High-risk offenders in bail hostels

Almost 1,300 high-risk offenders are living in the community in bail and probation hostels in England and Wales, according to official figures.

And 98 of those being housed in the low-security units were classed by the Home Office as being of "very high risk".

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg accused the Home Office of "jeopardising public safety" by using the properties, officially known as approved premises, to house dangerous offenders.

He said the proportion of hostel places taken by those categorised as "high risk" or "very high risk" had risen from 40% in 2005 to 66% now.

But probation officers' leader Harry Fletcher said that it was safer for such people to be housed in hostels where they can be supervised, rather than be dispersed around the community when they reach the end of their sentence or receive parole.

The figures were obtained by Mr Clegg last month in reply to a parliamentary question he put to Home Secretary John Reid.

In his response, Mr Reid told him: "As at 30 September 2006, the number of residents housed in approved premises in England and Wales and categorised as high risk was 1,191, representing 61%. The number of residents categorised as very high risk was 98, representing 5%."

The statistics did not include special hostels reserved for offenders with substance misuse problems, he said.

Mr Clegg said: "We have been warning the Government for months that low-security bail hostels are not the right place for very high risk offenders. The Government still insists on jeopardising public safety by moving the wrong offenders into these hostels in an ever more desperate panic to deal with their own prison overcrowding crisis."

Mr Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said: "The residents of probation hostels have reached the end of their sentence or have been released on parole and it is much better that they are housed together in hostels so that they can be supervised.

"The alternative would be that they were dispersed in the community, which would make it harder to keep them under supervision. However, additional resources, such as experienced staff, security measures and training, would all be highly desirable and would increase public protection."