You are here: Home » Comment »

Labour should commit to close a prison

July 23, 2012 12:48 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Prevention is better than cure; in the long run it may also be cheaper. Yet as a nation we continue to pour vast amounts of public cash into expensive services that deal mainly with the symptoms rather than the causes of social problems. Shifting resources to upstream activity that can foster positive behaviour remains one of our greatest public policy challenges.

We are all familiar with the arguments: healthier lifestyles and more effective primary care would reduce the number of patients needing hospital admission; a greater supply of affordable social housing would reduce the huge taxpayer subsidy paid to private landlords through housing benefit. But organisational change on the scale required takes time and those with a vested interest in the status quo often stand in the way.

When I was the prisons minister, organisations would come to me with proposals for alternatives to custody that were imaginative and on the faces of it likely to be effective. ; bBut it was often impossible to fund them because most of the money spent on offenders was literally locked up in the prison system. The average annual cost of a prison place is currently just under £40,000.

In government Labour expanded capacity - – 26,000 new prison places since 1997 – and focussed on making prisons more effective in terms of education,. healthcare and reduced reoffending. This had limited impact and the numbers in prison continued to rise. Particularly frustrating was our inability to devise a more effective way of dealing with prisoners who receive short sentences.

In preparation for the next Labour gGovernment we need to be more radical. There won’t be any extra money so new initiatives will have to be funded by phasing out some of the existing provision. Voters rightly want criminals to be punished - – and those who pose a threat to safety and commit serious offences should get lengthy prison sentences. But the electorate also want less crime and better value for money. So, we should be bold.

We should select one of our main city regions, make a clear commitment to close one of the prisons in that area – say in 5 years time – and use the projected savings to fund a substantial programme of preventative work and intensive community punishments. We should invite local authorities to work closely with the prison and probation services, helping to co-ordinate and commission the additional provision of supported housing, drug and alcohol treatment, and training for employment.

These new community based services would need to be paid for in advance of the prison being wound down. Funds could be provided through Social Impact Bonds, designed to cover the up-front costs as well as drive better outcomes. Because of the commitment to close the prison, investors would be confident of getting their money back plus a higher return if reoffending rates fell.

And if we can turn the tanker round in an area like this, why not on other key issues like health and social care?

Paul Goggins is MP for Wythenshawe & Sale East and a former prisons minister

This article was originally published in the Fabian Society’s Summer edition of the Fabian Review. It forms part of the Fabian Society’s Next State project. We’ll be publishing other articles from the series this week.

Related posts:

  1. Less crime, safer communities, fewer people in prison
  2. Ignore the relics – Labour needs an innovative response to Tory prison plans
  3. Ex-MP Illsley sentenced to 12 months in prison
  4. Why I believe keeping Ronald Biggs in prison is wrong
  5. Nominations close: Labour reaction
  • Chilbaldi

    All very correct, of course, but the issue is how we communicate this to the public. The public have been indoctrinated into a lock ‘em up culture for several decades by successive governments, the media are of this inclinations (other than the Guardian and Independent) and public mood would be difficult to shift. An interesting problem.

    • Quiet_Sceptic

      Half the issue is presentation.

      If community sentences are presented as being tough; prisoners, well convicted criminals, working long hours to do something good for the community and gaining skills at the same time, with some visibility in the community of what they’re doing then it could play well.

      Yet when people from the left write or speak about community punishments the language they use makes them sound a soft alternative. The emphasis is on the needs of, and supporting the offender and it plays very poorly with the public.

      Although it’s only entertainment just look at the way Gordon Ramsey Behind Bars pitched his project (and products) when he was selling to the public; he didn’t say this is something to benefit the prisoners (though in giving them skills it clearly does), he pitched it about them working hard, earning their keep, giving something back to the community.

      • Chilbaldi

         110% agree.

  • Brumanuensis

    I’m not sure the answer is closing prisons. I think part of the solution is banning the ridiculous number of short sentences handed out each year, which are a waste of time and money, even if you agree with Civitas’ recent report. Ban sentences shorter than a year and reserve prison for people who pose either a clear and present danger to society, or who have committed crimes of such enormity that deprivation of liberty is the only just response.

    • jaime taurosangastre candelas

      With what do you propose to replace the less than one year sentences?

      The current options do not appear to be a deterrent even for those committing the minor crimes that do not currently merit a sentence, so it is difficult to think that those committing “medium” crimes (my shorthand – I mean those crimes worse than those only attracting community punishment, but less than one year, if that is clear – I do not have the legal background that you do!)

      There is one young man of my professional acquaintance who is very angry indeed when he has a drink, and beats people up.  Sometimes, he is hurt himself – anyway, we have seen him a few times in A&E, and some of his victims as well.  Quite nasty wounds, looking like a severe fight has taken place.  He has been I am told been in and out of various social programmes, has had an ASBO, alcohol and anger management counselling, and been into a Young Offender’s Institute for some months.  The Police know him well – he was arrested 2 minutes after one of my team patched him up and we released him from care, and the Police Sergeant told me about him.  Nothing seems to stop him, and it is only a matter of time before he hurts someone very badly indeed.  This is the sort of person who does not appear to respond at all to community programmes, and yet his crimes (to date) have never attracted a custodial sentence of more than one year.  What do you propose to do about him, and similar people?

      (I really have no idea, and certainly no agenda on this topic – it appears almost insoluble in a liberal society)

      • Brumanuensis

        I think community sentences should become the norm for low-level offences and the evidence indicates that they tend to have a slight advantage over custodial offences, in terms of reducing reoffending.

        The young man whose case you describe appears to have a serious substance abuse problem and possible mental health difficulties (I surmise). He might be eligible for sectioning if he is genuinely incapable of controlling his anger. If he is likely to start violent altercations, then actually under my criteria he probably ought to be given a custodial sentence to enable close and controlled treatment for his problems. Certainly I don’t think short-term custodial sentences will solve his evident personality problems. However, it is an extremely difficult example and the law will have to accommodate such problematic people. I don’t think the current approach really works though.

        • jaime taurosangastre candelas

          I’m sure you speak some sense here – it is far more your field than mine.  But yet…. I feel some unease at your prescription.  If he does something that attracts “minor” custodial sentences (and yes of course each should be longer than the previous, as part of the sanction), then sectioning him which appears to be an open-ended process seems to me to be going the wrong way.  How do you prevent people from becoming institutionalised?  and yet, if you take a view that a particular punishment is served by time, when the time is up, do you release him if you suspect that within some short period of time, he will be back to the old ways, and innocent people face his drunken rage?

          I really am no expert on any of this.  I understand the physiological impact of addictive substances, but only in dealing with immediate withdrawal symptoms.  As far as the long term effects are concerned, and at another whole deeper level the sociological impact, I only know what reasonable people publish in journals.

  • T.P.Johnstone

    Very interesting. I agree something needs to be done. The reasons for people commiting crime are all different. Those children who have had a poor upbringing shouldn’t be punished for their parents mistakes. They should be taught social skills, employment skills and be shown the rewards of being an active member in our society.

  • Alan

    Close but no cigar here…where do you put the offenders who need to be punished with imprisonment within that particular city, were will their beds be…..what punishment do you give persistent offenders…..what do you intend to do with the staff who work in the prison earmarked for closure, put them on the dole ?.
    This venture must inevitably rely on non violent offenders ever going to prison, regardless of whether they repeatedly offend or not, and no matter who they disadvantage. You were very close to cracking the cycle when you introduced the prolific offender scheme, it undoubtedly reduced offending, in the areas that could have been deemed expensive to the criminal justice system,  and you done this without employing more staff, as the resources went into providing opportunities and fighting prolific criminals on the front line…. but you withdrew the funding  because of finances, and a wanting to reduce staffing whether the reductions were justified or not,   and abracadabra crime went up again.
    Why then if you are wanting a smaller prison system don’t you reduce their size rather than total closure, and then introduce non custodial sentences with steering groups from the police, prison and probation services, in other words… the professional’s, the people who know criminal behavior when they see it….one of your problems is that you tend to listen to people who are in no way professional, you don’t listen to the experts  within the criminal justice system, but rather graduates and politicians  who have merely an interest, their wacko schemes although well intentioned are not thought out, and miss the hidden pitfalls. There is a wealth of talented people who already work within criminal justice, who have alot of the answers

  • Alan

    Persistent offenders who feel they  have nothing to lose, living a life without work, money, stability do not care about going to prison, as when they get there, they often get a form of  stability. Three meals per day, a job, a bed to sleep in and relief from the stresses of committing crime. Being able to cope in society is not easy for some, and at times they opt out. We as a society seldom look at the entire population of a prison, and see who exactly is in there. A typical local city prison which is bursting at the seams, has very few who should not be there, or who would not be there even if we changed our sentencing policies. New policies need to evolve to become effective, we can change the law overnight but we wont change the culture unless we massage it in over generations, as we all know today’s culture has evolved over the generations.
    There has been some prisons closed since the coalition has come to power, it has been a shambles as the governments brief is to merely save money, its just more overcrowding. Paul Goggins mad idea to just shut a prison would be equally a shambles, and a typical politicians view on things, his idea is the same as Ken Clarke’s…. shut….and we will worry about the consequences later, and probably after someone gets hurt. Lets have a workable ideal, then work back from there…only then can we come up with a workable answer….the end result becomes the action necessary

  • ThePurpleBooker

    Interesting ideas from a former prisons minister which should be looked at but I think it should be used as a deficit reduction measure in all honesty.  We need to remain tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime nothing more and nothing less. I think we should be more imaginative. We should set up ‘service prisons’ run and staffed by ex-personnel, service charities and armed forces who will run activities and as well as bring in tough military discipline in our prisons. We should bring in faith communities to help with counselling and rehab but we need them to get a work ethic by having compulsory work where there money will be used to pay victims. Also, addiction support is important too.

  • Daniel Speight

    While we are talking about Labour plans for prisons it may be a good idea to plan on getting the likes of G4s out of the prison service. Was it Labour that invited them in or does it predate Blair?

    I think I heard Oona King say the same thing on This Week last week. Then again I have never found myself in agreement with Baroness King of Bow before, so possibly I misheard.

    • Daniel Speight

      … or she mispoke.

  • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

    For me the greatest challenge on prisons policy is stopping today’s kids engaging in petty criminal behaviour from turning into career criminals, who will through their lives be a burden on society and the taxpayer.

    I have visited a Young Offenders Institution and, without wanting to sound like the Daily Mail, it was like a holiday camp.  Every cell had a TV, many had a playstation.  There were table football tables and pool tables, cinema nights, the works, where the offenders socialised, swapped stories and seemed like they were having a laugh.  I saw it with my own eyes so I can’t dismiss the headlines.  The kids had a good quality of living in there which, in many cases, would have been a far higher standard of living than some of their victims enjoyed.  Surely this is wrong.

    I’m not advocating a return to bread and water, but we shouldn’t make prison seem like an attractive place to be for the would-be career criminal.  The only in-cell entertainment should be books as far as I’m concerned.  It would encourage them to read, expand their minds, increase their knowledge base and all those things that playstations don’t do.

    And a bit of discipline wouldn’t do them any harm – I’d probably offer them shorter sentences in return for taking part in a non-military, but still physical, bootcamp of some sorts.  Give them discipline, structure, knowledge and skill, and they’ll have a chance of making it on the outside. Give them a TV and a Playstation, and all they’ll want is material luxuries they haven’t yet earned.

    • Alan

      A good article especially the last paragraph….you are quite right all the extra’s inside their cells, are a distraction on the reasons why they have been sent to prison in the first place.
      It is however necessary to provide a good quality standard of living, but without enhancing their leisure time to such an extent. Seeing someone who cannot be bothered to leave their cell, so they watch Jeremy Kyle, or play on a xbox…completely defeats the object.

    • ThePurpleBooker

      I think ‘service prisons’ would be a good way of instilling discipline. I do not think that bringing in the Armed Forces, which after all is a brilliant public institution, to give prisoners discipline is something we can look at. Allowing victims to have a say in the sentencing framework is also very effective. Also, ASBOS being brought back with community service, compulsory counselling and family intervention should be considered. Also, we should expand restorative justice and community sentencing but put communities in control so they can decided and criminals will have to make to the damage that they have done. That will prevent young people from going into the Young Offenders Institutions.

  • John Dore

    I’m a strong advocate of community sentences.

    • Alan

      why

  • RichyJ

    But why stop at prisons? To encourage people to lead healthier lifestyles, why not close a couple of hospitals in deprived areas?

Latest

  • Comment Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    By Mike Ion

    Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Seats and Selections Unions Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    By Paul Wheeler

    It is interesting to see that the Labour Party is returning to the vexed issue of its parliamentary selection process. The changes may be well and good.  But maybe we should be asking a bigger question – are we  witnessing the end of working class representation in Parliament? When the Labour Party was first founded it was more simple. Then the explicit  aim was to secure working class representation, and specifically organised labour, in Parliament. Inevitably it became more complicated [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    Earlier this week we brought you a decidedly dodgy bar chart from the Tories, but it seems that they’re not the only party in Camden adopting dubious use of bar charts. Step forward Camden Lib Dems, with this classic of the dodgy Lib Dem bar chart genre (courtesy of Theo Blackwell). Even by the pretty shoddy standards of the yellows, this is a corker:   Update: Haringey Lib Dems might want to work on their bar charts  maths too (via [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    By Mark Ferguson

    “Work and home is what One Nation is about – family life, how people live everyday life.” That’s what Jon Cruddas – the man who will in all likelihood write Labour’s next manifesto – told the Guardian the party’s policy review is focused on. And it sounds so simple – doesn’t it? Critics will say it’s too simplistic a definition (and they’d be right – I’m cherry picking here), but it’s also a brilliant example of the distance between most [...]

    Read more →