Who's been eating HIS porridge?

Too many people are getting Legal Aid, says the Tory Shadow Justice Minister Damian Green. He popped up on various radio shows recently claiming that the explosion in Legal Aid expenditure was because of people being encouraged by the Human Rights Act to mount appeals and challenges that were just not “worthwhile”.

Mr Green is of course an expert on the legal system, having recently had his collar felt by Inspector Knacker of the Yard when he was arrested for the supposed offence of “grooming the mole” over Home Office leaks. Sadly, it looks as though his direct experience of the prison system will stop there, and he will not be expected to sew mailbags, eat porridge, or be known as “Brenda” in the showers by a homicidal “lifer” from Lewisham.

It is the assumptions behind Mr Green’s statement that I find potentially disturbing. As I understand it, you are either entitled to Legal Aid or you aren’t, and the idea of a politician deciding what is or isn’t a “worthwhile” use of Legal Aid is not only incredibly arrogant but also, if followed through to its logical conclusion, incredibly dangerous. And the poor old Human Rights Act is getting it from all sides, with Jack Straw wanting to dilute it and replace it with an official list of things he says it’s OK to do, as well. All I can say is, if both Damian Green and Jack Straw are against the Human Rights Act, well that settles it, I’m all for it.

The way I understand Legal Aid, as well, is that there isn’t a set budget, a “pot” of money, after which there is no more. To hear Mr Green you would think that you went to see your solicitor and he says, “I’d like to help you with Legal Aid, Mr Bloggs, but unfortunately Nosher Briggs in Parkhurst has used up the extra budget for 2009 in a completely quixotic and vexatious action under the Human Rights Act.” I can’t believe it works like that.

On one fact, at least, Mr Green is correct. There are a lot more people in prison now than there were ten years ago. More prisoners = more appeals, and more appeals = more Legal Aid. It’s not exactly rocket science. Prisons are full to bursting and the only solution we’re being offered is to build more of them. But is there another way?

When you look at it, there are a lot of people in prison for relatively minor offences, people who just should not be there. At the same time, it is readily acknowledged that there are lots of things in society at large that need doing, and the armed forces are suffering what seems to be an almost permanent crisis of recruitment. I’d like to explore solving all of those problems by bringing them together into one solution.

It has long been Bolshy Party Policy that, apart from the basic defence of the UK, the armed forces should serve as a sort of auxiliary civil defence organisation. We don’t actually have a civil defence organisation in the UK as such, which is why we struggle with the emergency services augmented by the Army, Navy and RAF when we have to deal with extreme weather events, such as flooding.

Within the prison population are large numbers of able-bodied males (and females) whom the taxpayer is currently supporting to stay in their cells and stare at the walls all day. I’m not talking about letting axe-murderers and child molesters out on licence to fill sandbags, but rather something along these lines. A certain range of “non-lethal” offences should be selected. Then, say you are convicted of one of these offences and you get four years. Currently you could expect to be out in two. My proposal is that after you have served a year, you become eligible for consideration for the Civil Defence Scheme. In conjunction with the armed forces, you learn about civil defence techniques and, under careful supervision, eventually progress, while being trained in useful skills, to actually, eventually, being allowed to participate in “real” civil defence work. If at any time during this period you do anything against the rules of the scheme, you forfeit all your remaining remission and privileges and you go back into the slammer for what remains of your full original sentence.

That way, when there is a national emergency, such as the flooding, there will be a readily available pool of labour to help the hard-pressed emergency services and the army. The vast numbers of people who are currently clogging up the prison system to no useful end will be providing some valuable service in return for their drain on the taxpayer’s purse, and gaining some skills, training and self-esteem along the way. One would also like to hope that their skills might help them find a job. Perhaps the next step could be a “bridge”, via the Territorial Army, into the forces proper, if they prove themselves.

Critics of this idea will say, of course (if they are Conservative) that it is far too liberal and smacks of sending offenders off on white-water rafting weekends, whereas liberal critics will see it as being too harsh, one step away from the chain gang and Cool Hand Luke. If it does attract criticism of this sort, from all sides, I will view that as a hopeful sign that I am on the right track.