Tuesday, 3 October 2023

Unfree Movement of People

 

I’m not surprised by much in penal policy but today’s plan to rent prison space abroad is astonishing in many ways.

Politically, the headline “Foreign prison rental to ensure public protection”, appears to make safety contingent on the availability of cells overseas- an odd position for a tough on crime party which its opponents are bound to seize on.  

After all, the commitment is to “enter exploratory discussions with potential partner countries in Europe” about as far as you can get from a done deal. Necessary laws will be passed as soon as parliamentary time allows, usually code for some time /never.

Administratively, negotiating the arrangements will be fiendishly difficult. How will prisoners be chosen, whose laws will apply to their imprisonment, what systems of complaints and inspection will be in place?

If the scheme ever did get off the ground how would host state prisons ensure rehabilitation, prevent linguistic and cultural isolation, and enable contact to be maintained with families? And then there’s the costs.

It smacks of desperation born of planning delays for three proposed new prisons and an unwillingness to contemplate the kind of emergency early release programme which the last Labour government were forced to introduce in 2007. It marks a spectacular failure on the part of the Justice Ministry and arguably of the Sentencing Council whose original purpose was to help align supply and demand for prison places.

A few days after the Chief Inspector called for the closure of one in ten prisons in England and Wales, there will be wry smiles as Europeans read that Brits would be moved to their country’s jails only if they meet British standards. They’ll be asking if they have any poor enough to pass the test.

1 comment:

  1. fully understand your skepticism, but I’d like to point to the rather successful project carried out between 2015 and 2018 where Norway rented a prison in The Netherlands. Norway had long struggled with a lack of prison cells, and since overcrowding was not considered an option for humanitarian as well as practical reasons, a waiting list had emerged. Sentenced offenders were told to wait - put their life on hold - until they received word from the prison authorities that a cell had become available for them. This could take months, and sometimes more than a year. Obviously, this was considered an unwanted situation and several solutions had been tried for some 25 years without solving the problem definitely. Quick fixes that would result in low-quality new prison capacity might turn into overcapacity once the waiting list had dissolved and were also contrary to the guiding principles in Norwegian corrections.
    At the time, The Netherlands had announced the closing of a large number of prisons because of such overcapacity and both countries saw possibilities for a win-win situation in which Norway would rent Dutch cell capacity bound to be closed down. It would allow Norway to empty its waiting list without building new prisons and the Dutch Ministry of Justice could continue to run at least one doomed prison without having to fire staff. Instead of having to spend money on redundancy pay, the state would receive rent. The Norwegians on their part would pay much less in rent than the cost of building a new prison would be. The prison would have a Norwegian management and regime, while the staff remained Dutch. That staff would be motivated to make the project successful. It was agreed that prisoners would be serving the last six months of their sentences back in Norway in order to ensure sufficient reintegration possibilities and contacts. Transfers were voluntary, and came with some perks like the opportunity to skype with loved ones. A large part of the prison population in Norway at the time consisted of citizens of Eastern-European countries like Poland and Lithuania, which made it much easier - and cheaper - to have family visit them. The project was initiated and lasted for a contract period of three years. It was not extended in 2018 as Norway’s waiting list had as good as disappeared. Independent evaluations of the project were largely positive from everyone’s perspective.
    Of course I am not saying that this solution would work for the UK, but I just wanted to point out that there may be a number of advantages to such a construction as well. Judging by your last sentence, maybe British prisoners would actually benefit of it…
    Gerhard Ploeg

    ReplyDelete