Lord Tom McNally Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ

6 June 2013

Dear Lord McNally

Lord McNally, I am delighted to see this government, unlike so many before it, doing something positive for women with the review of womens prisons and diversion centres being undertaken by justice minister Helen Grant. I was however deeply disappointed that there was no mention of women at all in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill. I noticed the amendment proposed by Lord Wolf was withdrawn last night because the government wants to allow as much room for flexibility and innovation in the design of contracts and services provided by the private contractors to whom these rehabilitation contracts will be let. Having read the bill there is granular detail in the way young offenders, drug users and veterans will be dealt with under the new proposed legislation and clearly the government is not afraid to be prescriptive when it comes to others who will be affected by this important piece of legislation. I hope you might reconsider and in good time for next reading at Committee Stage, and come back with a response that adequately addresses the issues raised herein. One only has to look at how G4S, Serco and others take advantage of the lack of prescriptive detail in other contracts, most notably the Work Program, now widely deemed to be a failure and the COMPASS Housing Contract. The Public Accounts Committee has stated the Ministry of Justice are not good commissioners of services. Currently, the two largest providers of services to the Ministry of Justice, G4S and Serco are being investigated for "overpayments" to the tune of over 100 million in the tagging contracts. It is disheartening that this government thinks these same contractors will design services specific to women. They will not. They do not at present. They do not have the capacity or the experience to offer such a service. Women will be dumped in the same mainstream services as men and will be set up to fail, as usual because many women who offend are survivors of domestic violence and in community sentences they don't feel safe with men on the same courses. Many will feel threatened and not show up to complete the sentence of the court. They will be breached and they will end up in prison, sadly, for offenses which would not have attracted a custodial sentence in the first place. This will cause an additional strain on already strained NOMS prison budgets and goes against the stated policy by Helen Grant that she wishes to see less women imprisoned and community services deployed which actually work for women. Research evidences that women respond better to same sex community services and have a better outcome if these services are gendered, they are less likely to re offend.

Given the importance of a specific intervention tailored to women and the value placed by this government on ending violence against women and identifying the importance of developing a specific strategy for tackling high re offending rates in female offenders, there is a unique opportunity to address this issue for the first time, on the face of the bill. I respectfully ask you to review our report to the Justice Committee last year which states the burden of legal of legal responsibility for equality lies with the government. It does not lie with contracted agencies and the government must pass legislation concerning equality that can be reflected in contracts, but underpinned by statutory requirements. I respectfully submit therefore that you consider coming forward with a government amendment that ensures that women's needs are met.

Four Feather Mews | 89 Fieldgate Street | London | E1 1DH Tel 020 7 377 5791 | e: info@kazuri.org.uk

This might include: 1) Specific pathways to deal with mental issues and trauma 2) Domestic violence training 3) housing and homelessness 4) children 4) employment education and training, restorative justice in a trauma informed, gendered manner so that at last, gender mainstreaming can be incorporated into this government's agenda and subsequent legislation. There is a legal requirement for the government to consider this in its own action plan on ending violence against women and embedded in international law. An extract from the report to the Justice Committee states: There is a cluster of factors which, when taken alone or collectively, support our argument: Section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides a broad range of factors under the heading Purpose of sentencing. One of these factors is the reform and rehabilitation of offenders (s142(1)(c)). There are four other factors (including protection of the public and punishment as well as reduction of crime and reparation). There is no hierarchy of importance. Weight to be given to each factor must be a matter for the sentencing court. This provides the flexibility required to exercise case by case discretion. The rehabilitative aspect of sentencing is actively hampered by short prison sentences. Women are much more likely than men to receive short prison sentences. Section 142 of the 2003 Act is therefore regularly and indirectly breached by sentencing courts The concept of positive discrimination is not new either in practice or in law. Our submission falls squarely within this concept. As the evidence suggests, purportedly equal treatment of men and women in terms of sentencing does produce unequal outcomes and this is not compatible with Article 14 when taken together with Article 5 and/or Article 8 of the Convention 17, both incorporated within Schedule 1 to the HRA 1998. I know you care about women and the whole issue of female re offending. This is a once in a generation opportunity to shape future policy and act on your principles and firmly held beliefs, not allow punishment / rehabilitation profiteers access to shatter the lives of these vulnerable women with insensitivity by forcing them into rehabilitation programs which will only worsen underlying issues and increase re offending. Please could you respond to this email as a matter of urgency, if the government does not agree to come up with its own amendment, we need to think about peers who have expressed an interest in human rights and women, who have said they would support such an amendment. Of course it is far preferable if the government maintain the leadership in this, no one wants to be seen to be fighting against something we all care about, namely tackling the root causes of re offending in women, which are very different from those of men who commit crimes. As Baroness Corston put it very eloquently last night at the APPG meeting, "most women in prison are there because of men." Please don't become one of those.

Regards Farah Damji Kazuri Properties CiC

Four Feather Mews | 89 Fieldgate Street | London | E1 1DH Tel 020 7 377 5791 | e: info@kazuri.org.uk