Penal reform: A sensible opposition

By Stephen Gummer

Today secretary of state for justice Ken Clarke released details of a policy that will turn prisoners into taxpayers. In his speech to Conservative Party conference Ken Clarke announced that prisoners would be paid a real wage and made to work.

The Howard League for Penal Reform has campaigned for this radical change for more than ten years, starting with the first research into prison workshops and later running a prototype business inside Coldingley for three years. It is hoped that this scheme will help to rehabilitate and that it will help to make the lives of those who are forced into prisons more bearable and meaningful. Lastly it is hoped that this scheme will represent an opportunity for some inside to hold down a regular job for possibly the first time in their lives.

Whenever the government comes up with a controversial proposal such as this it is all too easy for the opposition to simply dismiss it. However last week in his speech to Labour Party conference Ed Miliband laid out a policy for opposition that has led many in the penal reform field to hope for better.

The new leader of the Labour Party stated, “when Ken Clarke says we need to look at short sentences in prison because of high re-offending rates, I’m not going to say he’s soft on crime.”

It is this statement that has led me to hope that Labour will not oppose real work in prison in order to gain political points but will welcome the scheme while at the same time working constructively in opposition to make it better and ensure its success.

Critics of the scheme have already said that it is soft on crime. This is the unthinking and lazy option for opposition. However in a time of recession the truth is we cannot afford to continue to lock up 85,000 people at £45,000 per head. The prison system is overinflated and reoffending is ballooning as a result of its failures. Something has to be done to cut reoffending.

Other people have said “why should prisoners get jobs that could otherwise be out in the economy?” This is a much more pointed criticism but the Howard League for Penal Reform has already stated that this scheme should be aimed at sectors and industries that are already leaving the UK. There will also be non profit organisations who may only want to work in prisons as part of their social mission. Prison work need not take jobs away from anyone in the community.

People in prison represent the most at risk segment of our society and getting regular work for this group and making sure they are paid a good wage to help support both victims and their own families should fit comfortably within a Labour ideology that has always supported the most vulnerable.

Believing that Labour should not oppose this scheme does not mean that Labour cannot provide effective checks and balances while it is being implemented.

This scheme like so many others in the area of penal reform has scope for abuse and it is here that the Labour Party should be targeting their opposition. They should ensure that the promise that prisoners will be working for a fair wage is a promise the Conservative Party is held to, and then Labour should strive to make a fair wage a living wage for families of those in custody.

Labour should scrutinise fully to ensure that private sector involvement, which is necessary for real work to succeed, does not turn into private sector abuse of the vulnerable that end up in prison.

Further, Labour should make sure that work in prison does not end up paying for prison. While real work in prison is better than the status quo in prison, it is not the ideal answer. For those that have to be in prison real work offers more meaning, some structure and a chance at more normality. However for the 53,000 in prison on short sentences within our prison system the answer is not prison but better community support and a revitalised probation service acting for community resolution.

While Labour should not oppose real work in prison on its merits, the modern Labour Party should make it clear that real work is not the answer for many people in custody on short-term sentences. Ken Clarke has already stated he intends to decrease the prison population and this is a sentiment that a responsible opposition should hold him to. The job of a responsible opposition is to encourage Ken Clarke to cut the overall prison population in a way that does not compromise public safety. At the same time, Labour should also be careful to combat overtly swingeing cuts to the budget of an already beleaguered probation service. It is only with fewer in prison and adequately funded community provision that a genuine rehabilitation revolution can take place.

Today’s speech by Ken Clarke moved on from the ‘prison works’ mantra that has dogged British politics for the past twenty years. It acknowledged that English and Welsh prisons are at breaking point and that we should no longer focus on punishment for its own sake. Instead we need to focus on what works and what cuts reoffending. That is work in prison and community programmes outside it both of which deal with the social problems experienced by many currently languishing in the penal system. If Labour wishes to function as a strong and honest opposition they will applaud today’s new direction set by Ken Clarke but keep their eyes peeled for the first sign that the rehabilitation revolution is turning into an exercise in pure budget reduction.