heard new Justice Sec’s first prison speech. If you misdiagnose the problem your intervention will either be pointless or compound things. He’s obsessing on drones, drugs, gangs - they are a symptom of the problems." Frances Crook on twitter

"I look forward to the reaction of the high security estate when burglars and other petty criminals serving short sentences start landing at their gates because they have been judged too troublesome by the Governor of some Cat C."

Well thank you Rachel [O’Brien] for that introduction and for the work you and the RSA do on prison reform and the important contribution you make to public policy in this area. It is a huge privilege to have been appointed Justice Secretary and I am grateful for the opportunity to set out my thoughts, after two months in post, on our prison system.

Purpose of prison

Depriving someone of their liberty for a period of time is one of the most significant powers available to the State and must be imposed with respect for the rule of law and with purpose. Prison is the sharp end of our justice system. By imposing this serious sanction, we must be clear about what prison is for. I believe its purpose is threefold:

First, protection of the public – prison protects the public from the most dangerous and violent individuals. Second, punishment – prison deprives offenders of their liberty and certain freedoms enjoyed by the rest of society and acts as a deterrent. It is not the only sanction available, but it is an important one. And third, rehabilitation – prison provides offenders with the opportunity to reflect on, and take responsibility for, their crimes and prepare them for a law-abiding life when they are released. It is only by prioritising rehabilitation that we can reduce reoffending and, in turn, the numbers of future victims of crime.

Getting the basics right – secure, safe and decent

And yet it’s clear that prisons don’t always achieve what they are there to do. The reasons for this are varied and complex, but I am determined to ensure prisons can fulfil those three purposes I have set out. As the Minister for Prisons, Rory Stewart, has made clear, for prisons to be effective, we must get the basics right.

Getting the basics right means creating prisons that are secure: with the physical integrity of the prison a priority to prevent prisoners from getting out – and drugs, mobile phones and other contraband from getting in. It means creating prisons that are safe: with orderly, purposeful and structured regimes, free from violence, intimidation and self-harm.

And it means creating prisons that are decent: with clean wings and humane living conditions. It is clear that some of our prisons have, frankly, fallen below the standards that we expect. I want the prison service to have a relentless focus on these fundamentals in the months ahead. That’s why I am giving renewed focus to our programme of prison maintenance to drive the much-needed improvements to our estate. I will also carry on with my predecessor, David Lidington’s, important work to ensure inspection reports are acted upon.

Prison staffing

I am also continuing to push hard on improving not just the number of prison officers, but also how we deploy them. Liz Truss, as Secretary of State, committed to raising the number of prison officers by 2,500 by the end of this year. I’m pleased to say that we’re on track to deliver those officers, and ended last year with the highest number of officers in post since 2013. The reason increased staffing levels are important is that they are allowing us to introduce a new ‘key worker’ model – with prison officers spending much more time, one-to-one, with small groups of prisoners.

As we introduce this new model, we should start to make a difference in the levels of violence we are seeing, which are currently far too high. 28,000 incidents were recorded in our prisons last year alone. That figure includes 20,246 attacks by prisoners against fellow inmates and 7,828 assaults against prison officers by prisoners.

The violence against prison officers is particularly shocking. No prison officer should go to work in fear for their safety simply for doing their job. I want to take this opportunity to thank the thousands of prison staff across the country who do incredibly important work each and every day. By its nature, the work is often hidden from view but it protects the public and keeps our prisons secure and prisoners safe. And I want to thank the families of prison staff. As the son of a police officer, I know the worries they carry, and the pride they take, in knowing their loved one is performing such an important public service.

The drug problem and how it’s been exploited

Increasing the numbers of prison officers and deploying them in a more effective way will help create more positive relationships between offenders and prison officers. But if we are to bear down on the levels of violence we are seeing, we need to deal with the biggest cause of the violence, which is drugs.

Now, the problem of drugs entering and circulating in our prison system has always been a challenge. But the nature of the challenge has changed over the past few years, with the emergence of cheap and highly addictive new psychoactive substances, like Spice, in our prisons something exploited by criminal gangs who have capitalised on the control they can exert and the money they can bring in. After all, what better place to target than a captive market made up of some of society’s most susceptible and vulnerable groups when it comes to drug use and addiction.

The economics mean that Spice can sell in prison for many times its street value – bringing in a healthy return for the criminals. At the same time, it is relatively cheap to buy in prison compared to other drugs – so is financially attractive for prisoners. In exploiting the emergence of new psychoactive substances, prisons have proved a perfect marketplace for the criminal gangs. And for our prisons, it has created a perfect storm.

And while there have always been low-level networks dealing in cigarettes or illegal contraband, the criminal networks and supply chains have recently got larger and more complex and new technologies have empowered gangs to be more sophisticated and brazen about the way drugs are smuggled in.

Many of you will be aware of the kind of things I’m talking about. Spice, and other drugs, ordered with a ‘Deliveroo-style’ responsiveness on tiny mobile phones from prison cells and delivered by drones direct to cell windows, the paint used in supposed children’s drawings sent to their parents in prison laced with liquid psychoactive drugs, or the pages of fake legal letters purporting to be from a prisoner’s solicitor soaked in drugs, gangs engineering situations where a prisoner, who has been released from prison, deliberately breaches their license conditions so they are sent back to smuggle in more drugs, gangs enforcing control by using threats and violence towards prisoners, extorting their families and attempting to corrupt prison staff.

From the conventional to the cunning, by design or device, through fear or intimidation, these criminal gangs will stop at nothing to maintain their access to such a lucrative market. We need to make prison less congenial for the modern-day Harry Grouts.

It is clear that the reason drugs are so prevalent in our prisons is in large part because gangs are fuelling demand, boosting the supply and catching prisoners in a cycle of debt and further criminality from which they struggle to break free. As I’ve been visiting prisons, the conversations I’ve had so far with prison governors have brought home to me the scale and nature of the criminal gang activity and the impact of drugs in our prisons.

Governors tell me that it’s not just when the drugs come in that there is an issue, but a couple of weeks later, when they see a spike in violence, a spike caused by prisoners carrying out attacks on fellow inmates and on staff as a payment in kind to pay back debts they have accrued by taking the drugs. And it is not just about attacks on other inmates or staff. We are seeing a rise in the incidents of self-harm.

Last year there were 42,837 incidents of self-harm in our prisons, involving 11,428 individuals. These statistics, together with the figures for assaults I highlighted earlier, are sobering. But they only give us half the story. Behind all the numbers, is a catalogue of physical and mental injury, of intimidation and of abuse.

I have been shocked and sickened watching some of the videos filmed by prisoners using illicit mobile phones that are posted on social media. They show the terrifying and debilitating impact Spice can have and the drug-fuelled violence and humiliation it unleashes. One of these videos shows inmates laughing and joking as the Spice takes over the mind and body of a fellow prisoner. The effect is immediate and shocking. Within a few seconds they are having a fit on the floor.

Another video shows two naked prisoners believing they are dogs, with makeshift muzzles and leads around their neck, barking at and fighting each other, goaded on by other prisoners. Another shows a prisoner climbing into a tumble dryer in the prison laundry room. Other prisoners then turn the machine on and he is spun around inside – a dangerous act of humiliation to ‘earn’ himself some more Spice. And I’m afraid, these videos are merely a short snapshot of a grim reality. Many of the attacks against prison officers have been linked to Spice.

Last year for example, a prisoner viciously attacked an officer with a table leg at HMP Northumberland after the officer intervened to break up a fight. The attack left him with bruising and tissue damage. The prisoner had no memory of the attack and subsequently described the officer as being a nice man who was thoroughly decent towards him whilst he was in prison. Cases like this show starkly how drugs like Spice are leading to violence and undermining efforts to create safe environments and respectful relationships in prisons.

And it’s clearly not just physical damage that drugs like Spice cause. There is an enormous toll on the mental health of prisoners, often exacerbating existing mental health conditions and long-term issues with alcohol and drug abuse. Prison staff have a key role to identify and support prisoners with mental health needs. That’s why we are investing more in mental health awareness training for staff.

We have also increased our grant to the Samaritans to fund the continued delivery of a peer support scheme called ‘Listeners’ which supports prisoner mental health. We must ensure offenders have access to the treatment they need to come off drugs and support their recovery – whether that’s in prison or in the community. That’s why we have been working with the Department of Health and Social Care and others to improve access to mental health and substance abuse services for offenders, including agreeing a clear set of standards across all the various agencies involved.

Tackling the drugs problem in our prisons and the gangs beyond prison

Every prisoner who attends one of these drug agencies will have their own story about what happened to them and it will very often involve, in some way, criminal gangs. This government has undertaken many important reforms and cracking down on drugs and criminality has always been and remains a priority. But the sophistication and reach of these criminal gangs into our prisons is a relatively recent development.

It is therefore right that we continue to adjust our approach to tackling it. So, today, I am doubling down on our commitment to target organised criminal gangs and cut off their ability to do business in our prisons. That’s why I can announce today that we are investing £14 million to tackle the threat of serious and organised crime against our prisons. This includes creating new intelligence and serious and organised crime teams.

Working with the National Crime Agency, they will enhance our intelligence and information-gathering capability across the country to help us identify and stop the gangs’ ability to operate in our prisons. This improved intelligence picture is already delivering major successes, including at least 30 successful convictions for drone activity following joint intelligence-led operations.

And in December, following an investigation by prison intelligence officers and police, 11 gang members were handed sentences totalling over 32 years for using drones to smuggle drugs, weapons and mobile phones into prison. To build on that success, I can also announce today that we are installing technology at 30 prisons that will allow officers to quickly download data from illicit phones seized from prisoners.

This means officers can access information on a phone on the same day it is seized rather than having to send it away to be processed – something that can currently take months. If a phone has details about an expected drone drop later that day, officers will be able to know where, how and when and can act on that intelligence and intercept it. In doing so, we will be able to collect vital intelligence about the criminals’ contacts and associates, who they are buying from and selling to and the bank accounts they are using.

This will help us to stop drugs getting in and give the police the intel they need to target the source of the drugs. But technology can’t be the only solution to tackling gangs….

Understanding and managing security risks

The fact is, there are around 6,500 prisoners who have links to organised crime. At the moment, these offenders are spread across the estate and are helping to perpetuate the cycle of crime by drawing fellow prisoners into the clutches of the gangs. So, I want to rethink how we categorise prisoners – that means looking again at who goes to higher security-level prisons.

Rather than just considering their length of sentence and risk of escape in determining which prison an offender goes to – or moves to – I want to look, as well, at their behaviour in prison and their risk of directing crime and violence whilst in prison. This would ensure those ringleaders, who ostensibly behave but have others do their bidding, would be cut off from their network and prevent them from operating.

Incentives of hope over despair – the route to rehabilitation

Removing the ringleaders also means that prisons can then focus on maintaining an orderly environment and, crucially, get on with helping prisoners rehabilitate so that they don’t re-offend when they leave prison. We have to make it absolutely clear to prisoners that the path of further criminality only leads to more punishment and less freedom, that there is another, better way.

We also need to recognise that there is a better way for the whole of society. Re-offending and the cycle of crime costs society £15 billion a year. It creates more victims. And, it leads to the perpetuation of unfulfilled potential on the part of offenders. If the third and final purpose of prison is for rehabilitation, then we need to look again at what works.

I believe rehabilitation starts with conformity with the prison rules and a rejection of further criminality, a commitment to change and an embrace of opportunities that help offenders to leave prison as law-abiding, and tax-paying citizens. I want to make those the desirable and attainable choices that prisoners make. I believe harnessing the power of incentives in our prisons is an important way to do that. My experience and the large amount of research out there shows that ‘incentives work’.

As Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, I saw how a mixture of positive incentives, support and sanctions can influence behaviour and help people change their lives for the better. For example, the incentive of making work always pay more than benefits is a fundamental principle of our welfare system and has helped bring about record levels of employment in this country. I believe we can not only make prisons safer and more secure, but also help to break the cycle of reoffending, supporting and incentivising people to make the right choices that will prepare them to lead crime-free lives when they leave prison.

An offenders’ experience in prison is too often one of detention and boredom, which leads to drug abuse and despondency, which in turn, leads to debt and despair. I am clear that offenders go to prison as punishment, not for punishment. So, I want prisons to be places of humanity, hope and aspiration. I want prisoners to know that there is a route to a better life, that there is a life to be had free from the clutches of gangs and free from the intimidation and abuse and that the route to that better life is through purposeful activity, through education, through skills and through employment.

The way I see it is that prisoners have a contract with the state. By serving your sentence and conforming to the rules, you are repaying your debt to society. If you do that, you will find the State and the prison system backing you up, supporting you, and you will be able to earn greater rights and privileges. This is beneficial for prisoners but even more so for wider society.

So, I want to reset and reinvigorate the system of incentives in our prisons so they work much more in the favour of those prisoners who play by the rules and who want to turn their lives around, whilst coming down harder on those who show no intention of doing so.

However, prisoners should be under no illusions that a failure to abide by the rules will be met with strong sanctions. I am supportive of the steps that have been taken to improve the punishment of unacceptable and illegal behaviour in prisons. Just the other month, we introduced a new protocol between the Ministry of Justice and CPS to ensure that, where there is sufficient evidence, we bring to justice prisoners who commit violent attacks against prison officers and other prisoners.

But for those offenders who see their time in prison as a genuine opportunity to reflect and take responsibility for their crime and to be rehabilitated, to build the skills and behaviour they need to re-join society, I want to create the incentives that will support and encourage them in that effort. That means prisoners having the opportunity to earn rights and freedoms, an opportunity to live in a more liberal environment with greater personal responsibility, and therefore have more to lose if they fall foul of the rules.

After all, incentives are given, and they can be taken away. I know that prison governors feel strongly that the current approach to using incentives in our prisons is not working. I hear that. I also know that governors want more flexibility for what and how incentives are used in their own prisons. I agree. I believe governors should govern. They are the best judge for what will work best in their prison. So this is not about me imposing a top-down system or a list of incentives. But I do want to give a couple of examples where I think we can more effectively use incentives.

Prisons are required to provide a minimum amount of contact between an offender and their family whilst in prison. I think we could reinforce good behaviour by offering a prisoner extra and additional time to see family members, for example by using technology like Skype, to allow contact they would otherwise be unable to have.

Another example is giving an offender a better prospect of securing a job after release by providing access to certain training and experience. For example, I want to look at the availability and use of “release on temporary license”. Specifically, I want to see how we can use ROTL to allow those prisoners, who have earned it, to have a routine where they, with close monitoring, leave prison each day to go to work nearby.

Work is the best route out of crime

I have seen how getting and keeping a job can change people’s lives. The prison and probation service have an important role to help offenders build the skills and experience they need whilst they’re in prison so they can have the right attitude for work and get a job when they’re released. To do that, prisons and probation need to act more as brokers between prisoners and the local community, employers and education and skills providers.

We will shortly be launching our Education and Employment Strategy that will set out our approach to helping offenders get the skills they need to find a job and avoid the activities that landed them in prison in the first place.

Cross-government work

Having a job after release is a crucial factor that determines likelihood of reoffending, but it is only one of several. For someone coming out of prison, having a place to live and access to mental and physical health treatments are also critical. In this sense, re-offending is not solely a justice problem for my department, but it is a wider issue about social justice and ensuring that offenders, many of whom have complex backgrounds, are not dismissed as part of society.

We need a cross-government approach to reoffending. That’s why I can announce today that I will be convening a cross-government group of senior Ministers, with the full backing of the Prime Minister, to work across all relevant departments to reduce re-offending and the £15 billion cost of reoffending to society as a whole.

This approach means that we can target prisoners and ex-offenders with the support they need to find a job, a home, to get help with debt, or to get treatment for a drug addiction or, as I mentioned earlier, a mental health issue. I met with my Cabinet colleagues yesterday to discuss this and I am encouraged that there is a consensus on the mission and energy to make real progress.

Conclusion

Now I’m clear about what purpose our prisons serve – protection, punishment, and rehabilitation. But for prisons to do this well we must get the basics of a safe, secure and decent environment right. Only an immediate and relentless focus on maintenance, infrastructure and staffing will allow us to make further progress, and we are acting on that.

The basics matter because organised criminal gangs have cynically and systematically exploited the rise of a drugs problem in new psychoactive substances that first reared its head on our streets and has found fertile ground in our prisons.

We are taking action to bolster our defences at the prison gate whilst also going after the organised criminal gangs. I want them to know that as a result of the action we are taking, they have no place to hide.

Through our covert and intelligence-led operations, we will track them down, removing their influence from our prisons so they can become places of hope not despair, of aspiration not assaults because my approach is a practical one, based on what works and what’s right, supporting prisoners to make the right choices and take the right path towards rehabilitation and re-joining society.

I know that incentives work, and I want to put them to work in our prisons. By doing that, our prisons will not only be safer, more secure and more decent, but will support prisoners to do the right thing and turn their back on crime for good.

David Gauke MP