A controversial appointment ... Jonathan Aitken. Photograph: Andrew Parsons/PA
I believe that prison can work. There is not a jail in England and Wales that does not have an education department, a gymnasium, a faith faculty and a core of staff, including prison officers, governors, probation officers and rehabilitation workers who are proud of what they do and determined, in spite of the odds being stacked against them, to make prison work in the best interests of society.
Sadly however our prisons are a national disgrace. The system is over populated, under resourced, and as an issue for wider society has been badly neglected and abused for far too long - one of the main reasons why the corrosive prison culture has been allowed to thrive unchecked. It is no wonder therefore that the failure rate in terms of re-offending by ex-prisoners within two years of release (anything between 65 and 80% depending on age and gender) is so high.
Since the 1990s when the current prisons crisis began, no government has been able to get to grips with it. Which is not surprising when it has been government figures, usually in the form of successive home secretaries who have upped the ante over the years with fearful and punitive rhetoric and have conveniently ignored the costly financial and social consequences of their words. The fact is, ever since the days of Winston Churchill, a genuine advocate of prison reform when he was Liberal home secretary, there has never been any serious political will to address the prison problem.
Until now, perhaps. Former leader of the Conservative party Iain Duncan-Smith heads up an independent policy group called the Centre for Social Justice. Ironic, some might say, given that one of his most influential predecessors famously said that there was "no such thing as society".
However I remember Duncan Smith during the two years he was in charge of the opposition. "The Quiet Man" he may have been, without guile or spin - and maybe he did lack a little on the charisma front - but I thought he came across as a genuinely good man, an inherently decent man. When he was ousted as leader after a vote of no confidence from his MPs I thought it said more about them than it did of him.
Accordingly it seemed perfectly in character that he should set up a thinktank to take a humane look at the problems in our society and try to come up with some reasoned solutions. In Breakthrough Britain, the report he published in July this year, the CSJ identified a number of factors which, it argued, appear to be contributing to the breakdown of large sections of our society. It is a formidable piece of work, well researched and intelligently laid out. The report received a mixed, though broadly supportive response from various agencies involved in social repair work and the Conservative party have deigned to use its recommendations to inform their policy formulation.
Given that prison is a large part of the social breakdown equation it was only a matter of time before the prison problem became the focus of Duncan Smith's attention. I'm pleased to hear it. I was also pleased when I heard that he had asked Jonathan Aitken, the former cabinet minister jailed for 18 months in 1999 following his meritless libel action against the Guardian, to take charge of the prison inquiry group. But dividing opinion as he does Aitken's was bound to be a controversial appointment. For some connected to his "Sword of Truth" charade, old wounds still fester.
Writing in last Sunday's Observer Peter Preston, editor of the Guardian when it broke the story that led to Aitken's downfall said, "If I were Duncan Smith I'd still keep a little distance." Although in fairness this was no ordinary libel action and no ordinary case of perjury. If Aitken had won, and he was a hair's breadth from doing so, it would have cost Preston his reputation and the Guardian millions - and who knows, the corrupt Aitken might yet be sitting high on a gilded echelon deep in the heart of public office. But he lost. And he went to prison.
First he was held in HMP Belmarsh, one of the most secure and grim prisons in the country, before moving to Stanford Hill, a bleak open jail on the Isle of Sheppey, Kent. Following the discovery of a plot by fellow prisoners to drug him and take compromising photographs he was moved to Elmley Cat C prison, also in Kent, from where he was released on an electronic tag in January 2000. A greater fall from grace would be hard to imagine.
Aitken claims that in prison he "rediscovered the Bible". Indeed over the years since his release he has become a popular and trusted figure among Christian communities. He has earned his living as a writer and a speaker and as far as I am aware has not attempted to cash in on his notoriety by appearing on quiz shows or novelty reality programmes in any misguided effort to curry public favour. (In his piece Preston suggested that Aitken would have done better to appear on I'm a Celebrity get me out of Here, before taking up his prison research position.)
I have met Jonathan Aitken on a number of occasions. He seems to me to be genuine in his interest and concern in prison reform issues. None of us can ever know what is truly inside a man's head or heart, but nothing in the way he has acted since his release from prison has made me inclined to mistrust him. Clearly he has accepted me in the same way, for last week he invited me to contribute to his prison research group and I agreed.
Now I wouldn't describe Jonathan Aitken as a special expert on prison life just because he spent a few months inside eight years ago. But his experience in government coupled with that prison experience makes him in my view the perfect candidate to head up this advisory body. At 65 he still has considerable presence and an impressive intellect and pertinently retains a government minister's ability to grasp facts and figures that he can articulate for popular consumption. But this time I feel he will be speaking from the heart.
Of his CSJ brief he says, "I don't regard this as any kind of Aitken comeback. I regard it as a job to be done and an assignment. This is something I can contribute to, not that this is some sort of ladder for me ... This isn't an ego trip for me. This is a job to be done."
In endorsing Aitken, Duncan Smith said, "Everybody deserves a second chance, that is the whole philosophy of the Centre for Social Justice. I am a profound believer in never writing people off. We are now using Jonathan's experience as a way of getting the most from him and him making a positive contribution to society ... Jonathan is steeped in the world of politics, he is steeped in the world of prisons. He can therefore travel quite lightly between the two"
It all makes perfect sense to me. What does not make sense is that following the furore which greeted the news of Aitken's appointment, in a fit of mind-boggling immaturity the Conservative party have announced an intention to launch their own "official" prisons inquiry, effectively by-passing Duncan Smith's admirable efforts.
On the other hand I suppose the more knowledge gained through such reviews, whoever undertakes them, the better informed the decision makers will be. Of course the Conservative party would have to be in power for any findings to be implemented. (Although New Labour could always take a peek.) In the meantime I, and the other members of the CSJ group will do our bit to help inform the decision makers, whoever ultimately they may be. The only really important thing here is that with well-researched and reliable authentic information to hand, when the time comes there will be no excuse for failure to decide responsibly.
