Proceeding contribution from Baroness Thomas of Winchester (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 1 February 2007. It occurred during Debate on Crime: Reoffending.
Crime: Reoffending
My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Linklaterfor the way in which she introduced this important debate this afternoon. I am not going to talk about alternatives to custody so much as alternative custody and about a prison that all those in the criminal justice field will know but few others will. I refer to Grendon Underwood, near Aylesbury, which is run as a therapeutic community. Grendon fits into this debate because there is clear evidence showing that its regime contributes to a lower rate of reoffending, although that is not an easy calculation as prisoners as a whole go back into the prison system after spending varying lengths of time there. It was founded 47 years ago, when the prison population as a whole was 30,000. It is a category B prison and has 230 male prisoners serving medium or long sentences for serious offences. They are all volunteers from other prisons, and about half could be classified as psychopaths, some having a dangerous and severe personality disorder. Before being admitted, they have to be assessed for at least two months to see if they are suitable for the therapeutic regime. Many have above-average intelligence, but all must be prepared to talk about their behaviour and why they committed their particular crime. The wing communities are run along democratic lines with elected prisoners, supervised by staff, leading group therapy sessions and challenging one another about their past. There is no one-to-one therapy. The inmates' toughest critics are each other. It has been said that they are able to challenge and ferret out evasions and dissembling with a tenacity and vigour that far surpasses what the therapists can muster. In particular, they are not impressed with an inmate simply saying that they are sorry for what they did. They have to demonstrate real penitence and an awareness of exactly what they have done—to their victims, victims' families, and their own families—to satisfy their peer group. As Anne Owers, says in her latest, very favourable, report: "““Often for the first time, prisoners will be made to confront the true hideousness of their crimes—over half Grendon's prisoners are murderers””." Psychodrama has a place, with inmates playing all the necessary parts. When a particular inmate's crime is the subject of the drama, he has not only to re-enact the crime, but to become the victim. No wonder the phrase was used again and again that Grendon is not a soft option. ““It's the hardest thing I've ever had to do””, is a familiar comment. My noble friend Lady Linklater and I visited Grendon two months ago, and were impressed by the culture of respect between prison staff and inmates—first names are always used—and the calm and purposeful atmosphere pervading the particular wing we were taken to. One inmate said to us, ““Opening yourself up is like falling off a cliff but at Grendon you are caught and held””. It is now well established that reconviction is related to length of stay at Grendon. By calculating reconviction rates adjusted for initial risk and mode of leaving, it has been estimated that a stay of at the very least 18 months and preferably two years at Grendon might produce a reduction in reconviction rates of about one-quarter. Of Grendon men serving life sentences, 8 per cent were reconvicted in four years, which is one-third of the rate that wouldbe expected on the basis of their criminological characteristics, and is statistically significant. The more one hears about Grendon the more one wonders why there are not more dedicated therapeutic prisons in this country. In view of the fact that it is now well understood that society must address urgently, the whole question of reoffending by those suffering from severe personality disorders, it seems incredible that there has been a serious erosion of funds to a place as valuable in this endeavour as Grendon. There is now a serious shortage of suitably qualified staff, and cuts have had to be made in the provision of therapeutic services to inmates. Why is it that Grendon, despite providing an excellent service under such rigorous financial constraints, is not able to access any NHS funding to help with staff costs, despite the cost savings to the Treasury of a cut in the rate of reoffending? The funding allowance for Grendon prisoners is about £38,000 per annum. In Rampton and Broadmoor, the allowance exceeds £190,000. I end by quoting two sentences from the IMB report: "““The Board fears that continued general underfunding at this level plus ever-tightening financial constraints of the type experienced this year will inevitably lead to a major dilution in the quality of therapy at Grendon. The Board recommends that the Minister should review the level of funding that HMP Grendon receives””." I say, ““Amen”” to that.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 689 c403-4
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal proceedings Costs Alternatives to prison Families Drugs Offenders Prisoners Prisons Probation Overcrowding National Offender Management Service Rehabilitation Sentencing Voluntary organisations Young offenders Reoffenders Community orders
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:55:42 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_375150
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_375150
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_375150