Contribution
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I also express my appreciation for the outstanding speech of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and thank him for introducing this debate.
I propose to address only one point, already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath: the question of recalls to custody. Let us concentrate on that for a moment. In the past four years, recalls to custody of prisoners released under licence have more than doubled. As has already been pointed out, in the last year there were 51,000 recalls to prison; that exceeds the number of persons sentenced by the courts to prison, which was 47,000. For the first time, recalls now are greater than persons going to prison in the first place. A recall rate of 50,000 represents a rate of about one in five of those under supervision. As the charity Nacro points out, in 2017 the rate was about one in 13. Have we seen an increase in risk in the last 10 years? What is going on here? There is no evidence of increase in risk, but now, according to Nacro, for every 10 beds freed up by the release of a prisoner, nine are refilled by recalls to custody. This highly regrettable situation threatens seriously to undermine the Government’s early-release scheme. As has already been pointed out by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, what is the point of early release if it is followed by a recall?
Clearly, the present situation also greatly complicates the management of prisoners within the prison system. As already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, it is costing the prison service around £750 million a year—surely money better spent on supporting prisoners on licence in the community. But the most devastating effect recall can have is on the prisoner concerned, including perhaps the loss of employment, loss of accommodation and, most importantly, destruction of any progress there may have been towards rehabilitation. This total interruption of the process of rehabilitation was rightly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and by all noble Lords who have so far spoken.
Those of us who have been around for a while will remember that 20 or 30 years ago, in admittedly very different circumstances, the culture of the Probation Service was that recall was a last resort. Indeed, it could be regarded as a sign of professional failure to have to recall someone who was under one’s own supervision. Today, for whatever reason, the culture seems to have swung 180 degrees in the other direction: recall has become the first resort, not the last.
I fully accept that the problem is very difficult, but there are only three possibilities. The first is that the prisoner was not properly prepared for release, was not properly looked after once released, or that post-release support was inadequate. An important case in point is if the prisoner is recalled because of homelessness, a point already raised by noble Lords. That seems to be a major factor. According to Nacro, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, last year 15,000 released prisoners were homeless on the day of release. What hope have we got? What hope do they have of remaining out of the prison sphere? So, lack of preparation or lack of support for prisoners in the community is the first thing.
The second possibility is that the licence conditions are too tough, inappropriate or not tailored to the needs of the prisoner concerned. Are we holding prisoners to licence conditions they are not capable of achieving—that are too heavy, that are not properly designed—given the lack of support, the mental health problems and the drug problems? These were emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. In all these circumstances, the Chief Inspector of Probation has criticised “excessive licence conditions”, imposing on people obligations they cannot meet. Both those points amount to setting prisoners up to fail. What chance have they got if they are not properly prepared and the licence conditions are too onerous?
The third possibility, however, is risk aversion in the Probation Service. It is right to bear in mind that the service has, over the years, lost many experienced staff, is understaffed and is managing huge caseloads in very difficult conditions. Some 73% of recalls are for breach of licence conditions. There is widespread concern that those recalls are often triggered by minor or trivial breaches of licence conditions. Recalls should be primarily for reasons of public safety and not for minor breaches of licence conditions. There should be stronger rules and clearer guidance on this point. I ask the Minister: is the dramatic increase in recalls in recent years a matter of concern for the Government? What are the reasons for that increase, and what are the Government doing to tackle those underlying causes?
Finally, I add my own welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson of Liverpool, to whose maiden speech we are much looking forward.