Prison reform should be free of partisan political control and Robinson threats

The First Minister Peter Robinson seems to think that throwing his toys out of the pram is the way to go to enable an inclusive prison service in  Northern Ireland. The issue arose in the debate on the Prison Review: Final Report at Stormont yesterday. The thing that seems to concern him most is the issue of the emblems used by the Northern Ireland Prison Service and most noticeably on the sign for the prisons themselves.

The Justice Minister, David Ford made remarks in his summation particularly in response to Jim Allister of Traditional Unionist Voice who had earlier said:

We also know that the reform of policing involved a name change. Are we going to have a name change of the prisons? Are they no longer going to be Her Majesty’s prisons? Perhaps the Minister, in replying, will confirm to us most robustly that that will not happen. I will listen with interest to see whether he does. Like the reform of policing, is the badge of the Prison Service to be changed? Is the crown to go? Let us hear from the Minister a robust denial that that will be any part of the agenda. When we read that the reform of the Prison Service must be like the reform of policing, alarm bells ring very loudly indeed. We wait with interest to see whether that is part of the machinations that are afoot.

The Minister's response to that particular issue and the interruption is recorded in Hansard as follows:

Mr Ford: Jim Allister referred to some extent to symbols and titles as they apply to the Prison Service. Those are operational issues for the Prison Service, but I believe that if NIPS is serious about fundamental and end-to-end structural and cultural reform, it cannot fail to consider the symbols and emblems that are visible signs of the organisation’s culture and focus. That is one of a range of operational issues that I will be expecting NIPS to consider as part of the change process over the coming months. NIPS has to deliver a transformation of its culture and it cannot move forward unless it addresses those sorts of issues along with others relating to staffing and estates, and so on.
Mr Allister: So that we are absolutely clear, is the Minister saying that he anticipates an end to our prisons being called “Her Majesty’s prisons” and that he anticipates an end to the crown being part of the symbol of the Prison Service? Will he be clear on that? If he is saying those things, I want to tell him that there are many in the unionist community who will be appalled at the direction in which he is taking us.
Mr Ford: I think that it is a pity that we are getting hung up on symbols. It is the only issue that anybody has wanted to intervene on during my speech this afternoon. I said that we are looking at a process of fundamental and end-to-end reform that will affect every part of the working of the Prison Service and its culture. In those circumstances, although these issues are operational matters for the Prison Service, it has to consider them as it looks for the appropriate way to run in the years ahead.

It was indeed rather telling that people who talk the talk of being inclusive (Mr Allister excepted) decided that symbols were so important, with the First Minister deciding today that he is even prepared to resign over the issue and force an election.

This ignores the fact that as can been seen at the top the Northern Ireland Prison Service already have adopted a post-devolution emblem that doesn't include the crown or the Queen's moniker. This isn't a new issue as the emblems have been moving forward anyway. Of course when the RUC (GC) was rebranded as the PSNI this all took place before policing and justice was devolved. But I turn once again to The Belfast Agreement which contains the following statement on policing and justice (emphasis mine):

The participants believe it essential that policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system, which conforms with human rights norms. The participants also believe that those structures and arrangements must be capable of maintaining law and order including responding effectively to crime and to any terrorist threat and to public order problems. A police service which cannot do so will fail to win public confidence and acceptance. They believe that any such structures and arrangements should be capable of delivering a policing service, in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels, and with the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility, consistent with the foregoing principles. These arrangements should be based on principles of protection of human rights and professional integrity and should be unambiguously accepted and actively supported by the entire community.

We as a country need to acknowledge that some of the clinging to past emblems and structures is partisan politics, is not going to he acceptable to the entire community. It does not mean that we totally forget the past, but that we move on to a future that is truly shared.

Maybe it is time for Mr Robinson to get this into perspective and look at the main thrust of the final report and the crux of the issues that prison reforms need in Northern Ireland rather than focus on the cosmetics.

Prisioners and the Ballot Box

The opening paragraph of the preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution states (emphasis mine):

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

So therefore the fact that for the first time since 1870* that prisoners are to get the right to vote restored in the UK, is enshrined in our party constitution. The resultant change is not being brought about solely by the good nature of the new Government but as a result of a 2005 ruling the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It was sort of there in our manifesto under the coverall line

"Ensure that everyone has the same protections under the law by protecting the Human Rights Act"

Everyone having the same protections should include the right for everyone to have the right to decide who makes those laws.

No doubt the Daily Fail will be up in arms about this, but the prison population that will be affected by the change in this law is only 70,000 people. Assuming that they will each be entitled to vote in the address where they were last resident, rather than where they are detained, it comes to an average of 117 votes per each of the proposed 600 constituencies.

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said a "historic decision to enfranchise serving prisoners" would bring to an end the "archaic punishment of civic death". She said:

"In a modern prison system you would expect prisoners to have rights and responsibilities and politicians to take an active interest in their constituency prisons. People are sent to prison to lose their liberty not their identity."

While each country has the right under the ECHR ruling to decide what offences would carry voting restrictions, rather than the blanket ban that exists as present. If we believe in a restorative prison system, then surely we must believe that anyone serving a conviction no matter for what crime may serve a useful role in society at some point. Even some of those that are serving life sentences without any hope of remand may still be restored and serving useful functions within the walls of their confinement, passing on lessons in whatever way is possible to others that re-offending is not the way to go.

I'm glad to be a member of a party that enshrines the right of the individual. That stands up for each and every one of the citizens of the UK. While standing up for the rights of some individuals may seem hard and a tough thing to do at times, it is important that the rights of all are defended. Of course course imprisonment of some is required for the greater good to society as a whole, but those convicted are still individual citizens.

* The Forfeiture Act (1870) upheld in the Representation of the People Act (1983)

It Works! What the Tories Aren't Telling You About Lib Dem Crime Policy

The Tories say they are going to scrutinise Liberal Democrat policy but oops for a party that presents its manifesto like a hymnal it is taking lines out of it without context to what is around it.

Take for example the current line of attack on seeking non-custodial sentencing for less than six month sentences, which they are currently attacking us on. You would think that is all we have to say on that. Well you are wrong it doesn't even include the other part of that policy statement let alone other compatible parts of the crime policies.

Here is that full policy statement:

• Introduce a presumption against short-term sentences of less than six months - replaced with rigorously enforced community sentences which evidence shows are better at cutting re-offending.

So it will cut re-offending saving court costs and supervision costs of dealing with the re-offenders sentences. Also it will cost less to start with as there won't be the prison costs. Also there is only a presumption against short term sentences, it doesn't rule them out for example in certain areas of crime that the Tories are going cock a hoop over or in the case of serial offenders.

Looking at compatible other measure for petty crime (which is what the short term sentences are for) we also have these policy statement.

• Give people a direct say in how petty criminals and those who engage in anti-social behaviour are punished by setting up Neighbourhood Justice Panel (NJPs), like the one run by Liberal Democrats in Somerset where 95 of offenders have been turned away from further crimes.
  
• Champion restorative justice programmes, like NJPs, which make offenders confront their behaviour and are more successful at reducing crime than the traditional forms of punishment.

Oh yeah and here's something regarding that prison reform it brings about savings.

• 2011-2 £795m
• 2012-3 £735m
• 2013-4 £675m
• 2014-5 £845m

So altogether these policies regarding the petty crimes in our society will cut re-offending, cut costs and rehabilitate offenders. All good reasons for voters to vote Liberal Democrat.

European Human Rights Concerns Over 42 Day Detention

The Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has said that holding suspects without charge for 42 days in inadequately equipped police cells is a "considerable concern". They have after visiting the high security police cells at Paddington Green called for such suspects to be transferred to prison for further detention.

So now not only would a suspect be considered guilty until proven innocent they may also be innocent and detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure because the police are incapable of providing pre-charge facilities up to the task of long term detention. The cells at Paddington Green the prime centre for detention and questioning of terror suspect while passed as clean by the CPT, were "a very austere environment" with "minimal access to natural light" and limited exercise facilities.

Aside from the fact that we now have one of the most draconian terror suspect detention without charge regimes in the world, we are also not able to cope with the maximum period Labour legislated to detain people for adequately, assuming innocence until proven otherwise. After the 14 day period now elapses these suspects will find themselves housed in prisons.