When Boris
Johnson announced in August that 10,000 new prison places would be built, commentators-
myself included - were quick to point out that similar plans had been made as
far back as 2015. What’s very different is that the new policy is not about relocating
prisons from outdated city centre sites to modern new facilities. It’s about adding
12% or more to prison capacity in England and Wales. The Permanent Secretary at
the Ministry of Justice, Sir Richard Heaton told MPs this week that compared to
the 85,000 places in prisons today, by the mid 2020’s “the total prison
capacity we anticipate ….to be between 95,000 and 105,000.” His boss Lord Chancellor
Robert Buckland confirmed that he was not planning any prison closures.
Back in
August the MoJ estimated the
numbers inside would be lower in 2024 than at present . They estimated a
5% likelihood it will reach or exceed 87,300 in June 2023.So why do we need all
these additional places?
One good reason
might be to reduce overcrowding in existing prisons so that prisoners are held
in a “good decent standard of accommodation” that the Prison Service aspires to
provide. There are currently only 75,000 places in use that provide this kind
of uncrowded accommodation. So almost all of the new building could be used to improve
the basic conditions for a prison population of the current size. But in their
evidence to the Justice Committee, the MoJ made no reference to this worthy aim.
Instead they justified the increase in prison places in terms of first, a surge in prison numbers resulting from the 20,000 more police officers who will be available to catch more offenders; and second the longer portions of sentences to be served by sexual and violent offenders.
On the impact of more police, Sir Richard admitted it’s “hard to convert those into prison places” because we do not know if they will be pursuing “high-level crime, low-level crime or crime that results in imprisonment”. Buckland took the view that “we will see quite an increase in volume crime detection. That might not necessarily result in prison sentences; it might result in more community sentences”. The Justice Committee failed to press him on whether investment in probation and other community-based services wouldn’t be a wiser course to take.
The increased portion of sentences served in prison by violent and sexual offenders (not considered dangerous) is estimated to require 2,000 more prison places by 2030. Between the Queens Speech on Monday and the Committee hearing on Wednesday, the Government decided to restrict the group having to serve two thirds from those getting 4 year plus sentences to 7 years plus. Buckland told the Committee he is “trying to make sure that we create a system that is supported by the resources I need.”
The decision that these prisoners should serve a longer portion of their term was ostensibly made following a Sentencing Review announced by the PM in August. Buckland told MPS that the Review “took the form of very thorough advice to Ministers. It is an internal document”. So, nobody will see it.
As for the Review, Sir Richard had already explained to the Prison Reform Trust that “Given the time constraints it has not been possible to undertake any formal public engagement, but we have conducted telephone interviews with some key stakeholders to give them the opportunity to give their views.” The MoJ have listed the 13 organisations they spoke with in the review.[1] Noticeable by their absence are any sentencers, and the Sentencing Council. This is despite the Government’s Impact Assessment (IA) acknowledging that “it is possible that as a result of this policy the length of sentences handed down by the courts could be reduced in view of the longer period to be spent in prison”.
Instead they justified the increase in prison places in terms of first, a surge in prison numbers resulting from the 20,000 more police officers who will be available to catch more offenders; and second the longer portions of sentences to be served by sexual and violent offenders.
On the impact of more police, Sir Richard admitted it’s “hard to convert those into prison places” because we do not know if they will be pursuing “high-level crime, low-level crime or crime that results in imprisonment”. Buckland took the view that “we will see quite an increase in volume crime detection. That might not necessarily result in prison sentences; it might result in more community sentences”. The Justice Committee failed to press him on whether investment in probation and other community-based services wouldn’t be a wiser course to take.
The increased portion of sentences served in prison by violent and sexual offenders (not considered dangerous) is estimated to require 2,000 more prison places by 2030. Between the Queens Speech on Monday and the Committee hearing on Wednesday, the Government decided to restrict the group having to serve two thirds from those getting 4 year plus sentences to 7 years plus. Buckland told the Committee he is “trying to make sure that we create a system that is supported by the resources I need.”
The decision that these prisoners should serve a longer portion of their term was ostensibly made following a Sentencing Review announced by the PM in August. Buckland told MPS that the Review “took the form of very thorough advice to Ministers. It is an internal document”. So, nobody will see it.
As for the Review, Sir Richard had already explained to the Prison Reform Trust that “Given the time constraints it has not been possible to undertake any formal public engagement, but we have conducted telephone interviews with some key stakeholders to give them the opportunity to give their views.” The MoJ have listed the 13 organisations they spoke with in the review.[1] Noticeable by their absence are any sentencers, and the Sentencing Council. This is despite the Government’s Impact Assessment (IA) acknowledging that “it is possible that as a result of this policy the length of sentences handed down by the courts could be reduced in view of the longer period to be spent in prison”.
The contrast
between the depth and detail of the IA which is consistent with the Treasury
Green Book Guidelines on policy development, and the superficiality of the Review
(which is far from it), is frankly embarrassing. The IA notes "potential transitional risk to prison stability" with increased tensions in
prison establishments, with consequent impacts on prisoner violence or self-harm; and possible increases in the risk of re-offending; plus a cost over ten years of £710 million.
Woeful too is
the lack of proper consultation about the need and use for more prison places. The Green Book recommends that “research, consultation and engagement with
stakeholders and the wider public, should be conducted at an early stage” of
policy development. “This provides understanding of the current situation and
valuable insights into potential improvements”. The rate of imprisonment in England
and Wales - 141 per 100,000 of the population- is second only to Scotland’s among
the countries of Western Europe. We need to find ways of moving down that
league table of shame not cementing our place near the top of it.
[1] The
Association of Youth Offending Team Managers; CLINKS; Criminal Justice Alliance;
HM Inspectorate of Prisons; HM Inspectorate of Probation; Howard League; Independent
Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody;NPS Victim Liaison Officers; Parole Board; Probation Institute; Revolving Doors;
Standing Committee for Youth Justice; Victim's Commissioner (Office)
No comments:
Post a Comment