6Conclusion
258.We have set out in our report strong evidence that the sustainability of the prison population is linked to many factors including perceptions about and provision of effective alternatives to prison, the scale of prison building and maintenance programmes to improve decency, reduce crowding and facilitate access to purposeful activity and rehabilitation, and the effective use of existing prison facilities. Some are within the control of the Ministry of Justice, and others are not. There is clear evidence that political decisions to reduce spending on prisons have had a major destabilising effect and that tightly gripping finances by reducing staff and outsourcing facilities management services does not result in a well-maintained or well-functioning prison estate. Relying on emergency transfers of resources from the capital budget is not a sustainable means of running prisons.
259.While it was not the intention of our inquiry, many of our witnesses considered that the question for the Government should not be how to cope with a continued rise in the prison population but what approach they should take to reduce it. Over the course of our inquiry, the Government’s strategic approach has moved towards the latter approach and some ‘quick wins’ have already been achieved in increasing the use of Home Detention Curfew, for example. The Secretary of State has now set out a longer-term aspiration to find alternative solutions to crime than imprisonment for some offences.
260.The Ministry’s strategy for prisons has historically not taken enough account of the impact of population pressures on the challenges that prisons are dealing with in terms of regime and hence on addressing the drivers of the population.603 This would require a broader reform strategy that recognises the opportunity to link prison reform with a wholesale review of the sentencing framework which is the major driver of predicted growth. Alongside this, cross-Governmental strategies must be developed to strengthen community services and support the increased use and effectiveness of non-custodial sentences, with emphasis on ensuring that these are not funded on a shoe-string.604 Our predecessor Committees, when chaired by Sir Alan, now Lord, Beith, twice warned previous Governments of the risk of a crisis in the sustainability of funding for prisons by focusing policy on expanding prison places and of not considering the root causes and surrounding social circumstances that lead to offending.605
261.We are now in the depths of an enduring crisis in prison safety and decency that has lasted five years and is taking significant additional investment to rectify, further diverting funds from essential initiatives that could stem or reverse the predicted growth. There is a grave risk that we become locked in a vicious cycle of prisons perpetually absorbing huge amounts of criminal-justice related spending, creating a perverse situation in which there is likely to be more “demand” for prison by sentencers in areas where they have less access to effective community alternatives.
262.Given the complexities of the prison population and the social determinants of many of them ending up in prison, several witnesses raised more fundamental questions about the justice system, and prison in particular, as a response to criminality and wider social problems. They advocated the introduction of a public health model for crime capable of more therapeutic responses which has been adopted in Scotland.606 Despite recognition of the potential benefits of such an approach to reducing violence, the Government continues to look primarily to legislation to control crime. An example of this is the proposal for civil Knife Crime Prevention Orders, the breach of which would be imprisonable, in the Offensive Weapons Bill. We heard during our inquiry that the Ministry has devised a Justice Impact Test for other Government departments in recognition that:
“New policies, especially those which involve a change in the law, can have a very significant impact on the justice system. These impacts need to be considered, anticipated, and planned for at an early stage to make best use of public funds, and to make sure that service provision within the justice system is not jeopardised.”607
The Secretary of State for Justice reportedly asked the Home Secretary to demonstrate the evidence base that strengthening sentencing powers for possession of a knife would cut crime.608 As an illustration of the potential impact of this, under the Sentencing Council’s guideline on bladed articles and offensive weapons, more offenders convicted for possession of a bladed article are anticipated to receive a custodial sentence compared to prior sentencing practice. This was estimated to result in a need for around 80 additional prison places per year at a cost of around £1.9 million.609
263.Prior to the Justice Secretary’s February 2019 speech, our evidence pointed strongly to the absence of a strategic and long-term approach towards the sustainability of the prison population. Professor Hardwick told us that changes to the prison estate and to the prison population are long-term processes that need sustained political commitment.610 Professor Hardwick saw the prison system as “bedevilled by changes in policy” and advocated for consensus around a long-term plan that people potentially of different political persuasions can sign up to.611 Clinks wished to see an overarching vision for how the whole criminal justice system can support individuals to change their lives.612 In his speech, the Justice Secretary articulated a need for a fresh conversation and national debate about society’s approach to the use of imprisonment, and said he believed that there was a sufficient degree of political consensus in Parliament to achieve this.
264.In recognition of public sentiment and the concerns outlined by the Justice Minister, addressing the crisis in the sustainability of our prisons calls for a serious open public debate about the criminal justice system, the role that prison can and cannot play, and its affordability. We are pleased that the Prisons Minister and Justice Secretary have acknowledged this, but, regardless of the political climate, this cannot be just a long-term aspiration. Greater transparency is necessary to enable the public and others to understand the true costs and the challenging and testing nature of decisions which need to be made about public spending on prisons and other aspects of criminal justice. This should form the first step of the Justice Secretary’s ‘national conversation’ about these matters, which cannot continue to be hidden behind either prison gates or within the Ministry of Justice at Queen Anne’s Gate.
605 Justice Committee, First Report of Session 2009–10, Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, HC94-I, January 2010
607 Ministry of Justice, Justice Impact Test guidance, July 2018
609 Letter from Rory Stewart, Minister of State for Justice, to Chair, Justice Committee, 18 January 2019
Published: 3 April 2019