I am honoured to have been invited here this evening. "Invited" may be overstating the position. I forced Frances to invite me. For three reasons.
First, because Frances has done so much in her role. I revere and honour her.
Secondly, because of the work done by the Howard League. The League is an organisation whose historical roots, and consistent success in promoting change and reform are second to none in the criminal justice system. The Howard Association, one of the League's predecessor bodies, was set up for "the promotion of the most efficient means of penal treatment and crime prevention." These are aims I believe we should all be pursuing when it comes to effective sentencing.
The third reason I am pleased to be here is because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the approach I believe the courts, and the wider state should be taking to sentencing.
Members of the Howard League might look at the issues from a different standpoint from mine. Though, I suspect the areas of agreement are very substantial.
Crime is increasingly at the top of the agenda for large sections of the public. When I was Housing Minister I would, in line with all previous Housing Ministers, be taken to the worst housing areas in the country. The people who lived in those worst housing areas would, almost invariably, put at the top of their concerns, not the state of their housing but the fear of crime, and their fear of anti-social behaviour in their area. They rightly look to the State to deal with it. They, in my view rightly say that if the problem is not effectively dealt with there is no prospect of regeneration.
The most deprived areas in our country are most certainly not the only places in which crime occurs. But they are the areas where most crime occurs.
Whilst to-night I am talking about sentencing and penal policy, we must not lose sight of the basic proposition that the underlying causes of much crime is deprivation. We must as strongly address those underlying causes, as the crime itself. The most famous soundbite of the last few years is a statement of real truth.
An effective criminal justice system must be one in which the public have confidence. It must be one which they think understands their concerns, and, in what it does, is meeting those concerns. The public understand that not every crime will be prevented, and not every criminal abducted and punished. But for those who are convicted, the public expect the response of the courts to be connected to their and the law-abiding community's daily lives, and their experience of crime.
This most certainly does not mean prison for every crime. Whilst there will be some people who would like to see that, most people understand that a response which seeks to address the crime, and, genuinely, reduce the chances of it happening again is a response which will benefit the community most.
What does that mean in practice for sentencing policy? I think it is possible to articulate a number of principles.
First, sentencing must be consistent. If we look at sentencing practice across the country, we will find that it is a bit of a lottery. In 2002, 30% of those convicted of theft offences in West Yorkshire were given a custodial sentence but only 19% in Merseyside for the same sorts of crimes. And whilst Cleveland for example has embraced community penalties, sentencing 33% to prison for theft offences, in Merseyside the figure was only 24%.
Consistency in sentencing requires consistency of approach. But to do this, sentencers need information about what sort of sentences are passed in their local area and how these compare with sentences in other areas for cases of similar seriousness. This is where I think the work done by the Youth Justice Board can be very helpful. They now publish statistics showing the ratio of community sentences to custodial sentences by youth offending team area. This provides a basis for local discussion, and crucially Youth Offending Teams are also ready to give feedback on an offender's progress.
We need to mirror this kind of approach across all sentences. The Sentencing Guidelines Council will aim to bring about a more consistent approach to sentencing. They will create and revise a comprehensive set of sentencing guidelines for all offences. My Department is also seeking to produce an analysis of sentencing trends for England and Wales. The booklet will, we hope, be send to all sentencers and Local Criminal Justice Boards. This will allow sentencers and Local Criminal Justice Boards to discuss local sentencing trends and compare them with national trends and those for similar areas.
Information about what is going on is vital. Some sense about what is going on is vital.
The second principle is that sentences must be enforced. It goes without saying that if a sentence isn't enforced, justice isn't done. Enforcement is not an issue in custodial sentences. But it is for fines and community sentences. If we want to increase the use of fines and community sentences as options, public confidence will be weakened if these two very broad categories are not perceived to be effective and if they are not perceived to be enforced.
Historically, there has been an unacceptable level of performance in the collection of fines, undermining them as an effective penalty.
We have been working very hard to reverse this trend. Good progress was made throughout 2003/04 to increase the rate of fines recovery. We hope to improve the rates even further next year with a target of 78% recovery. The signs are looking good; early indications are of 81% for the first quarter of this financial year. The use of fines, in my view is rightly being reinvigorated. Hopefully sentencers will once again look to the fine as an adequate and effective punishment. A punishment that will actually be served.
And, similarly we are working to significantly improve community penalty enforcement, looking to streamline processes by reducing bureaucracy and great inter-agency working, in relation to their enforcement.
Third, sentencers must be better informed about what is available, and how effective it is. We are encouraging sentencers to share information more. This will help with consistency, but it will also help to educate sentencers about the tools they have at their disposal, and how best they can use them. For example, since 2003 we have been looking at new ways to increase the effectiveness of the magistrates' courts involvement in Drug Treatment and Testing Orders.
Under the pilots, the offenders see the same specially trained consistent bench of magistrates at regular intervals, throughout their treatment. Early indications are that the appearance of the same encouraging faces with greater knowledge of drugs issues is helping to motivate offenders to complete their order successfully - and helping to transform lives that have been blighted by drug addiction.
The fourth principle on sentencing - in order to be effective it should not be the province of prison and probation alone; there needs to be proper management of offenders to decrease re-offending, and that means the courts, the police, housing, employment, all of these agencies must be involved.
Offenders often have chronic and inter-related problems - many of which are associated with their offending - and very few skills to help deal with them.
Unaddressed, these problems erect a formidable barrier to prisoners going straight on release. But this need not be an insurmountable barrier.
Agencies need to work together to tackle the many problems that go hand in hand with offending behaviour.
The fifth principle of sentencing must connect with the community. Sentencing is there to protect and give confidence to them that the state understands and is effective in dealing with the problems of crime. This means sentences passed must punish appropriately; it must protect as necessary; it must be able to deal convincingly with persistent offenders; and it must be effective in reducing re-offending.
What do these principles mean in practice for penal policy?
First the use of custody. Prison needs to be used for dangerous and sexual offenders. Nobody disputes the need for public protection in very many of those cases. But it will also need to be used for persistent offenders in appropriate cases. It is the process by which it is used for persistent offenders, and the steps on the way there, where we need to give special thought.
Many persistent offenders have drug problems. We have included options for tackling drug issues in community penalties; and if custody is used for this category of prisoner, we need to make it an effective punishment. Too often you hear about offenders who successfully detox in prison, but turn back to drugs the minute they get outside. We are not going to stop this cycle if there is inadequate support after custody. We are not going to stop this cycle if there isn't effective support before custody.
The process of offender management must be driven by information on what works to reduce re-offending and this needs to be at the heart of the process. This means more support before it leads to custody. That means more support on release. One approach to this is the groundbreaking Tower Project - it will be well known to many of you here. Criminal justice agencies in Blackpool were finding that the town's persistent offenders were excluding themselves from all mainstream services and drug treatment because of their chaotic lifestyle. Offenders were often trapped in cycles of offending, drug-taking, poverty, homelessness and prison.
The Tower Project aims to tackles the cycle by targeting persistent offenders and approaching them - both in prison and the community - and offering them access to drug treatment, support with accommodation, benefits, employment and lifestyle guidance. This co-ordinated approach - involving the police, probation services, CPS and NACRO - has helped to reduce crime. In 2002 (compared with 2001) Western Division of Lancashire Constabulary had 17.7% fewer crimes, 44.8% fewer house burglaries, 33% fewer theft from vehicles, 20% fewer street robberies. These are, I believe, very promising results.
Second, more targeted and rigorous sentencing. The principles of sentencing are at the very heart of all our policies. I've indicated what the principles are. They are embedded in statute. We have created a sound standard, against which our sentencing options can be measured.
These options need to be flexible. To take into account the many factors on a case by case basis. So now, Community Orders can include an array of requirements. A whole range of things on a menu designed to be moulded to individual requirements. Including unpaid work, activity in the community, the prohibition of activities, curfews and exclusion requirements that can involve electronic monitoring, residence requirements, mental health treatment, a drug or an alcohol treatment and attendance centre requirement. Similar requirements can be linked to the new custody plus and intermittent custody orders and suspended sentences.
Third, we need to connect sentencing to the needs of communities.
Communities do understand the causes of crime. They witness the cumulative effects of drugs, alcohol abuse, lack of opportunities, lack of training, inadequate housing, and no form of support. Communities want those that commit crime to be punished. But more than that, they want the crime to stop and they will respond, if the Government is to provide sentences that communities need.
There is significant evidence that restitution and reparation plays a key part in justice being seen to be done. We are therefore looking for more opportunities for victims and representatives of the community to meet either face to face or communicate indirectly with offenders.
Restorative justice is vital in giving victims the opportunity to have their say, to explain how they and their family have been affected by the offence and importantly, gives them a chance to ask the offender why they committed the crime and to receive an explanation. It also helps offenders to understand the impact of their crime has been. Early evidence shows a positive effect on re-offending and high levels of satisfaction among victims and community groups.
This is why local communities and individuals in those communities are key to the future of our justice and sentencing strategy.
And as we look ahead to the criminal justice system of the 21st century, a key priority for the government will be to deepen community engagement in the criminal justice system. There is growing evidence from abroad that more specialist problem-solving courts may also help tackle specific problems in different areas of the country.
You may be aware that we are setting up the first Community Justice Centre in this country. This centre will be specifically designed to tackle anti-social behaviour and quality of life crime. But, it will be more than a court. It will be the hub for the whole of the justice system in North Liverpool. It will house all the criminal justice agencies, focussing on providing the offender with the help that they need to tackle their offending, rather than handing out a punishment that simply doesn't solve the problem.
The kinds of services the community justice centre may provide are drug
counselling, anger management, debt and housing advice and basic education
skills. Looking to tackle the cluster of problems that usually come hand
in hand with offending behaviour.
Recognising the importance of local knowledge; encouraging new approaches
to justice; and involving individuals in the processes in their communities.
Speaking to communities about what we can do to convince them that we are
solving crime and anti-social behaviour. These are just some of the things
we are doing to make real our vision for justice in this country. A vision
of an integrated system, where justice begins in the community, and ends
there wherever possible.
This is the approach that is at the heart of our reforms for criminal justice. We want to catch and to punish criminals so we can live in a safe and secure society. We want to rehabilitate offenders so they commit less crime. And we want to give victims and communities a voice in proceedings, so that they see the system is for them. They, like us, want to stop re-offending. We must give them confidence that we can achieve that.