Which way will Ken Clarke turn on prison policy?

Although Ken Clarke has signalled a more sensible prison policy , the direction it actually takes is one of the remaining uncertainties of the new government. Will the traditional Conservative belief that "prison works" prevail over the more liberal instincts and evidence-based approach of their coalition partners? Or will the cuts in public spending extend to the planned prison building programme and require a reverse in a policy that has seen the prison population almost double since Clarke last had responsibility for it in 1992-3? Perhaps surprisingly, an analysis of prison numbers since the war shows they have on average risen twice as much under Labour administrations as Tory ones. The periods that have seen a decline in prison populations have been under Conservative rather than Labour home secretaries. But Clarke's record is difficult to read. When he entered the Home Office after the 1992 general election, he disliked the "just deserts" approach of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act carefully put together by his Tory predecessors to restrain the use of imprisonment. A few months after its implementation, he reversed many of the provisions limiting the courts' discretion to impose custody – famously rebuffing Lib Dem Robert Maclennan by asking him to go away, lie down in a dark room, keep taking the tablets and think carefully about whether his party had an opinion one way or the other on the merits of Clarke's new proposals. Clarke also introduced controversial secure training centres for children as young as 12 and enthusiastically propounded the role of private sector in running prisons. He was sceptical, too, about academic research, preferring common sense. He told the Commons in 1993 that the best research was the result of talking to chief constables, magistrates and judges, and being told how powerless the courts felt. On the other hand, he has maintained a reputation as a social liberal – in part because of comparisons with his successor Michael Howard , but also because of his consistent opposition to the extension of powers to detain terrorist suspects. In his new post Clarke has already suggested that there might be a reduction in the use of short prison sentences, sending an important message to the sentencing review that his department will be undertaking. But while reducing the 50,000-odd people who flow into our prisons each year on the shortest sentences will be welcome, it will do little on its own to dent the need for prison places, as these inmates represent only 10% of the daily prison population. More radical and controversial measures will be needed: to reduce sentences, amend the indeterminate sentence of prison for public protection and reverse on the one hand the decline in paroling rates and on the other the increasing numbers who breach community supervision and are recalled to prison. This could be done by transferring some of the resources earmarked for prison expansion into strengthening community infrastructure for responding to people in conflict with the law. There are a variety of technical measures that can reduce the number of candidates for custody. But for these to work, there is a need for political leadership to emphasise that prison should be used as a last resort and for the shortest possible time. David Cameron cut his teeth as Michael Howard's special adviser, but in Clarke he has appointed one of the few politicians who could chart a very different course from Howard's.