The Home Secretary has on several occasions made no secret of his impatience with, and even anger towards judges sentencing habits, famously suggesting that the public might think some of them had "lost their marbles".
He may well be feeling that his brand new Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, is suffering the same problem, after it emerged that Mr Macdonald had used the word "grotesque" to describe the likely impact of proposed new sentences for murder on the prison population.
In the minutes of a Parliamentary legal Group meeting in July, just before his appointment, Mr Macdonald also suggested that Government prison policy is being driven by headlines, rather than the demands of justice.
Kirsty Wark spoke to Lord Corbett, Chairman of the Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group and Dr David Green, Director of Civitas.
KIRSTY WARK:
Lord
Corbett, you were there.
You heard Ken Macdonald's
words. We had Lord Justice
Woolf talking about
sentencing and now the
incoming DPP, though of
course at the time he was
not that. What impact does
all that have?
LORD CORBETT
CHAIRMAN, PARLIAMENTARY
PENAL AFFAIRS GROUP:
I think - there is a huge
debate going on. We are
heading for 115,000 people
in prison. We already have
the highest rate of
imprisonment of any of our
European neighbours. There
ought to be a debate about
this. A lot of money is
being spent. The taxpayer
is getting less and less
for it. That is my concern.
KIRSTY WARK:
I can imagine David
Blunkett's face when he
heard about this?
DR DAVID GREEN
DIRECTOR, CIVITAS:
Well, it's a little
unusual, I guess, for the
Director of Public
Prosecutions to be
squeamish about putting
people in prison.
KIRSTY WARK:
When he addressed Lord
Corbett's group he was
speaking as Chair of the
Criminal Bar Association.
Nevertheless, appointing
someone who very clearly is
at odds with the central
plank of your policy can't
be easy for the Home
Secretary?
DR DAVID GREEN:
No, I don't think it can
be. I don't think there is
really any good reason, if
you look at the evidence, I
don't think Mr MacDonald
has based his conclusions
on what we know to be true.
You only have to look at
the experience in America,
which he seems to regard
with something close to
contempt, what the
Americans have done since
the early 80s is increased
the number of people in
prison radically. They had
something like 400,000
people in prison, in 1980.
They nearly have 2 million
now. Crime has come down
dramatically, there is no
getting away from that. He
doesn't seem to be aware of
that.
LORD CORBETT:
We have less crime than we
had ten years ago. We have
more people in prison. Ten
years ago about one in
every 26 defendants used to
get sent to prison. It's
now 1-13. That is not
because the courts are
doing less work. What is
happened, the courts are
giving longer sentences.
They are giving stupid
sentences as well. 59 in
every 100 people sent to
prison are back in within
two years. With under 21s
it's 74 in every 100. This
is why I say the tax payer
is getting a poor
deal out of it. It it's money
down the drain. There are
other ways of doing it.
KIRSTY WARK:
The Criminal Justice Bill
David Blunkett says is
putting the sense back into
sentencing. But clearly
that is not what Ken
MacDonald thinks.
LORD CORBETT:
What the argument is about,
there are some people who
have to be sent to prison
for the safety of the
public. Everyone accepts
that. It's the other lot.
The huge increase in those
sent to prison when there
is a whole range of
community punishments which
do work. When they are
properly financed and
target and people selected
properly are much more
successful than locking
people up, where four out
of five who get sentences
for under a year. No
sentence planning or
probation supervision. It's
money down the drain.
DR DAVID GREEN:
You are saying that
community sentences work.
But in what sense do they
work? If you take - the
usual measure is the
reconviction rate after two
years.
LORD CORBETT:
They are no worse, many are
much better.
DR DAVID GREEN:
The official measure of
reconviction states that
what is called the
incarceration effect of
prison, meaning if you are
prison you can't steal
people's cars and break
into houses. The clock
starts ticking when you
leave prison and it starts
ticking at the beginning of
the sentence. Prison is
more effective.
KIRSTY WARK:
I want to bring you on to
the point that Ken
MacDonald is making, you
talk about sentencing for
people who should not be in
the community. Clearly
murderers should not be out
in the community, but what
he seems to be saying is
that the three-tier system
for murder sentencing, as
it were, for being imposed
would not work and have an
impact on the prison
population. At that level
he seems to think there is a
difference. That judges
should be given more
discretion, which is
clearly not what David Blunkett
wants?
DR DAVID GREEN:
I entirely agree with David
Blunkett here. Judges seem
to think that there is some
kind - they have some kind
of right - they have some
right of total control over
sentencing.
LORD CORBETT:
They listen to the
evidence. You and I don't
listen to the evidence.
DR DAVID GREEN:
The important point of
this, among free people we
are entitled to make our
own laws. We make the rules
we live by. Parliament must
be paramount in determining
what the law of the land
is. That includes setting
maximum and minimum
punishments. Otherwise
judges are exercising...
LORD CORBETT:
Judges and courts need
discretion. The argument
should be about what are we
getting for the money we
get for putting into
the criminal justice
system. Can we get better?
And the answer is yes and
we can do that by sending
fewer people to prison and
stand a much better chance
then of cutting the re-
offending rates, that is
what it should be about.
KIRSTY WARK:
Thank you very much indeed.
And the Home Office didn't
want to put anyone up for
interview but certainly Ken
MacDonald has now said that
obviously, as a senior
civil servant he won't be
making any more comments
like the ones he made to
the Penal Affairs Group.
This transcript was produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.