Education in Prisons (Hansard, 2 February 1983)

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of educational facilities in prisons and other custodial institutions; and for connected purposes. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure by law the development of a range of educational facilities in prisons so that prisoners may, according to their different needs, have the opportunity of experiencing to their betterment a purposeful and positive aspect of life. I speak as one who has regularly visited prisons and other penal establishments for more than 20 years.

The reality of imprisonment in 1983 is that we are allowing men and women to live in conditions that increase their disaffection and inadequacy. By doing that we increase the chances that when they are released they will fail to cope with the world outside and so return to prison. Present conditions in prison are helping to produce recidivism. I should be very wary of saying that on my own authority, for I know that I shall be accused of exaggeration. What I have just said is simply a summary of the analysis of the situation given by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in his report for 1981, which is the latest one available.

The factor in the present prison regime that is doing the damage is idleness and lack of occupation for the prisoner and stimulation for his mind. Lest I be accused of exaggeration, let me quote the words of the Chief Inspector of Prisons about what he found in several prisons: Prisoners locked up for 22 hours a day, or more, for days on end with nothing to do all day. About training prisons, he said: One training prison with a population of 745 had 200 men locked up in their cells all day because of lack of work. Some prisoners who were recorded as being at work were really idle. He said: Domestic work in particular was occupying so many at some establishments that there was very little for any individual to do. All that is verbatim quotation.

Ideally, of course, everybody would want thriving prison industries, offering a good day's work to the prisoner and some profit to the taxpayer to offset the cost of prisons. But, alas, this simply is not possible. There are too few orders. In 1981–82, out of a total of 305 prison workshops, 212 worked for less than half time or at less than half capacity. The chief inspector is too clear about this matter for comfort. He said: It may well be sensible to accept that production for sale must cease entirely until the market picks up". How can we occupy prisoners and prevent their descent into inadequacy and dependence if there is no industry? The only real alternative is education. The chief inspector states this just as clearly.

Let me deal at once with two arguments that will certainly be put against what I have said. The first is that prisoners do not really work at education—that it is a joke to them and an excuse to shirk and gossip. I have received many letters from ex-prisoners that tell me otherwise, and hon. Members may see them if they wish.

There is, however, more general and objective evidence—examination results. Good examination results are not achieved without hard work, and prison education departments get very good examination results indeed. I take one set of examinations at random—the City and 306 Guilds of London examinations. In 1978, nearly 1,000 students from prisons took those examinations and the pass rate was 88 per cent. I am told that it has been even better since. To say that prisoners do not work at education is against the evidence.

The second argument is that prisoners are sent to prison as a punishment, not to get qualifications. I should imagine that most people feel some sympathy with this argument, but what is our sensible course of action? Is it to continue to support the kind of imprisonment that will make it more likely that the criminal will continue in his criminal ways, or is it not only in his interests but in our own and those of society that he be improved? Our aim must be to offer him an avenue to better occupation so that he may live a more useful life.

If we want to rehabilitate an offender, one of the really difficult things is to break the bonds that tie him to the society of other criminals—to the criminal sub-culture. If we fail to do that, we have failed altogether. Prison strengthens those bonds. If shut up with other criminals, the prisoner talks and thinks crime and becomes more attached to crime.

Let me tell the House briefly by example about the writer of one of the letters that I have mentioned. A witness in the Strangers Gallery today will confirm what I say. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Order".] The writer was in prison with a history of violent crime. She had been on drugs and her child was in care. She knows herself that her old ways and her old friends had not lost their attraction for her, but through her interest in education classes she had formed other relationships, which she trusted, with her teachers. On the day of release she sought the help of one of her tutors.

As she walked through the prison gate, one of her old associates was waiting for her in a taxi with a "fix", but so was one of her tutors prepared to escort her back to her parents' home if she would go. She tells me in her letter that she did not make her choice without some hesitation. It was a case of pull devil, pull baker. Luckily, the new and better relationship won. She now has a job and has her child back. Had she not formed that new relationship, the old bonds would surely have pulled her back into the old ways.

I do not tell that story to extol the virtues of the tutor, though I might well do so. I would certainly say that every branch of the prison service has its share of humane and committed people. I am saying that through education in classes we have a context uniquely valuable in the prison setting for the prisoner to form relationships that will tie him or her to a better world than the world of crime.

Why do I ask the House to consider this subject at this particular time? The answer is twofold—the expense of the operation is alarming and the rate of increase of expenses even more so, and in return the taxpayer gets fewer of those services that might help the offender to rehabilitate himself.

The cost of keeping one prisoner in a training prison in 1978–79 was £12,000;, in 1979–80, £16,000 and in 1980–81, more than £19,000. What is the taxpayer getting in return in the form of services that might help the prisoner to rehabilitate himself? I again quote the words of the chief inspector: A rapidly diminishing possibility of access to recreational, educational and other facilities". 307 It must be said that in most prisons 80 per cent. of the prisoners return after release. Can we allow this leaping expense and diminishing hope of any usful outcome to continue?

This Government have given the surest proof of their concern for the prison situation. They have allocated a large sum of money to the building programme. I am grateful for the concern shown to me in the sympathetic reply that I received in an Adjournment debate in November 1980. I am also grateful for the time which, since that date, two other Ministers of State and the Home Secretary himself have generously given to advise me on this matter.

I am not suggesting an immediate increase in expenditure beyond the practicalities of the present time. I am asking the House to establish, with the authority of primary legislation, the position of education in prison, because it is the one activity in prisons that can quickly and cheaply be used to help solve one of our most intractable national problems—that of providing an effective role to take the criminal out of his criminality and into a useful life.