
The prisons crisis demands a new era of reform
We have a prison population crisis that must be addressed urgently. Our prisons are close to being full (with 88,087 inmates) and the demand for places is growing faster than it is possible to build new cells. Unless action is taken to reduce demand in the next few months, we will either have to undertake a programme of emergency early releases or be unable to place new offenders in custody.
That was the bleak context when I was approached last September by the government to chair an independent review on sentencing policy, assisted by a panel of experts from across the criminal justice system. At the time, the expectation was that prison capacity would be reached in spring 2026. Since then, matters have become more acute as the prison population has risen even faster than anticipated. Last week, the Ministry of Justice revealed that the adult male estate will be full by November.
Considering the need for a precautionary buffer, by early 2028 demand for prison places needs to be reduced by 9,500 compared to current projections. There is no uncontentious way to do this, although some argue that there are two relatively easy ways of doing this.
The first is to deport foreign national offenders (FNOs), of whom there are approximately 10,800 in our prisons. More could be deported, it is argued. We agree and have set out proposals on how to do so. But claims that this can solve the problem entirely are unfortunately very wide of the mark. For a start, approximately a third of FNOs are on remand awaiting trial. For some nationalities, we have no functioning relationship with an FNO's home state, so they will not accept them back. Even where we can deport someone, unless we have a prisoner exchange agreement, there is no guarantee that an offender would be sent to prison in their home country. For serious offenders, it would be wrong for them to escape time in prison altogether.
The second suggestion is that if only we accelerated the courts process, we could reduce the remand population, which currently stands at over 17,000. Again, there is a very good case for reducing the courts backlog. Current waiting times are too long for defendants and complainants and doing so would reduce the remand population. But although some on remand will be acquitted or have already served their time, a large majority ultimately will be convicted and have more time to serve. Furthermore, tens of thousands of defendants are currently on bail. Some of those defendants will eventually be convicted and sentenced to prison. The point here is not that we should ignore the courts backlog (Brian Leveson will be reporting on this shortly), but that it is not the solution to the prison capacity crisis in the short term.
Instead, we have focused on what can make a significant difference to the numbers. The reoffending rates for those receiving short custodial sentences are very high. A better approach to continuing to use short sentences as frequently as we do would be to strengthen community sentences (both by widening the use of sanctions available to the courts and enhancing the capacity of the probation service) and only using short sentences in exceptional circumstances.
One area of the sentencing regime that works well is suspended sentences – compliance with conditions is relatively high and reoffending is relatively low. We recommend allowing them to be used more widely.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
For those who do go to prison, we need a change of approach. We recommend a progression model that means that well-behaving prisoners can be released earlier than is currently the case, but that there is also a second stage in the sentence where offenders are monitored much more closely in the community. Technology creates new opportunities to do that.
A significant cause of the surging prison population has been the increased use of recall, when an offender out on licence is returned to prison as a consequence of breaching the terms of that licence. In 1993, there were fewer than a hundred recalled prisoners and even in my time as justice secretary in 2018-19 it was just 6,000. There are now over 13,000. We recommend a fundamental reform of this system to ensure that recall is only used when necessary.
All of these measures should be sufficient to prevent our prisons from overflowing. But a successful long-term approach means they need to be accompanied by measures to ensure that we can adequately deal with offenders in the community.
The probation service, third sector organisations that assist in rehabilitation, drug and mental health treatment, and approved premises for ex-prisoners reintegrating into society are all vital to bring down reoffending and can be neglected if resources are diverted into supporting an ever larger prison population. In the longer term, the best way to reduce the prison population is to cut reoffending, and these areas can play an important part.
There is an opportunity to move in a more positive direction in which prison continues to play an important part in our system but that we make better use of the alternatives to custody, bringing down reoffending and reducing the number of victims. Necessity has created an opportunity to deliver important and meaningful reform. I hope it is an opportunity that the government will take.
David Gauke is the former justice secretary and chaired the government's independent sentencing review.
Related

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Statesman
15 hours ago
- New Statesman
The special relationship that wasn't
Photo by Tolga Akmen/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images What a week for Britain's 'special relationship'. Keir Starmer headed to Scotland to sit in near silence at a press conference with President Trump, as the US leader attacked implicitly or overtly his policies on energy and tax as well as tearing apart his 'friend' the mayor of London. Starmer delayed his announcement on the recognition of a Palestinian state until his visit was over. Unlike Macron, Starmer's declaration came with conditions attached, partly in the hope of staying as close as possible to Trump. Even now No 10 hopes to be a 'bridgehead' between the US and the countries recognising a Palestinian state. Starmer's moves are made with the US in mind. Why do so many prime ministers set such store by the so-called 'special relationship' with the US? They seek out the presidential embrace, while aware of the darkness that swamped their predecessors who did the same. One of the great posthumous commentators on contemporary politics is the former foreign secretary, Robin Cook – a figure with whom I suspect Starmer would have had considerable affinity in his former role as a human rights lawyer. In Cook's diaries, published in his book, The Point of Departure, the then cabinet minister exposed brilliantly the shallow evasiveness of the 'bridgehead' role: 'Tony Blair's favourite image of Britain's relationship with the US is that we are its bridge to Europe…The concept of a bridge is perfectly tailored for New Labour as a bridge cannot make choices, but by definition is in the middle'. The observation is illuminating on many levels. In some respects, Starmer has been unfairly criticised for lacking the clear sense of purpose and direction possessed by Blair on all fronts. It was Cook's view, at least, that Blair also avoided hard choices until he had to make them. At which point he went for the least daunting option. When he was forced to choose between Europe and the US over Iraq, he sided with President George Bush, with the full support of the Tory leadership and Conservative newspapers – his comfort zone. When the war went horribly wrong a lot of the fickle admirers turned on him. The special relationship did not lead to a comfort zone for Blair. It never does for British prime ministers. When Clement Attlee won in 1945 the country was broke and urgently needed huge investment in public services, as it does now. Attlee found a way of raising the cash by negotiating a loan with the US, Britain's recent wartime ally. The terms Attlee secured were brutally punitive for the UK and hugely beneficial to the US. It is the reason why Britain's change making Labour government lasted nowhere near as long as the Conservative's equivalent elected in 1979 – the toll taken on the economy was great, as Attlee and his colleagues addressed the huge costs of repaying the loan. A deeply divided Labour Party was in opposition for 13 years after losing the 1951 election. A main source of the division was Attlee's final attempts to reassure the US on its ambitions for defence spending. Attlee greatly increased expenditure on arms. The party split over the introduction of prescription charges to pay for some of the spending. Fast forward to now: what services will be hit as the current government meets its plans to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP, partly to please Trump? A few years after Attlee left No 10, Anthony Eden became the next prime minister to fall, partly over assumptions about the US. When Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser seized the Suez Canal, Eden's immediate instinct was to respond with force. He was a brief hero for the summer of 1956, as he outlined his plans for war. By the end of the summer President Dwight Eisenhower made it clear he would not back Eden. The British prime minister was taken aback but dared to hope for neutrality from his partner in Washington. Eisenhower was not neutral. He opposed the prime minister's military plan. The then chancellor, Harold Macmillan, also discovered that the US would hit the fragile British economy if Eden went ahead. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Without the US, he could not do so. He was gone by January of the following a year, a fall in some ways more dramatic than that of Liz Truss. Eden could not survive after his misplaced faith in the special relationship destroyed him. After this, British foreign policy became a little more realistic. Macmillan had seen first hand that the US could not be relied on. He sought and failed to join what was then the Common Market. In the 1960s, Harold Wilson also tried to sign up, again without success. But he demonstrated Britain could be independent of the US when he did not offer military support in Vietnam. President Lyndon B Johnson was furious, but Wilson held his ground. The current government's ministerial historian, Nick Thomas-Symonds, cites Wilson's decision as the bravest foreign policy move of any Labour prime minister. Wilson's successor, Edward Heath, was not remotely bothered by the special relationship, and instead negotiated Britain's membership of the Common Market. As with domestic policy, Margaret Thatcher changed all assumptions. Her friendship with President Ronald Reagan was part of her image as the Iron Lady, bestriding the world stage. In the 1980s Blair and Gordon Brown watched her on a TV screen in their cramped shared office as she was feted in Washington. In contrast their leader, Neil Kinnock, was treated dismissively when he made to the US. Blair concluded that a Labour leader could never win elections if at odds with a US president. The seeds of Iraq were sown in the 1980s. But there was a twist. When Thatcher turned to Reagan for support at the start of the Falklands War he hesitated. Even when the 'special relationship' was based on genuine rapport, Reagan did not deliver when Thatcher needed him. There are good reasons to want the special relationship to work. Intelligence sharing is of mutual interest. The US has agency and economic might as no other. When it is possible to work with presidents it is obviously best to do so. But why do so many prime ministers, with the exception of Macmillan, Wilson and Heath, become victims of their hunger to be at one with the US, whatever the circumstances and characters in the White House? Part of the answer lies in Britain's equivocal attitude to Europe. Another has to do with the sheer glamour as prime ministers head for the White House compared to, say, the hard grind of an EU summit. For Labour prime ministers being 'shoulder to shoulder' with a US president is a short term way of getting approval from right wing British newspapers. But they do not dare to see that the 'special relationship' traps them as they move knowingly towards their political incarceration. [See also: A Trump shaped elephant] Related


Scotsman
19 hours ago
- Scotsman
Government's sole focus is on ending horror and heartbreak in Gaza
Displaced Palestinians receive lentil soup at a food distribution point in Gaza City. Aid groups are warning of surging numbers of malnourished children in war-ravaged Gaza (Picture: OMAR AL-QATTAA/AFP via Getty Images) In recent days I've received considerable correspondence from constituents expressing horror and heartbreak at what is unfolding in Gaza. It's a horror and heartbreak we all share. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... What we are witnessing is harrowing beyond compare. This war must end and long before now. We desperately need aid to flow freely into Gaza, we need Hamas to unconditionally release the hostages, and we need to get a peace plan back on track, which recognises Palestine as part of a two state solution. You can't have a two state solution without two states! As the Prime Minister said this week, 'this is the moment for all to act'. On Tuesday, he announced an eight-point plan that includes the UK recognising a Palestinian state along with the French, in September, unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire, lets aid flow and takes substantive steps towards reviving a pathway to a two-state solution. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Our commitment to recognising the state of Palestine is long held. It was included in our election manifesto, which said that statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people, is not in the gift of any neighbour and is also essential to Israel's security. And there are conditions on terrorist organisation, Hamas, too to release all hostages unconditionally, accept and abide by the ceasefire, commit to peace talks and have no part in the future governance of Palestine. Recognising the state of Palestine will affirm the self-determination of two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, and will signify parity of esteem by the UK for both peoples. Importantly, it will sustain the prospect of two states with equal rights and mutual security, and long-term peace in the region. Israeli security and Palestinian statehood are not contradictory. In fact, the opposite is true: a sovereign Palestine is necessary for a safe and secure Israel. It's always been my view that recognition must come at a time when it will support the momentum of a peace process and be of maximum benefit. The judgement has never been whether to recognise or not, as we are firmly committed to the principle that statehood is an alienable right. Instead, the judgement is about when it has maximum benefit for peace. Considering the catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, the time has come to lever recognition for a ceasefire, aid and peace. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I'm under no illusions. Recognition alone will not change the situation on the ground and may not move the dial in the way we want to see, but it could bring a ceasefire. That's why we're also taking additional immediate steps to alleviate the humanitarian disaster, including coordinating air drops of aid alongside Jordan and UAE, evacuating injured children out of Gaza and into British hospitals, and pushing for a massive influx of aid. The UN has a plan to deliver aid at the necessary speed and volume, with mitigations against diversion; Israel must reopen the safe land routes so that it can get in. Right now, France and Saudi Arabia are convening an international conference on a two-state solution. UK ministers are attending the conference, and the UK will play its part alongside our allies and partners. This government will keep pushing for an immediate ceasefire to stop the bloodshed, the reopening of the land routes so the UN can send humanitarian aid into Gaza at speed and volume, and the immediate release of the hostages. Only diplomacy and a peace process can bring an end to this appalling war and that is the government's sole focus. Ian Murray is Labour MP for Edinburgh South and Secretary of State for Scotland


Scotsman
19 hours ago
- Scotsman
Labour government making things more difficult for all of us
The kind of white-collar jobs on which Edinburgh relies are the ones most vulnerable to the efficiencies AI can bring, says Sue Webber (Picture: Getty Images/iStockphoto) As a city councillor, I got very tired of hearing left wing councillors arguing that Edinburgh was a wealthy city which could tolerate all sorts of charges and taxes to fund their pet projects. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The result was the garden tax, low emission zones, extended residents' parking charges and above-inflation Council Tax rises culminating with this year's 8 per cent rise. Coming next year, hotels and guest houses are expected to collect the tourist tax. Recently we've also heard left wingers argue that all those families whose children attend private schools can easily afford 20 per cent VAT on their fees. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Anyone would think the magic money tree blossoms in Edinburgh, but earlier this week I attended a cross-party briefing organised by Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce which laid bare the concerns that local businesses have for the future. The most obvious is the ongoing impact of Labour's tax on jobs through higher employers' National Insurance contributions, responsible for redundancies in all sectors, and the clear message is it's going to get a lot worse later this year before it gets better. As a result, businesses are being ultra-cautious about recruitment and wage increases, and as usual the first budgets to be slashed are in marketing, which creates a vicious circle of fewer sales which only increases the pressure on employee numbers and salaries. Of course, much of this is a foreign language for too many politicians, and the Edinburgh Tourism Action Group has already flagged up the problems of foisting the tourism tax on businesses without the council carrying out the necessary preparation work businesses will need to make its introduction as smooth as possible. It will not be councillors or council officers with pound signs in their eyes who will bear the brunt of any confusion, but the businesses and their customers, and that could impact on repeat bookings next year. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Then there is the Labour Government's new Employment Rights Bill, with new rights for staff, which is causing widespread confusion and concern and is also likely to be a disincentive for recruitment because it will guarantee full employment rights for new staff from day one, even if they cannot do the job for which they have been hired. And all of this is before factors like global political instability and the technology revolution are considered. There is no more point employers worrying about what Vladimir Putin or President Xi are going to do next than the rest of us, but employers will have no choice but to meet the challenges of artificial intelligence (AI), something creative industries are already having to face, and which the Labour Government seems determined to address by making it easier for American tech giants to plunder material generated by creative industries here. But AI will impact on lawyers and software engineers too and the kind of white-collar jobs on which Edinburgh relies are the ones most vulnerable to the efficiencies AI can bring. There will, of course be opportunities too, but if anyone thinks that whatever prosperity we enjoy in Edinburgh can't disappear because it's a seat of law and government, has a spectacular castle and a big arts festival then they better think again. The old certainties are just that, old, and governments making things more difficult for businesses make things more difficult for us all. Sue Webber is a Scottish Conservative MSP for Lothian