IT’S broadly accepted the criminal justice system in the UK is in a mess.

Only this summer, as hundreds of people were appearing before the courts in relation to civil unrest, the Government announced it was allowing the release of prisoners – on licence – who had served just 40% of their sentence.

So how could we address this problem?

Before we get to that, let’s put some figures out there to bring some context to this debate.

A report to the House of Commons in September said more than 88,500 people were behind bars, while the prison system had a capacity of 89,619. So it was full, basically.

Another report detailed how the UK has highest prison population per capita in western Europe.

Official figures also showed the prison population in England and Wales has more than doubled in recent decades, from around 40,000 in the early 1990s to more than 80,000 in 2018 – and rising.

So, despite popular belief (and the beliefs of national newspaper editors, which so often seem to be completely wrong, I find), we put a lot of people in prison. And it’s an expensive business, costing around £50,000 per prisoner, per year – a total of around £3.8 billion each year of our money.

Meanwhile, the ever-lasting debate over the effectiveness of prison rumbles on.

For example, Government statistics showed a proven reoffending rate (from January to March 2022) of some 25.5% – meaning more than a quarter of criminals go on to reoffend, which I’m sure we would agree is pretty shocking, though perhaps not surprising.

It’s clear prison is not working – certainly not for a quarter of those who commit crimes, or for the society which endures them.

So let’s come back to the question – how can we address this problem?

A number of debates have raged over how best to approach the range of problems caused by jailing people, and how to tackle the reoffending problem.

Currently, it is clear we are sending a lot of people to prison, and that many of them are reoffending.

So, first up, jailing people…

In 2019, then-Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary David Gauke – who was Tory MP for South West Hertfordshire and a solicitor – proposed something radical.

During a speech he said: “In the last five years, just over a quarter of a million custodial sentences have been given to offenders for six months or less; over 300,000 sentences were for 12 months or less.

“But nearly two-thirds of those offenders go on to commit a further crime within a year of being released. Twenty-seven per cent of all reoffending is committed by people who have served short sentences of 12 months or less.

“For the offenders completing these short sentences whose lives are destabilised, and for society which incurs a heavy financial and social cost, prison simply isn’t working.”

The statistics, he argued, put forward a “strong case to abolish sentences of six months or less altogether, with some closely defined exceptions, and put in their place, a robust community order regime”.

Former ministers David Gauke, left, and Rory Stewart, right, advocated abolishing many short sentences

Mr Gauke, going against a long-established political grain (everyone vying to be the one who is tougher on crime), had raised the possibility of doing away with short-term prison sentences.

This, predictably enough, did not play well politically. Newspapers – and the MPs who crave their approval – do not like to appear ‘soft on crime’, which changes to sentencing (unless they are being increased) are always spun as, particularly by opposition parties.

Not long after that speech, in March 2019, Ellie Reeves (Labour, Lewisham West and East Dulwich) led a Commons debate about the cost and effectiveness of prison sentences of under 12 months.

She said short sentences often resulted in limited access to education, work, and offending behaviour programmes for prisoners.

And as well as Labour support, Mr Gauke also had backing from his Prisons Minister at the time – Rory Stewart – who said short jail sentences were “long enough to damage you and not long enough to heal you”.

Estimates at the time said the abolishing of short-term sentences could cut the prison population by around 3,500.

“You bring somebody in for three or four weeks, they lose their house, their job, their family, their reputation,” Mr Stewart told The Telegraph.

“They come (into prison), they meet a lot of interesting characters – to put it politely – and then you whap them on to the streets again.

“The public are safer if we have a good community sentence and it will relieve a lot of pressure on prisons.”

However, fears over newspaper front pages screaming about ministers being ‘soft on crime’ (that phrase again), meant Gauke and Stewart’s idea never made it into any kind of proposed legislation and the debate disappeared.

But should it have?

UK prisons are at – or near – capacity as the number of people behind bars continues to rise

As the summer showed, our prison system is on the brink. Numbers have skyrocketed, and people are being released early to free up space.

And a large number of people sent to prison are simply reoffending.

Things clearly can’t go on as they are.

Indeed, just last week, it was reported the new Labour Government is also looking at potentially scrapping many short sentences to counter some of the problems in our prisons system – and could even tap up Mr Gauke to help draw up the plans.

And I think we have the chance to provide one potential solution for two big problems…

As well as being told our criminal justice system is failing, we are also told time and again how UK firms are struggling to recruit people.

From July to September this year, the ONS (Office for National Statistics) said there were around 841,000 job vacancies in the UK. That’s more than three quarters of a million roles available. Three quarters of a million.

More than 100,000 of those vacancies were in wholesale and retail trade and vehicle repairs; 95,000 in accommodation and food services; 55,000 in administrative and support services; 149,000 in human health and social work.

The government’s own ‘skilled worker’ visa list allows people to come to the UK to work in welding, boat and ship building, stonemasonry, bricklaying, roofing and more.

Could there be a way to improve the chronic overcrowding problem in our prison system while filling – or training people to fill – some of these vacancies?

I think so. And here’s how it could work…

Numerous studies have shown a link between unemployment rates and rises in certain crimes – violent and non-violent.

So, should we be thinking of a way to combine the efforts to tackle the number of vacancies in the UK job market (filling roles that need to be filled), and reducing the number of people in our overcrowded prisons who are serving short sentences?

A potential plan could be to somehow work employment into sentencing – giving magistrates the option of offering defendants what I’ve catchily dubbed an Employment Sentence – where defendants are sentenced to a spell behind bars BUT are also offered the chance to work instead.

For example, an unemployed person before a magistrates court who is convicted, or pleads guilty to, a charge of say, shoplifting, could be offered an Employment Sentence, such as:
* A prison sentence of up to 12 months (which a magistrate can hand out)
OR
* An Employment Sentence option, which means they must complete paid employment in a role on an approved vacancy list for a period of six/12 months

Instead of simply sending this person to prison, they are instead offered the chance of a job, a wage – and an opportunity to turn their life around.

Should the defendant take the Employment Sentence option they would know, as part of that sentence, should circumstances occur where they would ‘lose’ their job – they commit gross misconduct, negligence, or don’t show up for work etc – they would be taken to jail to serve their initial prison sentence.

Meanwhile, should they choose the Employment Sentence and complete their work obligation (hopefully securing permanent employment as a result), their record is cleared, their sentence served.

I like to think of it as the ‘Jail or Job’ initiative. (I can see that on the front of the Express, can’t you?)

It’s not forced labour, as the defendant could choose not to work and serve their prison sentence instead. Employment rights and laws would apply (although the legislation might have to allow for certain differences, like people quitting because they don’t like it, for example, but we can iron that out).

Those accepting the sentence would also have to be assigned a suitable role. Yes, it might cost a bit of money – but hey, we’ve got £50,000 a year in prison costs to play with – and in the long run it should save us, while boosting the economy and improving these people’s lives.

So eventually, it would pay for itself, as well as being a ‘good thing’ for the people involved, and the country.

But who would employ these folks?

Well, in some cases, companies already are, sort of.

Timpsons – known across the country as a cobbler and key-cutting retailer – famously runs a number of Prison Training Academies.

The academies, in prisons themselves, see prisoners offered the chance to undertake vocational training while behind bars, giving them a better chance at securing work when they are release – often with the retailer itself.

Keir Starmer’s Labour Government appointed James Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending

Recent governments too have cottoned on to something in this realm.

The Going Forward into Employment (GFiE) Life Chance Scheme is operating – giving people the chance to get int work or training, as is the Probation Employment Pathway (PEP) Scheme, doing similar.

Around 200 employers have taken part in the government schemes, with employment rates among prison leavers rising from April 2022 to May 2023 to around 19% in work within six weeks of release, according to figures from Rishi Sunak’s Government.

Such systems increase employment rates among ex-offenders, which – if the evidence is believed – should result in a lower reoffending rate and a lower crime rate overall.

And James Timpson – who has overseen much of these schemes for the retailer – has now been appointed as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, so may well be looking at something like this (or not, if it’s a terrible idea!).

However, the current employment-help schemes are not introduced before the ‘punishment’ phase of sentencing – as the Employment Sentence could be – which is where I see it really working.

I can’t tell you the number of times I sat in a magistrates court (covering it, not because I was up before the beak), wondering how any of what was happening was going to either change the life of the defendant, or society, for the better. It appeared to me to be a conveyor belt of fines, of means testing forms, and repeat offenders.

So why not bring the offer of support into employment into the criminal justice system as early as possible – at the sentencing stage?

To boost the number of employers willing to take part in the scheme, the government could offer incentives – tax breaks for companies involved, or subsidies for salaries (much like apprenticeships), for example.

This might encourage firms struggling to recruit to gamble on someone on an Employment Sentence – because they don’t have to take a huge risk – and potentially secure a valuable employee filling a long-standing vacancy.

Through an Employment Sentencing scheme, a number of issues are potential addressed:
* Reoffending rates
* Unemployment rates among offenders
* Labour shortages in key areas and the resultant impact on the economy
* The cost to the economy of unemployed offenders/prisoners
* The cost and overcrowding in the UK prison system

An Employment Sentencing initiative could, in my view, provide a range of benefits in all these areas.

We have jobs that need filling, people are struggling to find work, unemployment is causing crime, the prison population is spiralling out of control – and up to a quarter of prisoners go on to reoffend.

Employment Sentences could help those involved, as well as our economy, which we are forever told we must see grow.

David Gauke and Rory Stewart, Ellie Reeves and others were right in 2019, and they are right now; Short sentences do not work, for the offender or society.

And our politicians need to communicate why.

Part of their strategy in doing so could come through Employment Sentences – (call it the ‘Job or Jail scheme’ on the telly, minister). It is far easier to explain why someone is not going to prison if they are instead choosing to take a job that so badly needs doing.

We can all see there are jobs that need to be done in the private and public sectors.

This is a chance to fill them – and get people into work.

An Employment Sentence would still be a punishment, as the defendant is not working prior to their conviction, perhaps doesn’t want to, and has never wanted to, for myriad reasons.

However, they would be required to report for work, through fear of imprisonment should they fail to do so. You don’t turn up, you go to jail, effectively.

Hopefully, this will help them overcome any potential fears or insecurities that have previously prevented them pursuing work (it’s not always the case someone is workshy, no matter what the newspapers tell you) and once they are in that job, they might well forge themselves a career, as they will be required to stuck at it, to turn up, to get into the habit of working, of earning, which will improve their lives and the lives of their families.

It would provide an opportunity to pursue a form of practical rehabilitation, which has got to be better than just throwing someone in prison for six months (probably less), at huge expense to the taxpayer and potentially, to society. Hasn’t it?

I think Employment Sentences (or the Job or Jail Scheme for the PR savvy) are worth a look.

Do you agree? Or have I lost my mind and this represents some sort of authoritarian, right-wing madness? Let me know what you think by emailing paul@blackmorevale.net – all I ask is that you keep it someone civil. Thanks!

PAUL JONES
Editor in Chief

READ MORE: OPINION: ‘Please, boomer, stop telling us how hard you had it…’
READ MORE: OPINION: ‘Why Liz Truss would be the perfect next Tory leader’
READ MORE: OPINION: ‘I’m not angry Prime Minister, I’m just disappointed’