Suspended judgement on the Government's prison policy

If David Cameron and Michael Gove are serious about being tough on the causes of crime, we should praise them

English and Welsh prisons are virtually full, and nearly half of adult prisoners reoffend within 12 months (Getty)

There was a time when the Conservative Party revelled in the stupidity and counter-productivity of its prison policy. It regarded a large prison population as a regrettable expense certainly, but essentially as the measure of a successful criminal justice policy. It thought the main purpose of prison was to make life as disagreeable as possible for inmates, and any concern about rehabilitation as soft social-worker talk.

In the distant past of eight months ago, the Tory Justice Secretary was someone who took pride in denying books to prisoners. We now live in more enlightened times. After the election, David Cameron replaced Chris Grayling with Michael Gove, a Justice Secretary who not only followed the advice of Jeremy Corbyn in cancelling a contract with Saudi Arabia but who seems to think that reducing the prison population would be a good thing.

As we report today, Mr Gove is looking at “problem-solving courts”, which would aim to keep low-level drug offenders and people with alcohol and mental health problems out of jail. Such courts would require offenders to undergo treatment and to report regularly on progress. They are precisely the kind of thing for which liberal prison reformers have been arguing since before the time when Edwina Currie waved a pair of handcuffs from the lectern to thunderous applause at Conservative Party conference.

Mr Gove’s only concession to his party’s authoritarian wing is to suggest he is copying an initiative tried in Texas, one of the most punitive states in a nation that locks up five times as many people for its size as we do. But the Texas system of “Star” courts is a surprisingly sensible and successful innovation that did reduce the prison population, even if progress has stalled in recent years.

We are also forced to admire the ingenuity with which an anonymous ally of Mr Gove co-opts traditional Tory ideology in support of the policy, telling this newspaper that “prison represents market failure and creates a bigger state”.

What is more, Mr Cameron is to back his Justice Secretary in a speech on Monday, in which he will address the causes of poverty, many of which, such as mental illness, addiction and poor parenting, are linked to offending.

These are admirable sentiments but, as John Rentoul points out, they do not come cheap. The Independent on Sunday has sometimes been impressed by Mr Cameron’s words, only to be disappointed by his actions. We thought his ambition to lead the “greenest government ever” – it was a low bar, after all – was credible at a time when he opposed Heathrow expansion and appeared to be serious about slowing climate change. But it turned out to be largely a cosmetic rebranding exercise.

Equally, we have praised the Prime Minister and Edward Timpson, the Minister for Children, for saying all the right things about making it easier for more people to adopt, and progress has been made, but it has slipped back. So now, if Mr Cameron and Mr Gove are serious about being tough on the causes of crime as well as tough on crime, we should praise them. And, if Mr Cameron really does want to improve the life chances of the poor as his legacy, we should encourage him even more.

However, there are many reasons for withholding the benefit of the doubt. Prison may be expensive, but an effective programme for keeping people out of jail would not offer savings in the short run. And Mr Cameron’s crusade against poverty is a curious priority from a prime minister who only last month merely postponed deep cuts to tax credits for the working poor.

On both prison reform and the wider anti-poverty policy, we should beware a government with a proven weakness for easy headlines and massaged figures.