I note that, according to yesterday's Sunday Times, Ken Clarke has obtained a secret deal from Chancellor George Osborne that effectively means his spending plans are conditional upon him gaining the expected reductions in re-offending rates. Of course it's partly this hoped-for reduction in offending that will be able to deliver the Chancellors demanded cost savings through prison closures. Such a 'get out' clause if true, makes perfect sense because reducing prison numbers I suspect is going to be something much easier said than done, especially in a period of almost certainly rising unemployment.
In order to deliver the expected reduction in total prison numbers of 3,000 over a four year period, it has been estimated that it will have to equate to a 10,000 reduction in short term sentences. This is an incredibly ambitious target and the Justice Minister knows this, hence talk of a 'fall back' position just in case it doesn't happen. But even if it does, by the nature of the prison population's varied make-up, I think it's going to be quite a difficult task to identify prisons suitable for closure. This is because of their geographic spread, design purpose and the constantly fluid prison population. It's a bit like the electricity grid, a system in a state of constant flux but one that has to be balanced perfectly by the end of every day. Each differing type of prisoner by security category, age, gender, remand or sentenced etc, etc has to be appropriately accommodated. Basically, any spare bedspaces created may not necessarily be capable of a consolidation plan that equates to a viable prison closure. My feeling is that a planned contraction of the estate is going to be every bit as difficult as past plans for a rising population.
In any event, as the article highlights, there is concern amongst Conservative back-benchers that the Ministry of Justice just might be about to go soft on crime. Apparently they are particularly concerned about the forthcoming sentencing review being led by Crispin Blunt the probation minister, but knowledge of this 'deal' just might serve to reassure them.
No comments:
Post a Comment