The scandalous costs of an inhumane policy
Given some of the clearly stated priorities of the government, which include keeping the public finances on a sound footing, reluctantly making cuts to the welfare benefits and foreign aid budgets to bolster defence in the light of international security threats, and bringing the UK into compliance with United Nations rulings (the agreement to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius), it seems perverse that it has failed to address an area of state spending that would tick all three of these boxes at once.
Add in the fact that, since last autumn, it has been implementing an emergency early release scheme to free up space in the country's prisons, and it is even less comprehensible why ministers have not moved to end the continuing scandal of prisoners left languishing on what are called Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms, which set no date for their release. Not only has the government not moved to any formal consideration of their plight – these prisoners are explicitly excluded from the early release scheme – but it has given scant sign of any serious interest in doing so.
Like its predecessors, this government has resisted calls to provide for the re-sentencing of the prisoners concerned, despite censure from the UN special rapporteur on torture. Nor has it earmarked any funds for the so-called IPP action plan, which is intended to help prepare these prisoners for release.
Yet the status of these prisoners is one that should not be tolerated in any law-governed state. Several thousand people are being held under legislation passed in 2005, when the then Labour government was responding to public concern about crime levels. The law permitting such sentences was repealed by the coalition government seven years later, but without retrospective effect. The result is that some 2,600 people remain incarcerated under a law that was judged unjust and inhumane and no longer applies.
We now have a situation where some prisoners are released after serving less than half their time, in order to reduce prison overcrowding, while others serving sentences for far lesser crimes still have no prospect of release. Among them are individuals whose only convictions are for thefts of mobile phones and laptops. That is not to say that such crimes, especially if committed repeatedly or with violence, should not be punished, including by jail time. But it defies justice that the time actually served by as many as 700 of these prisoners is now 10 years longer than the minimum term, and that some have served double the standard tariff for the particular offence.
The grounds given are that public safety is paramount and that the prisoners concerned have failed tests to show that they would be safe on release. But, as campaigners and families also argue, at least some of the reasons why they are considered unsafe may reflect the time they have spent in prison and the uncertainty that inevitably attends a sentence with no defined end.
The human costs here are incalculable. The cost to the Exchequer, on the other hand – and that means to all UK taxpayers – is all too calculable. As we reveal today, the total cost last year in respect of the 2,600 IPP inmates reached £145m. This comes on top of a bill estimated at £1.6bn bill for keeping IPP prisoners in the first 10 financial years after the law was repealed. This is a shocking sum in itself, given the current appeals to save money. But it is doubly so, since it was spent applying a type of sentence that was abolished as unjust and inhumane.
It cannot be beyond the wit of ministers to grasp that several of the government's priorities militate for changing this, and fast. Humanitarian, judicial and financial considerations all point in the same direction, with the bonus that several thousand prison places can potentially be freed up as well.
Yes, some extra funds may have to be directed to preparing long-confined and damaged prisoners for release and providing the support they may subsequently need. But this would be far less in the longer term than underwriting many more years in prison. Of all recent prime ministers, Sir Keir Starmer, with his past professional life as a human rights lawyer, must understand better than most that this is the right thing to do, for the sake of justice above all, but also for the sake of the public purse.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
39 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Abbott calls Starmer's immigration comments ‘fundamentally racist' at rally
Backbench Labour MP Diane Abbott has criticised Sir Keir Starmer's comments on immigration as 'fundamentally racist' at a protest rally, suggesting the Government was copying the rhetoric of Reform UK. Thousands of trade unionists, campaigners and activists gathered to 'send a message' to the Government at a demonstration over spending cuts and welfare reform in central London on Saturday. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ms Abbott were among those who gave speeches at the rally outside Downing Street following a march. Organisers The People's Assembly accused the Government of making spending cuts that target the poorest in society. The Prime Minister said the UK risked becoming 'an island of strangers' when he unveiled plans for tighter controls on immigration in a major speech last month, leading to a mixed reaction from different parties. Addressing the protest crowd in Whitehall, Ms Abbott – who was previously suspended by Labour in 2023 before being allowed to run in last year's general election – said there was an international struggle to 'fight the rich and the powerful (and) to fight the racists', including in her own party. The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP said: 'I was very disturbed to hear Keir Starmer on the subject of immigration. 'He talked about closing the book on a squalid chapter for our politics – immigrants represent a squalid chapter. 'He talked about how he thought immigration has done incalculable damage to this green and pleasant land, which, of course, is nonsense – immigrants built this land. 'And, finally, he said we risk becoming an island of strangers. 'I thought that was a fundamentally racist thing to say. It is contrary to Britain's history. 'My parents came to this country in the 50s. They were not strangers. They helped to build this country. 'I think Keir Starmer is quite wrong to say that the way that you beat Reform is to copy Reform.' Reform's leader Nigel Farage previously said his party 'very much enjoyed' Sir Keir's speech, as it showed he was 'learning a great deal' from them. Representatives from the National Education Union, Revolutionary Communist Party, Green Party and the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union could be seen at the demonstration's start point in Portland Place. The large crowd then set off towards Whitehall shortly before 1pm. Many of the protesters were holding placards that read 'Tax the rich, stop the cuts – welfare not warfare'. Other signs being held aloft said 'Nurses not nukes' and 'Cut war, not welfare'. Mr Corbyn, who also criticised Sir Keir's 'island of strangers' comments, told protesters at the rally: 'As the wars rage around the world – the killing fields in Ukraine and Russia, the abominable, deliberate starvation of children in Gaza and the genocide that's inflicted against the Palestinian people continues – surely to goodness we need a world of peace. 'We need a world of peace that will come through the vision of peace, the vision of disarmament and the vision of actually challenging the causes of war, which leads to the desperation and the refugee flows of today.' The Independent MP for Islington North urged protesters to 'go forward as a movement of hope, of what we can achieve together (and) the society we can build together'. The People's Assembly said trade unionists, health, disability, housing and welfare campaigners with community organisations came together for the protest under the slogan 'No to Austerity2.0'. A spokesperson said: 'The adherence to 'fiscal rules' traps us in a public service funding crisis, increasing poverty, worsening mental health and freezing public sector pay. 'Scrapping winter fuel payments, keeping the Tory two-child benefit cap, abandoning Waspi women, cutting £5 billion of welfare by limiting Pip and universal credit eligibility, and slashing UK foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP, while increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, are presented as 'tough choices'. 'Real tough choices would be for a Labour government to tax the rich and their hidden wealth, to fund public services, fair pay, investment in communities and the NHS.'
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Voters overwhelmingly back tax on wealthy to protect public services
A poll commissioned by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), found the public support tax increases on the wealthy and big businesses by a margin of almost two to one - 58% to 28% Voters overwhelmingly back taxing the wealthy more in order to protect public services, a new poll found today. The research, commissioned by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), found the public support tax increases on the wealthy and big businesses by a margin of almost two to one - 58% to 28%. And the number rises among people who switched their vote from the Tories to Labour in last year's election - where a mammoth 71% said they supported the idea, compared to 23% who did not. And Labour voters who are now strongly considering voting Reform also backed it by 61% to 32%. The new polling comes ahead of the Spending Review, which the TUC says can be the "next key step" in the government's plan to rebuild Britain and deliver industrial renewal. The TUC said the findings highlight the public's appetite for rebuilding public services - and suggested a "fairer" tax system should be part of plan. General Secretary Paul Nowak said: 'The Spending Review can be the next key step in the government's plan to rebuild Britain and deliver industrial renewal. 'Communities are still crying out for meaningful change after more than a decade of Tory austerity and neglect. 'That's why the government must stay on track – building on the positive start it made at last year's Budget by providing sustained funding for our public services and infrastructure. 'The global outlook is challenging, but leaving our decimated public services without sufficient investment would risk both future growth and public trust." The poll also found nearly 6 in 10 voters - 59% - believe the wealthiest don't pay their fare share. And a clear majority - 56% - said big businesses don't pay their fare share. More than two thirds (67%) said there were too many tax loopholes that could be exploited by the wealthy. Asked how more could be raised from the richest, two thirds backed an annual wealth tax on estates over £10 million. Some 63% backed a windfall tax on banks, and half said they supported increasing capital gains tax - the tax people pay on the profits from selling assets like property. 'The message from voters is clear," Mr Nowak said. "They want the government to protect and rebuild our public services. 'If that means asking the wealthiest to pay more, the public are behind it. People are fed up with a system where those with the broadest shoulders don't pull their weight.' Pollsters Hold Sway surveyed 2000 adults in Great Britain online between 30 May and 2 June.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to.
