Cutting the deficit: How about a reduction we could all agree on?

This article was written on the 18 May 2010. A version of this article was published by New Turn on the 24 June 2010.

The new coalition government’s commitment to cutting the deficit could be just the catalyst we need to move towards a sensible, evidence-based criminal justice policy that we can actually afford. And it may work too!

Back when the election was all set to be a seemingly drab and uninspiring affair, before the unexpected advent of the television age in British electoral politics, the debate surrounding deficit reduction and ‘ring-fenced’ frontline services was the hot potato to excite emotions and set pulses racing. Well, not quite. Unsurprisingly, we now know the overriding number one priority of the new Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government is going to be to reduce the structural deficit. The only caveat being that this will happen without a one year delay, as proposed by both the Liberal Democrats and Labour during the election campaign. The main burden is going to fall on ‘reduced spending rather than increased taxes’, according to the preliminary negotiation agreement published this week. Non-front line services will be protected during the projected £6 billion first round of cuts to be made during this financial year. However, in the long term front-line services cannot avoid being scaled back if the government is serious about bringing the structural deficit under control and making public spending remotely affordable once again. There is certainly one spending black hole where a touch of fiscal realism wouldn’t go amiss: our increasingly bloated and lumbering prison system.

England & Wales (both Scotland and Northern Ireland have separately administered systems that escape the clutches of the Westminster government) has the highest per capita incarceration rates in Western Europe: 154 per 100,000. Under the Labour government, the prison population has increased by over 30,000 inmates, and currently stands at just over 85,000. Despite this unprecedented (at least by the standards of democratic Britain) population growth, reoffending rates for offenders leaving prison remain intolerably high: 75 per cent for offenders serving one year or less in prison are returned within two years. In spite of this systematic failure, last year the Treasury all but guaranteed £4.24 billion on new prison building over the next 35 years; and this is before you consider the cost to the taxpayer of imprisoning just one offender is now over £40,000 per year.

The Commission on English Prisons Today, produced by the Howard League for Penal Reform (and presided over by the venerable Cherie Booth QC, no less), argued the government at Westminster could actually do better by doing less. Amongst other things, the Commission argued for a reduction in the prison population, including the closure of some prisons. This could in part be achieved by the replacement of short prison sentences with appropriate community-based sanctions. In 2007, 55 per cent of people admitted to prison served less than six months, putting a considerable strain on a system which is currently at 110 per cent of overall capacity – with some individual prisons bursting at 179 per cent. And all this when the evidence suggests short prison sentences exacerbate the problem of persistent offending. Properly supported community-facing sanctions, that engage with victims and their communities to try to undo some of the damage inflicted by criminal activity, can make a real and positive impact. Victims of crime are listened to, the wider community benefits by employing the productive capacity of offenders on projects the community choose and want, and offenders are given the opportunity to make amends without losing their jobs, accommodation, and (often) family and friends – all factors and vital support networks that help reduce the risk of reoffending. Society is spared the cost of future crime; the taxpayer is spared the cost of supporting a system that is failing.

A systematic change as broad as the one proposed above is neither impossible, nor particularly radical. The fact that prison isn’t working for a significant number of offence-types is near indisputable, and there is broad degree of academic, practitioner, and even political consensus on the issue. In January, the cross-party House of Commons Justice Select Committee published a report criticising the Ministry of Justice for attempting to increase capacity of the prison system to 96,000 by 2014 whilst simultaneously seeking £1.3 billion worth of cost savings. Instead, the MPs suggested the prison population could be ‘safely capped’ at current levels, and then reduced over time to a more manageable level ‘likely to be about two thirds of the current population’. However, it cannot happen overnight; it will take political courage on the part of David Cameron and his Conservative cabinet colleagues, and a degree of pigheadedness from the Liberal Democrats (a trait they are rapidly becoming well accustomed with). Nevertheless, scaling back our Leviathan-like prison system should be a serious consideration within the full Spending Review to be conducted by the Government during the autumn.

The initial signs are positive from the new governing coalition, even if the specifics on reconciling the two parties’ criminal justice policies unsurprisingly did not make the cut for the preliminary coalition announcement. The parties have already committed to ‘a new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences’. Hopefully this ideal will be extended to curtailing the impulse, uncomfortably evident during the tenure of the previous administration, to increase the tariffs for a whole swath of relatively minor offences as well. On this note, the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto was unambiguous: ‘We will introduce a presumption against short-term sentences of less than six months – replaced by rigorously enforced community sentences’. A position David Cameron attacked in the live television debates: ‘when someone smashes up the bus stop, when someone repeatedly breaks the law, when someone’s found fighting on a Friday or Saturday night, as a magistrate, you’ve got to have that power for a short prison sentence’. It would be mischievous and highly-selective of me (although perhaps more fun) not to add Cameron’s caveat: ‘when you’ve tried other remedies’. And here’s the crux of the argument: magistrates should have greater flexibility to impose stringent but suitable punishments that account for the circumstances of the crime, that allow other ‘remedies’ to be tried before prison. It is political interference that has driven the fashion for dishing out of custodial sentences, and it is a luxury we increasingly cannot afford.

Removing short sentences goes against the grain of recent Tory policy, but Cameron and co. may just be able to do it. Nick Robinson’s recent blog noted the Conservative leader does have a radical streak; and it was a Conservative government that last took a controlled approach to penal policy, achieving modest prison population reduction between 1988 and 1992 after (equally) modest growth in the early years. Perhaps it is prophetic, but it was the Liberal Home Secretary, and later Conservative Prime Minister, Winston Churchill who initiated the longest period of decarceration in British history (from 1908 to 1939) during which prison population was reduced by 50 per cent. We need to take a sensible approach to criminal justice policy; part of this is politicians and the media allowing discussion and debate that does not immediately descend into posturing on ‘tough on crime’. The coalition government can take the first steps if it wants to. We keep being told that this is a brave new world of politics. It is time to be brave.

Postscript: 23 June 2010

Very tentatively, I am going to say it: the signs are positive. To the outrage of some Tory backbenchers, Ken Clarke has dared to ask the question, ‘why is the prison population twice what it was when I was the Home Secretary not so very long ago?’. Quite. The National Association of Probation Officers (Napo) and the Howard League for Penal Reform are calling for an end to ‘pointless’ prison sentences: imprisonment of less than six months that actually increases the likelihood of reoffending, and at a huge cost to the tax payer. Alternatives to short term imprisonment are well researched and are not only more cost-effective in reducing reoffending, they are also cheaper. This is not about letting serious or dangerous criminals ‘off-the-hook’, but recognising that what we are doing now is quite simply not working. Demand an intelligent approach to our criminal justice system that reduces crime, remembers that victims and communities have needs too, and actually means fewer people end up in our incredibly damaging penal system – support the Howard League’s Less crime, safer communities, fewer people in prison campaign.

'What works' in reducing reoffending? A European perspective

A version of this article was originally published in Around Europe on 28 May 2010.

At the end of April, as part of QCEA’s ongoing research into the social reintegration of ex-prisoners in Council of Europe member states, I attended the first conference of the EU-funded STARR project, held over three days in the neo-classical splendour of Downing College, Cambridge. The (almost obligatory) acronym stands for Strengthening Transnational Approaches to Reducing Re-offending, and the conference was the first opportunity for the project to feed back to both academics and practitioners alike. The title of the conference – ‘What Works in Reducing Re-offending’ – unsurprisingly captures only a small part of the diversity of discussion that ensued. It is not possible within the confines of such a short article to provide a thorough review, and thus I will attempt to keep my enthusiasm in check and instead simply offer a flavour of the debates. Suffice it to say, the addition of a question mark to the title at the opening of the conference was an appropriate point of departure.

The talks and workshops covered a whole range of topics and countries: from global perspectives on promising practices to micro-studies on restorative justice programmes in Roma communities in Bulgaria. The transfer of successful programmes from one jurisdiction to another do not always transfer well, and sometimes the stumbling blocks are unexpected: Professor Martine Herzog-Evans of the University of Reims raised a laugh as she noted the particular difficulties Electronic Monitoring schemes are facing from the beaches of Cannes during the summer months. In Sweden, the frequent mention of the word ‘pub’ during situational role plays in British programmes was always one of the first adaptations necessary.

As the conference unfolded, however, it became increasingly clear that the questions we should be asking are even more fundamental than ‘What Works?’. Professor Fergus McNeil of Glasgow University provoked significant discussion as he questioned whether reducing re-offending is a suitable mission statement at all. If probation is a justice agency we need to look at how justice is best served and the differing priorities reflected in the term. A concept of community justice looks beyond the confines of the criminal justice system to look at how the collective interest is best served: in the interest of the victims, communities, as well as the offender. Change is crucially important to the process of ‘justice’, and Professor McNeil concluded, ‘one of the best ways of paying back [society] is turning your life around’.

QCEA’s current research recognises that the social reintegration of ex-prisoners is not directly synonymous with target-driven reductions in reoffending. If the conference confirmed nothing else, there is no single ‘magic bullet’ or gold-standard programme. For that reason, further opportunities for pan-European discussion can only be a good thing. The STARR project is a great opportunity for academics and practitioners from across the continent to pool their ideas and talents. For my part, I hope Friends and Quaker organisations will continue to contribute significantly to this dialogue.

Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland: Democracy in Action?

This is an unpublished article from the 20 October 2009.

Sixteen months ago only 53 per cent of Ireland’s electorate refused to give the answer demanded of them: now, with the Celtic tiger’s tail curled firmly between its legs, the Irish have returned the result the European establishment expected of them, resoundingly so. In a turnout of 58 per cent – unfortunately strong by European election standards – 1.2 million Irish men and women, 67 per cent of those who voted, said ‘Yes’ to the Lisbon treaty, reasserting Ireland’s commitment to the European project. Despite the perilous state of Irish finances, this result is not, as has oft been suggested, the consequence of a frightened and cowed electorate. A glimpse north to Iceland bares witness to the potentially treacherous waters outside Europe’s protective harbour. Nevertheless, the Irish people’s statement of intent reflects the blossoming of a more democratic future for Europe: a future in which politicians finally engage in the intelligent, grown-up conversation that Europe needs, and her electorate is fervently demanding.

‘I think that there was a respect for the democratic process and the fact that it couldn’t be overturned without returning to the democratic process,’ stated a jubilant Brian Cowen, Ireland’s often embattled Taoiseach, following the 20 per cent swing. Cowen is right, the ‘democratic process’ was fundamental in the ‘Yes’ victory, but this ‘respect’ was new, and entirely absent the first time around. The Lisbon Treaty is a technical, inaccessible document, so much so that during the 2008 campaign Cowen admitted you’d have to be ‘insane’ to read it: he hadn’t, and the electorate responded accordingly to their leader’s incompetence. A year and a half later, and the people of the Irish Republic are probably the most well-informed on the continent, with concerns about the status of Ireland’s European commissioner, military neutrality, and the imposition of abortion laws all firmly discussed and clearly satisfactorily addressed. The political establishment mounted a thorough campaign, aided by both business and Ireland’s Europhile intellectual community. Where the ‘No’ campaign had found traction in the electorate’s lack of knowledge in 2008, a myriad of voices responded during the debates of 2009, so that people could make an informed decision.

In the opinion of the author, the Europe Union has both the potential and necessity to take a more prominent role in world politics, one that none of its constituent member nations alone can take, if a progressive, environmentally sensitive, broadly liberal agenda is to be effectively argued for and implemented on a global level. This will only be possible if Europe can present the united front that shared culture and history, alongside the free movement of peoples, allows for. To realize this potential Europe needs to have an active and engaged citizenry, the keystone of a healthy democracy. The Lisbon Treaty, via far too many twists and turns, is the descendent of the lofty 2001 Laeken Declaration, calling for the European Union to be ‘more democratic, transparent and effective.’ If this unique experiment in European democracy is to achieve even a fraction of its potential, our leaders need to stop preaching and start listening. The Irish experience is a good lesson, and a first step in the right direction.