[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Judiciary Speeches
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Judiciary Speeches >> Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales : The Woolf Report: a Decade of Change? [2001] UKSpeech C1OZG (31 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/speeches/2001/C1OZG.html Cite as: [2001] UKSpeech C1OZG

[New search] [Help]

Lord Woolf
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales

"The Woolf Report: a Decade of Change?"

Address to the Prison Reform Trust, London

31 January 2001

Introduction

Ten years ago today, I finished a sentence of just under 12 months. I did not spend a year in prison but a year of my life was taken over by prisons. On the 31st January 1991, I handed the Strangeways Prison report to the then Home Secretary. At that time, the Prison Service was beginning to emerge from its appalling experience during the riots and anarchy which had erupted in Strangeways and then spread to prisons in a number of other parts of the country.

The report stated that its purpose was to answer 4 questions. They were:

1. "What happened during the 6 most serious riots?
2. Were the 6 riots properly handled?
3. What were the causes of those riots?
4. What should be done to prevent riots of this type happening again?"

After ten years, it could reasonably have been hoped that the whole of my report would be of historical interest only. That is probably true of the first question, but I am afraid that is still not so in relation to the remaining questions. Why should this be? The report was intended to provide signposts to guide the Prison Service as to the way forward. The way forward to a Prison Service which was equipped to play its proper role within the Criminal Justice System, a Prison Service which was well managed, where relations between management and staff and staff and prisoners were based on mutual respect, and a prison system were there was a proper balance between security, control and justice. The government of the day accepted the generality of the recommendations which Sir Stephen Tumin and I had made with the assistance of our excellent assessors. The Home Secretary (now Lord Baker) was committed to improving the system on the lines proposed in the report. I believe it is fair to say that there was a general consensus that the report offered a programme for constructive change which should be implemented.

There was undoubtedly a considerable feeling of optimism within prison circles. Prison numbers were falling. There appeared to be an opportunity for fundamentally improving the prison system. The Prison Service, supported by staff and officers at all levels, seemed determined to seize the opportunity this gave.

I went back to being a judge feeling reasonably confident we had produced (with the help of a great many people) a blue print which had a good prospect of achieving what it set out to do. This was to produce a prison system which would be secure, humane and just. It would return inmates to society at the end of their sentences less likely, not more likely, to offend again. These objectives were hardly controversial.

During the following ten years my involvement with prisons was limited. I did however, keep some contact with what was happening because the report resulted in my holding a number of offices in charities, who like our hosts this evening, doggedly strive to improve the criminal justice system. I do believe these bodies are among the finest in the world and we owe those who work for them a huge debt of gratitude for what they have already achieved and for what they continue to achieve. Through my connections with these charities, particularly the Butler Trust, during the intervening years, I was aware of many excellent initiatives taking place within the prison system. I also became aware that prison numbers were rising relentlessly, so that they have increased by approximately 50% from their lowest point during that decade. As I have already indicated, publicly, I was extremely worried by the increase. I knew it made overcrowding inevitable. I also knew that overcrowding is more destructive of an effective prison system than anything else.

In his recent lecture to the Trust, the Director General accurately described overcrowding as a "scourge". The notorious escapes and problems over home-leave added additional pressure to an already over-stretched system. I became anxious that the importance of moving towards the long-term objectives set out in the Report had been temporarily lost sight of.

When the 10th anniversary of Strangeways drew near, I received a number of invitations to give talks under a similar title to that of this talk. I declined to do so. By then, I was the Master of the Rolls and I did not consider that I should give such talks due to my limited involvement with the prison system.

Then I was appointed to my present office. This, it seemed to me, changed the situation. I was again involved in prison sentencing. It is judges and magistrates who send people to prison. It should be of the greatest importance to each judge and magistrate what happens to those who they send to prison, whether they are in prison on remand or under sentence. If you send someone to prison you have responsibility for what happens to prisoners while in custody. If you have the privilege of holding my present office you have a responsibility to make known, in as constructive a manner as possible, concerns that you may have about the criminal justice system.

The public is deeply troubled about crime and they look, with justification, to each part of the criminal justice system to provide them with the protection to which they are entitled. Prisons are a critical part of the criminal justice system. There cannot be an effective criminal justice system without effective prisons. I am aware that Lord Hurd, the Chairman of the PRT, said recently of our prisons:

"It is our job, to break the destructive silence, and we must continue to do so, for a huge amount is still amiss" (Note 1)

So, although I cannot speak with the same authority as I did ten years ago having just having completed my sentence, I will give you my personal assessment of what has been achieved over the intervening decade. I will look at my 12 principal recommendations and examine the extent to which they have been implemented. I will then suggest measures which might improve the prospect for the next decade.

In making these remarks, I have the great advantage of having read two immensely instructive papers given to the Trust at a seminar held to mark the 10 anniversary of Strangeways. One was by Professor Morgan, an assessor to the Inquiry; the other was by Mr Narey, the Director General of the Prison Service. Mr Narey's account appears to be admirably frank, balanced and helpful and I can at least assume it is not biased against the Prison Service. It helpfully sets out Mr Narey's assessment of the progress that has been made in relation to each of the 12 principal recommendations made by the Report.

There are three initial points which I would make:

1. First, is as to security. In the intervening years at individual establishments, linked to overcrowding, there have been some extremely tense situations with which the Service has had to deal. Fortunately, there has been no repetition of an incident on anything like the scale of Strangeways. The prison service deserves credit for this.
2. The second point is that in the intervening decade, as far as I am aware, there has been no authoritative criticism of the general thrust of the Report. The recommendations are still generally endorsed as setting out desirable objectives. The criticism, if any, is as to the detail. Again, as far as I am aware, successive Home Secretaries and Prison Ministers have been supportive of the Report. This is true of Mr Michael Howard, who at a time when I was expressing concerns about the impact of some of his policies, wrote to me assuring me that the reforms which I had recommended were safe in his hands. Subsequently he became concerned as to whether the reforms were diverting attention from security, to which he gave priority. Of course all Home Secretaries, of whatever political complexion, at least since Winston Churchill, who made that famous remark about the way we treat our prisoners reflecting the moral fibre of the nation, have been in favour of improving conditions in prisons.
3. The third point flows from the previous two. It is simply this. The lack of dissent is not surprising. Although perhaps I am not the person who should be saying this, the Report was doing no more than seeking to make sensible changes to the Prison system to ensure that there would be an appropriate degree of security, coupled with just treatment and constructive regimes. In other words, while recognising the importance of security and control the Report emphasised that there also has to be justice and fairness and constructive regimes for inmates. Each of these elements supports the other.

The difference between the Report and its predecessors and successors is that it did not focus on one individual aspect of the system. Indeed, so far as our terms of reference permitted, we dealt with the reforms in the context of Criminal Justice system as a whole.

I turn to the recommendations.

Criminal Justice Council

The first recommendation was the establishment of the Criminal Justice Council. The reason for the recommendation was that each part of the criminal justice system was acting independently of the others. This is a subject of which Mr Narey can speak with great authority since he was the first secretary of the Council. He is in agreement with Professor Morgan's analysis. The Council has been established but it has struggled. Professor Morgan identifies some victories, but says the problem is at the area level. I accept that there was, and is, this problem. But I fear it was inevitable for the reason he gives. As Mr Narey states it was "nigh on impossible" to find a rational way in which you could have a sensible co-ordinating bodies for 56 probation authorities, 42 police areas, 12 Prison Service areas and hundreds of Petty Sessional Divisions and, I would add, six Court Circuits. The sensible result, that the agencies should each have the same boundaries, is one the inquiry could not achieve. However more should be achievable and I would expect Auld LJ to address what should be done.

While recognising the limits of what has been achieved so far, I do not regard this as an area of failure. The main Council has been in existence for 10 years. Its first Chairman, the Vice President, Lord Justice Rose, has established a viable Council. Lord Justice Kaye has succeeded him. Over the 10 years the Council has provided a forum in which discussion at the very highest level can take place between all the principal players in the criminal justice system. This is a much needed improvement. As Mr. Narey points out, important rationalisations are now taking place "which is very encouraging" and makes possible action between agencies which was not possible before. This is not just a question of bureaucratic tidiness. It goes to the heart of making the system work, as it should.

Take short-term prisoners and those on remand. They have the most impoverished time in prison. Why? Because in view of the short period they are in custody, programmes can not be completed while they are there. If programmes in prisons were to be co-ordinated with external programmes commencing after release, a programme could be completed. Again, with co-operation, there is considerable scope to improve the arrangements for returning prisoners back into the community and so reducing the risk of prisoners re-offending. On this subject, I would like to conclude by quoting Professor Morgan:

"Yet despite these formal failures it would in my judgement be a mistake to say that nothing has changed. The criminal justice system has been transformed. The so-called system is now much more a system. There are inter-department and inter-agency strategic planning mechanisms at all levels. We are talking seriously now about crime prevention and not just about bolting the stable door after the horses have gone. The judiciary talk now to their fellow professionals in the other agencies in a way they never did ten years ago. The administrative infrastructure has been changed so that all the criminal justice agencies - including, belatedly, the Prison Service - have contiguous local administrative boundaries. It is possible now to devolve decision making to local areas with the promise of arriving at commonly agreed local solutions."

More Visible Leadership

As to progress on the next recommendation: more visible leadership, I can answer more positively than the Director General can. I can say what he could not. I have no reservations as to the quality of the leadership, which has been provided by the three successive heads of the Prison Service since Strangeways. It has been at least as good as I hoped and in Mr Narey's case is admirable. An agency has been established and that provides at least some space between ministers and the Service. As to increased delegation to governors, I have no reason to disagree with Mr Narey when he says the situation has been transformed. However, regrettably there are still real problems between different levels of management. I will return to this subject later. I am also pleased to know that prison officers are being given an enhanced role. I suspect more could be done but for overcrowding.

Compacts

I turn to compacts or contracts. The importance of compacts is that they develop the prisoner's sense of responsibility. They enable the prisoner to know what is expected of him and what he will get in return from the Prison Service. Mr Narey deals with compacts and acknowledges that here the progress has been "less dramatic". Professor Morgan shares this assessment of the position. This is disappointing but hardly surprising because there are two parties to compacts.

If the Prison Service does not believe it can deliver its side of a compact, it is not going to enter into a compact. To do so would leave the inmate feeling he has been let down and the prison service could even end up being judicially reviewed. Sadly, the picture that Mr Narey paints is that across the Service as a whole, the Service cannot deliver what the compact should provide. However, at least some establishments are achieving a great deal through compacts. I recently visited a most impressive Young Offenders Institute, Swinfen Hall. There compacts are being used and the youngsters have a sense of dignity, which bodes well if their return to the community or entry into adult establishments can be properly arranged. Other establishments are using compacts in conjunction with the Earned Privilege Scheme and drug testing strategy.

There Should be a National System of Accredited Standards

Ten years ago there was a striking contrast between standards within prison establishments. Regrettably, the national system of accredited standards which I recommended to combat this has not been established. Mr Narey indicates the position is changing and points to the performance standards. However, in 1999\2000 the Service met less than half of its Key Performance Indicators which is hardly impressive.

Access to Sanitation

At the time of Strangeways, the humiliation and the degradation of slopping-out was the norm. A recommendation for integral sanitation was made. It was thought to have been completed in 1996. But four wings still do not possess it. In addition, in local prisons and remand centres, some healthcare and segregation units still rely on slopping-out. Why is this so? It was thought the wings were to be razed to the ground, as they deserve to be. Why has that not happened? The rise in prison numbers provides the answer. The size of the prison population has meant that the wings, which were intended to be closed because they were not worth modernising, have had to be retained. When is this shaming situation to change? No prospect in the short to medium term, but at least the Prison Service is seeking to provide 24-hour manual unlocking to provide access to sanitation on the wings. In addition, I am told the prison service is applying for funds to introduce sanitation in such healthcare and segregation cells as are capable of receiving it. In the meantime, the Chief Inspector found at Portland, a young offenders institution, to have slopping-out that had not ended in the induction and therapeutic wings. He concluded that the young offenders are forced to live in "disgraceful squalor" and in conditions described by the Governor as a "moral outrage".

Community Prisons

The next recommendation to which I turn remains important. It is that there should be Community Prisons. The object of this recommendation was that prisoners would be able to maintain better links with their families if they were imprisoned locally. Better links with families would assist in their return to the community. It would also help with obtaining employment and accommodation on release. In addition, it would mean that it would be easier to maintain continuity in links with the probation service both before and after release.

The facilities for visits have been improved in many establishments. Crèches are being provided for children (Kids VIP are to be congratulated) but Mr Narey recognises there has been limited progress. The Prison Service spends over £2 million pounds per annum on fares for family visits in order to mitigate the consequences of inmates being imprisoned at a place which is far from home. This is admirable, but the concept of the Community Prisons remains, according to Mr Narey, "a dream". I am afraid that he is right. This is the position not withstanding Home Office research which indicates that "good family ties can reduce a prisoner's risk of offending by six times".

I am told by the Prison Service that, in accordance with the Report:

• "where possible we aim to hold prisoners as close to their home community as possible"
• "where feasible a cluster of prisons should provide separate establishments for women, remand prisoners, young male offenders and adult men ".

However the reality is that of the approximately 65,000 prisoners, 26,000 are over 50 miles from their homes. 11,000 are over 100 miles from their home and 5,000 are over 150 miles from their homes. This is again a consequence of over crowding. Part of the problem is also the "nimby" factor. There is a real difficulty in obtaining planning permission for new prisons.

Mr Narey says rather wistfully "Nobody thought it a good idea to put three prisons on the Isle of Wight" and adds ominously that he does not rule out a fourth. The desirability of Community Prison is not in issue. I realised ten years ago that this was a long term project but the curse of over-crowding means the concept will remain theoretical for the foreseeable future. What is more, by building prisons in the wrong place, we are institutionalising inappropriate accommodation and the increasing expense of funding visits. However it is comforting that the Director General at least accepts that the concept of the community prison is a desirable goal.

I recently visited Wandsworth Prison. The Prison Inspector in his inimitable style gave Wandsworth a roasting in his report of 1998. The combination of the report and a new governor has proved to be a catalyst. Wandsworth has clearly changed its spots and it is a very different institution from the one it was at the time of the last inspection. It now has an excellent feel and I was very pleased to that the prison describes itself as a Community Prison. I was also delighted that the POA were supportive of the changes that were taking place in Winchester.

Prisons should be divided into small and secure units

In order to achieve greater security, I recommended that prisons should be divided into manageable units. This recommendation is being adopted in new prisons, and prisons such as Strangeways which have had to be rebuilt. But in existing prisons, the pressure to keep cells in use means limited progress. This is unfortunate, not only because keeping prisoners secure is an important responsibility of the Service, but also because security inspires confidence in the staff and inmates. Security is supportive of regimes. This is once again a worrying consequence of overcrowding.

Improved Standards Of Justice

At the time of Strangeways, justice stopped at the prison door. I regarded this as one of the worst aspects of the system. For the justice system to send people to prison where they would not be treated justly was intolerable. This is an area where it is claimed, with justification, that there has been substantial progress in implementing the reforms. There is now an Ombudsman (the present one being the admirable former Director of the Trust, Stephen Shaw). Boards of Visitors no longer have the disciplinary powers which I considered so inappropriate for a body responsible for being the public's "watch dog" within the prison. There is also now an established grievance procedure.

However, again Mr Narey acknowledges the situation is not what it should be. He recognises that the delay in the handling of grievances was in danger of bringing the whole exercise into disrepute. An ineffective grievance procedure is probably as bad as no procedure at all. However, the delays are now reducing. Lets hope they continue to do so.

In addition, I would like to see changes to the Ombudsman Scheme and to the Board of Visitors. There is an association of Ombudsmen of this country and Ireland. I have tried to persuade them to accept the Prison Ombudsman as a member but they have refused to do so. As I understand the position, the reason for this is that they do not accept that the structure of the Prison Ombudsman is sufficiently independent of the Home Office. There is a risk of this perception being shared by inmates. It is absolutely essential that the integrity of the Prison Ombudsman should be accepted. Any one who knows the present Ombudsman and his predecessor would not have an iota of doubt as to their integrity and fairness. But it would be an advantage if they were answerable to some person other than the Home Office. At the present time, the Cabinet Office is conducting a review into Ombudsmen. I have proposed that the prison Ombudsman should report, and be answerable, to the Central Government Ombudsman. The Boards of Visitors are still undervalued by the Home Office and the Prison Service. I am confident that all their contributions are already extremely valuable. They could be far more positive if they were given the support that they need. I recommended that their profile should be raised by the appointment of a president. This was not accepted. At that time, the Boards were not of all one mind. The proposal now has much stronger support. Ambov is wholly in favour. Some of the annual reports I see are excellent. However, if their contributions appear to be undervalued, this encourages under-performance. Good leadership could make all the difference. I would also like to see the Boards doing more to combat the ignorance of their role. What about enabling young lawyers and other interested individuals to spend a period working with a Board part-time? Both parties would benefit. I would hope that the Home Office would take the lead and allow some of its brightest high flyers to see what really happens in Prisons.

Remand Prisoners

I recommended a separate statement of purpose, separate conditions and generally a lower security categorisation for remand prisoners. This has not happened. The treatment of remand prisoners all too often means that they are at the bottom of the pack when they should be, as unconvicted prisoners, at the top of the pack. Because they are there for a short stay they tend to qualify for the poorest accommodation. I can not do better than cite Mr Narey as by way of illustration of the sorry position;

"although the population of remand has fallen very recently and there is some hope that this will be maintained, and although we now have performance standards for remand prisoners, conditions for most remand prisoners remain primitive."

Mr Narey also accepts that the education, drug and offending behaviour programmes have only been of marginal benefit to those on remand. Mr Narey provides no explanation for this state of affairs. This is a problem which is calling out to be tackled. I am afraid I have seen nothing to suggest that any real action has yet been planned.

Overcrowding

I leave to the last the problem of overcrowding. Prisons are there to house those sent to prison by the judiciary. They cannot turn away those who have been remanded or sentenced. The whole of my report, 10 years ago, was intended to encourage a culture where the scourge of overcrowding would not occur. We all know what has happened since then, especially the deeply disturbing figures as to women prisoners. My suggestion has been a total failure for two reasons, the first, it was not accepted, and second, even if it had been, it would have been insufficient to stem the flood. The proposal was that there should be a new prison rule that no establishment should hold more prisoners than provided for in its certified normal level of accommodation. Parliament who to be informed if, exceptionally, there was a material departure from that rule.

The Home Office's latest estimate of the cost involved in tackling the problem of the 6,000 additional places now needed is in excess of £195m per annum, assuming the prisons were built under the PFI scheme. This is after an unprecedented building programme. Some relief is already being provided. Two prisons are under construction which will provide 1,400 additional places. There are also plans to build 3 other prisons. As to the size of the prison population, the expectation is that it will continue to increase.

The overcrowding is not of course spread evenly around the system. The worst prison is 81% overcrowded and there are two others which are well over 70% overcrowded. How to deal with this chronic problem is a subject to which I will turn later but in my view it is the one feature of the prison system which must be tackled above all else.

The Impression Overall

I turn to my overall assessment of what has happened within the Prison system over the decade since I delivered the report?

The picture is certainly not all black. In almost every area covered by the report's recommendations there have been some improvements, and in many, the progress has been significant. The physical conditions inside prisons have been transformed. Slopping-out has virtually disappeared. Prisons are more just and more secure. There are telephones, television and better facilities for visits. Excellent work is being done with the involvement of prison officers to tackle drug abuse. The need for the different parts of the criminal justice system to work together has been recognised. Take Wandsworth, which I visited earlier this month. It was the subject of a damning report by the Chief Inspector in 1990. However within 12 months, new leadership meant I found it transformed from the establishment it was a decade ago. The prison staff were confident and the POA co-operative. No slashed peaked hats. Regimes and time out of cells were satisfactory. A drug free wing with extra privileges. There were many positive changes, including induction courses and an energetic programme of suicide prevention involving the Samaritans and listeners touring the prison. There are other prisons where the same report can be made.

Taking into account the need to cope with overcrowding, the prison service is entitled to at least one cheer and possibly two. The tragedy is that there was a prospect of doing so much more. We were on the way to creating a system of which the nation did not need to be ashamed and which would have made a positive contribution in the fight against crime. Judged against what should have been achieved, it has to be said that the picture is disappointing. There is no difficulty in identifying the causes of the shortcomings. They relate to management and above all overcrowding. It is to those subjects I now turn.

The Management Problems

While the successive Director Generals have certainly provided more visible leadership, there have been real problems over management. The problems have been linked to overcrowding and the stress this has placed on the system. This is demonstrated by the high level of governor and staff absence due to sickness: according to the president of the Prison Governors (Note 2) the sickness rate for governors "virtually doubled in the last year". The constant moving of the governing governors from one establishment to another due to the need for crisis management (four governors in less than four years at Feltham) tells its own story of management failure. The inability to make inroads on the high incidence of suicide. The failure to develop across the system innovative good practices and the inability to maintain regimes. There has also been a failure to tackle the remand problem, but I hope this is now high on the agenda. Nonetheless, undoubtedly there has been an improvement. I believe the Service is anxious to make further improvements and notwithstanding the problems, I am confident this will happen. There is no doubt of the commitment of the Service to improving the system.

Having to cope with an overcrowded system is compounding the problems with which management is faced. In addition, I have read the President of the PGA's description of the managerial climate as being characterised "by fear, blame and a sense of impending doom".

He put at least part of the blame on two things: the area management structure, introduced by the Service while I was still working on my report, and the fact that governing governors "do not feel trusted by Headquarters." It would not be appropriate for me to try to identify the cure for the management shortcomings but on the second point, I would repeat what the head of the Prison Service in Scotland illustrated to me at the time of Strangeways. He drew on a piece of paper two triangles, one with the apex at the top and the other with the apex at the bottom. The apex was the HQ and his message was that HQ should see itself at the bottom of the triangle supporting first the management and then the staff and not on the top of the triangle bearing down on management and staff.

Overcrowding

I come finally to overcrowding.

The present Director General described it as a "scourge". I have described it previously as a "cancer" but if an analogy with a disease is appropriate, and I think it is, then I would prefer to describe it as the aids virus of the Prison Service. I do so not to demonise aids but because the virus appears to have two features in common with overcrowding in our prison system. First, it debilitates the whole system. Secondly, we are still struggling to find a cure notwithstanding the expenditure of vast sums of money. It is because of overcrowding that we have still what Lord Hurd justifiably described as "sick nicks".

Overcrowding means prisoners are housed in unsatisfactory conditions. They are often miles away from their families so family ties suffer. (This is not withstanding the large sums paid out to subsidise the costs of visits). It means that programmes designed to reduce reconviction rates and prevent reoffending are neglected. Most important, it results in the spasmodic delivery of education. I again cite Mr Narey, the Director General. This year the budget on education has been increased but in the previous 2 years, it had been cut. It is now focused on literacy and numeracy. No one can complain about this since as Mr Narey points out 40, 000 prisoners, sixty five % of the prison population are ineligible for 96% of jobs. The position is even worse in some Young Offenders Institutions. Mr Narey cites Wetherby YOI, where 50% of the boys were excluded from school from the age of 13. However, should we be in a position where, in order to achieve what we need to, we have to cut other forms of education? Mr Narey confesses that he was almost lynched at Parkhurst by teachers who were enraged that he had shut down recreational classes.

My analogy with aids is not therefore an exaggeration of the scale of the problem. However you might think that the problem should be simple to resolve. All you need to do is stop sending more people to prison and build more prisons and then you obtain the equilibrium which should exist. Over the last decade, this has been tried. We have, at enormous long term expense, built or reopened 24 prisons. Half are already overcrowded. We are still planning even more prison building and also estimating an even larger prison population, though we already imprison more people than any country in Europe other than Portugal.

Let us remind ourselves of the figures, which are well known. After my report, the prison population reduced to close to 43,000 before embarking on a continuously rising scale. The decade saw an overall increase of 50%. In the case of women prisoners the figure doubled. The Home Office considers that most of this increase can be attributed to a change in sentencing by Crown Courts. However, custodial sentences imposed by magistrates have also risen. Over a third of women prisoners are in custody after their first conviction. The majority are young and have dependant children. Because of the overcrowding, education and probation contracts have been cut. Recent figures show that at Holloway, women inmates have only 9 hours purposeful activity each week (Note 3).

As to the future, the Home Office accepts that the figures are likely to rise. By 2007, the population is likely to be 78,000, with the female population going up by close to a further 50%. If this scenario proves anything like correct, not only are we still going to have overcrowding ten years from now, the cost of housing the population is going to soar. Today the annual cost of each prisoner is £25000 per annum: An extra 4 prisoners increases the cost to £100,000, 40 prisoners to £1m. 100 to £2.5 m, 1000 prisoners to £25m and for the 30,000 increase between 1991 and 2007, the cost rises to £750m. Do we think this a worthwhile expenditure, especially if the system is going to remain inefficient because it is over crowded?

What Should be Done About Overcrowding?

If, by itself, prison building is not going to provide a solution, is there anything else we can do to tackle overcrowding? Are there no signs of hope? In Germany, and possibly France as well, a simple solution was provided in the adoption by the judges of an agreed programme of reducing the length of sentences. Albeit the judiciary, including the magistracy, have been adopting a more punitive approach to sentencing over the last few years, I do not consider it would be acceptable to follow those examples. Quite apart from statutory mandatory and automatic sentences, the courts are subject to a well established sentencing framework set by the Court of Appeal. A radical adjustment of that framework in this jurisdiction should involve Parliament and should not be tackled by the courts alone.

This does not that mean there is nothing we can and should do. During the Strangeways Inquiry, the then Director General said it was his belief;

"that the life and work of the Prison Service have, for the last 20 years been distorted by the problems of overcrowding. That single factor has dominated prisoners' lives, it has produced often intolerable pressures on the staff, and as a consequence it has soured industrial relations. It has skewed managerial effort and it has diverted managerial effort away from positive developments. The removal of overcrowding is, in my view, an indispensable pre-condition of sustained and universal improvement in prison conditions."

That is still true to day if you substitute 30 years for 20 years. As a nation we cannot allow it to be the position for 40 years. We must be able to manage things better. As with aids, what may be efficacious is a cocktail of treatments. There will be many views as to what the cocktail should contain. My recipe does not contain any novel answers. I would regard them as obvious. The cocktail's credibility depends on the range of ingredients. I should also acknowledge that, the Prison Service, the Government and the Boards established by the Government are already seeking to supply most of the ingredients, so far as it is within their respective powers to do so. My treatment is also a long term remedy.

The combination of action I suggest for reducing overcrowding includes:

1. A programme designed to make it more difficult to commit crimes. The best deterrent for preventing crime is a high prospect of detection. This requires more intense policing and the encouragement of better protection for homes and attractive consumer items, especially mobile phones. The car industry has shown what they can do to make cars more secure and the mobile telephone manufacturers must recognise they have a similar responsibility to the public.
2. The numeracy and literacy deficit both inside and outside without the prison system has to be tackled. The beneficial effect of this on offending rates now appears to be proven.
3. The credibility and effectiveness of community sentences has to be increased. It should be generally accepted that any initiative to tackle offending that can be achieved in custody can be achieved even more effectively in the community. Judges and Magistrates already contend, with some justification, that they only use custody as a last resort. But offenders may receive custodial sentences because the judiciary does not believe there is any credible community alternative. What has to be realised (and I include the Government here) is that a short custodial sentence is a very poor alternative to a sentence to be served in the community. It is far more expensive than a community alternative. It places a disproportionately heavy burden on the Prison Service. It will do nothing to tackle the offenders behavioural problems. It should be regarded as being no more than a necessary evil whose primary purpose is to obtain compliance with court orders.

   Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions find it almost impossible to do anything constructive during a short sentence so they do nothing. The result is that a short sentence is a soft option. It is much more challenging for the offender to have to complete a community punishment.

   Restorative justice should be accepted as a more challenging method of disposal of offenders than a short sentence. Having to face up to the consequences of what you have done to your victim and to have do something for your victim is more likely to be constructive then lying on your cell bed for 3 months. The Government, in order to give credibility to community sentences, has introduced a variant on two strikes and you're out. Even in its modified form it is a retrograde step likely to increase the prison population. It would be preferable if a prisoner has to be punished for a breach that he should usually still have to finish his community sentence, though he may have to serve an additional punishment as well. There could be powers to remit the additional punishment if the community sentence is successfully completed.

4. More sentencing options have to be developed. The seamless sentence, which is served partly in custody and partly in the community, is such an option. The new detention and training sentence for young offenders is an example, though it appears to be increasing the use of custody. Would a training and detention order, where the detention only has to be served if the offender does not complete his or her training, be a viable option? The orders should not only be available for young offenders.
5. The reintroduction of offenders into the community must be better managed then at present. This requires more long term support then is currently available and closer co-operation between the Prison Service and the Probation Service. In particular, training or drug or offence related programmes, need to be able to be continued and matched in custody or in the community. This is essential if the cycle of imprisonment, release, further crime and longer imprisonment is to be broken.
6. The programmes tackling offending and drugs must be properly resourced.
7. The period prisoners are kept on remand should be reduced by building on what has already been achieved in bringing forward the date of trial.
8. The judiciary must play their part by reducing the use of custody to what is the acceptable and appropriate minimum. In particular, when a custodial sentence is necessary, the shortest sentence which is appropriate within the relevant sentencing bracket, should be imposed. Frequently, one month will achieve everything that can be achieved by 3 months, and 3months will achieve every thing that can by 6 months and so on.
9. The judiciary must be kept informed of the progress made by offenders on both the custodial and non-custodial sentences which they impose. They must concern themselves with what is happening within our prisons and visit regularly. With the aid of technology, when it is available, it should be possible to achieve this. In addition, it should become possible for the sentencing judge to have responsibility for any post-sentence orders, when this is desirable. The fact that an offender is aware that he will have to answer to the judge who imposed the original sentence could result in better compliance with the requirements of sentences.
10. Sufficient secure and semi-secure hospital accommodation should be available to enable those who need health care, rather than prison, to receive that care outside the prison system. They should not land up in prison because of the lack of any alternative, as happens all too often at present.
11. Prisons should not be used for the custody of those who are not being detained for criminal justice reasons. Wandsworth has recently had to provide a landing for asylum seekers. 500 asylum seekers are, I have been informed, to be accommodated in prisons. This adds to overcrowding and the burdens of the Prison Service. In Wandsworth, many of the asylum seekers did not speak English, I admired the cheerful way in which the staff were responding to the additional challenge, but this should not be necessary.
12. There should be a Board responsible for women in the criminal justice system. Its responsibilities in relation to women should be similar to that of the Youth Justice Board. It should regard its primary responsibility to be to contain the growth of the women prison population.
13. The Governments powers of compulsory purchase should be sufficiently wide to enable new prisons to be built where they are needed. I would prefer to see prisons closed rather than opened, but if new prisons are necessary, let's not construct them in locations which destroy family ties and make it difficult, if not impossible, to reintroduce the offender at the end of his sentence back into the community.

While I do not make any claims for the novelty of my recommendations, collectively they would undoubtedly reduce the prison population and at the same time result in more constructive sentencing. It will be noted that they do not call for shorter sentences for those who commit serious crimes. They are intended to reduce the population of prisoners who pose the least danger to society.

What would have a greater effect on overcrowding than anything that I can propose would be an announcement by the Government that it fully accepts the damaging effects of prison overcrowding and that it attaches highest priority to eliminating this problem? The Government could then set out a programme for containing the number of prisoners. The temptation to adopt a piece-meal approach would have to be resisted. For example in direct response to public sentiment, a number of initiatives to support the recruitment of more police officers have been introduced. An unintended effect of these initiatives has been to cause prison officers to seek to join the police to the disadvantage of the Prison Service.

With the overt support of the Government, what has not been achieved over 30 years could now be achieved. The money, which would be saved by a reduction in numbers once the programme started, would fund a downward spiral in prison numbers to replace the present upward spiral. The public would directly benefit from a diversion of resources into programmes to tackle offending and the closely related problems of education deficit and the culture of drug and alcohol abuse.

There could not be a better time for such an initiative for conquering the disease of overcrowding. The review of sentencing by John Halliday on behalf of the Home Service is about to report, as is Lord Justice Auld. The Judicial Training Board has the experience to take the programme forward with the judiciary. The recently established Sentencing Review Panel could take the policy into account in its advice to the judiciary on the level of sentences. Such a policy would also assist the Youth Training Board meet its objectives. An announcement would transform the moral of the Prison Service. It would make the whole of my report an historic document. It would enable me to give up talking about prison overcrowding, to the relief of a great many people who are present here this evening, who know so much more about prisons than I do.

Notes

1. Independent on Sunday 31 Dec 2000
2. Mike Newell, Ambov Winter 001
3. PRT "Justice for Women"

Please note that speeches published on this website reflect the individual judicial office-holder's personal views, unless otherwise stated. If you have any queries please contact the Judicial Communications Office.