Cameron's "rehabilitation revolution" will struggle at a time of cuts

The PM's "tough and intelligent" approach is welcome. But it is hard to see it working when so many local services are being cut back.

David Cameron has today announced that he is to "put rocket boosters" under the coalition's payment by results approach to reducing reoffending. The biggest problem in penal policy is how we can reduce reoffending: the public have little time for politicians who are 'soft on crime' but they see little sense in prisons simply warehousing offenders if they come out just as or more likely to offend as when they went in. There was a danger that the departure of Ken Clarke in the reshuffle would have spelt the end of the government's focus on this critical area of systemic policy failure.

So there is much to welcome in the Prime Minister's "tough and intelligent approach". In particular, his pledge to address the fact that short stay offenders get little by way of rehabilitation and no probation support when they leave prison has created a 'revolving door' and a cycle of reoffending.

But there was little that was actually new in Cameron's speech. There are currently four prisons pilots at Doncaster, Leeds, High Down and Peterborough. The Peterborough pilot was set up by Labour. Other areas are running community-based payment by results pilots.  The coalition had already said that it wanted to see payment by results spread throughout the country by 2015.

There are two challenges that ministers must face up to if they are to make a real difference. First, rehabilitation costs in both the short to medium term. Rehabilitation requires investment in wrap around services, drug and alcohol programmes, and mental health services to provide people with the support to make a change in their lives. Yet the Ministry of Justice is facing massive cuts to its budget over the course of the current spending period. It is hard to see how a rehabilitation revolution can take off when so many local services are being cut back.

Second, we need to think about how to institutionalise a more effective and joined up approach to reducing reoffending in the long term. This is where there is a role for the new Police and Crime Commissioners. The "and crime" part of the title is important. It is plausible that at least part of the prison budget and some local prisons could be devolved to PCCs. They would then have an incentive to reduce reoffending because they would keep the savings from any fall in the local prison population. There are arguments about how much of a cash saving such 'justice reinvestment' mechanisms can yield, but the evidence from the United States where penal policy is locally administered is promising.

So the rehabilitation revolution appears to have survived the Clarke/Grayling transition. But it remains to be seen how powerful Cameron's rocket boosters actually are and whether this will produce the kind of step change we need in the offender management system.

Rick Muir is associate director at IPPR

David Cameron is escorted around the C wing of Wormwood Scrubs Prison earlier today. Photograph: Getty Images.

Rick Muir is director of the Police Foundation

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Michel Barnier is Britain's best friend, but the Brexiteers are too shallow to notice

The right's obsession with humilating a man who should be a great British asset is part of why negotiations are in a mess. 

Sam Coates of the Times has the inside track on what Theresa May is planning to say in her big speech in Florence tomorrow: a direct appeal to the leaders of the European Union’s member states over the head of Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s chief negotiator.

I explained some of the problems with this approach in my morning briefing earlier today, but just to reiterate: the major difficulty is that Barnier’s mandate as a negotiator hasn’t emerged fully formed from the mind of some scheming bureaucrat in the European Commissio, but after discussion and agreement by the heads of member states. There are problems with the EU approach to sequencing talks, but the chances of changing it by appealing to the people who set it in the first place seems unlikely, to put it mildly.  

Barnier seems to occupy a strange position in the demonology of right-wing Brexiteers, I suspect largely due to ignorance about how the EU works, and in some cases Francophobia. The reality is that Barnier is the single politician outside of the United Kingdom with the most to lose from a bad Brexit deal.

If the Brexit talks end badly, then that will be the first line of Barnier’s obituary. Back in his native France, the centre-right is in opposition and none of the candidates vying to lead the Republicans are are going to give him a big domestic job to save his reputation.

His dream of parlaying a successful turn as the EU27’s chief negotiator into running the Commission relies not only on the talks succeeding, but him cultivating a good relationship with the heads of government across the EU27. In other words: for Barnier to get what he wants, he needs both to secure a good deal and to keep to the objectives set for him by the heads of member states. A good deal for all sides is a great deal for Barnier. 

As a result, the Brexit elite ought to see Barnier as what he really is: their best friend on the other side of the table. Instead, they are indulging in fantasies about tricking Barnier, undermining Barnier, and overcoming Barnier. In short, once again, they are bungling Brexit because they don’t want to think about it or approach it seriously. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.