ConservativeHome's 100policies

Thomas Bridge: Foreign permanent residents to clear through EU immigration

Thomas Bridge was born in England but raised in Ireland.  He currently works in IT in the City of London, and lives in Brentwood with his wife and three month old son.

> Policy summary

Currently, on arrival in the UK from a foreign country (other than the Republic of Ireland) there are two queues to clear immigration. One for British and EU nationals, and the other for foreign nationals. Under this policy, foreign nationals who have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom would be allowed to clear immigration through the British and EU nationals queue.

> Policy explanation

A number of countries outside the European Union allow permanent residents to clear immigration through the queue designed for their nationals - for example the US immigration desks have "US and Canadian Nationals and Green Card Holders" and Singapore allows Permanent Residents to clear through the Singapore Nationals queue.

Foreign nationals who have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom often choose not to take British citizenship - there are various reasons for this, including the implications for citizenship of the country they were born in.  However, indefinite leave to remain is usually granted after working in the UK for five years, a period of time during which they make their own contribution to British society, both in terms of their work and their taxes (many foreign nationals work in the NHS for instance).  Many even have the right to vote in British elections, being Commonwealth nationals.

It is expected that foreign nationals with indefinite leave to remain have already had their applications scrutinised by a government body - there is no real need for them to undergo the same strict screening processes that apply to foreign nationals visiting the UK for any reason.

It is also the case that usually it is quicker to clear the British and EU nationals queue in airports on arrival in the UK - this is because the check usually consists of confirming the passport is the right nationality and doing a photographic match.  Allowing our permanent foreign residents to clear this queue would allow them to clear immigration more quickly, and would be no more complicated than
clearing EU nationals through this queue.

> Political risks and opportunities

This would allow the Conservatives to demonstrate that we are not anti-foreigner (or even anti-immigration) and provide a useful rebuttal to the charges of "little Englander" while showing those foreign nationals who are permanent residents that we value their contribution to our society.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Should requirements for foreign nationals to be granted indefinite leave to remain be changed?
• Should the right to vote be extended to all foreign nationals with indefinite leave to remain, or should it just remain restricted to Commonwealth and Irish citizens?
• What ways could we encourage foreign nationals to become more integrated into our society, so that their children can identify as British if raised in this country?

> Costs

There should be no significant costs associated with this proposal - this in effect simply moves a subset of foreign nationals into a different queue at immigration so they can be dealt with more quickly.

Victoria Borwick: Police officers should not usually patrol in pairs

Victoria Borwick is a Councillor in Kensington & Chelsea, and is running to be the candidate for London Mayor.

> Policy summary

Proximity policing to strengthen the fight against crime. Police should walk their local beat within sight of, but not alongside, another officer. Although this idea is aimed at London, it is applicable to any major city. 

> Policy explanation

Police are needed on the streets to prevent crime and to catch criminals. Their presence has one other vital effect to reassure the public. Their physical presence gives them the opportunity to get to know the neighbourhood, and who lives and works there.  A local bobby who lives and works in an area, and is known and trusted by his community is a more effective officer.  Police on the streets not only cut crime, but also cut the fear of crime.

Community policing is most effective when a group of officers are responsible for a particular patch. By operating singly – and not in pairs – they can cover a wider area and engage more directly with the public, be they shopkeepers, tradesmen, residents, or passers-by. Human nature being what it is – if they walk down the street together, they will tend to talk to one another and not the people who can tell them what is really going on.  Proximity policing means that they can be close enough to give each other support in a crisis such as when making an arrest or catching a mugger red-handed but still gather the information essential to good intelligence.

To quote the police adage:  “We don’t solve crimes, people tell us who did it.” To get people to tell the police what is going on, they have to know and trust the police. This means that people have to be able to talk to the police routinely, not just after a drama.

This is not an approach for new or untrained policemen, nor one for dealing with crime scenes, violence and riots. It is the right way of dealing with day to day prevention of crime and long term community policing. 

> Political Risks and Opportunities

The political risk is low. The opportunity exists to reduce crime, reduce the fear of crime, and to reinforce the reputation of the Conservative Party as the party of law and order.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

In London we have seen an increase in police numbers, but that is not the same throughout the country where we have continued to see the closure of local police stations, police stations not manned overnight, and crime rising in quiet country towns because of the reduction in manpower.

Alan Drew: Double the number of prison places

Alan Drew is a lecturer and research physicist at a Swiss university. He has recently begun a project to push forward the agenda that prisons work on the website www.prisonworks.org.

> Policy summary

Increasing the likelihood of being caught and incarcerated reduces crime. Doubling the number of prison places will allow the policy of early release to cease, and encourage the criminal justice system to incarcerate criminals guilty of serious crime more often and for longer.

> Policy explanation

The U.S. robbery rate was nearly double England and Wales' rate in 1981, but in 1995 the English and Welsh robbery rate was 1.4 times America's.

The U.S. burglary rate was more than double England and Wales' rate in 1981, but in 1995 the English and Welsh burglary rate was nearly double America's.

The U.S. rape rate was 17 times England and Wales’ rate in 1981 but 3 times in 1996.

The U.S. murder rate was 8.7 times England and Wales' in 1981 but 5.7 times in 1996.

Between 1981 and 1996 we find that, on average, US crime rates have reduced significantly but English crime rates have increased. So what’s going on?

Two of the four main factors of the reduction in US crime are increased police numbers and a rising prison population, with increasing prison numbers accounting for 27% of the overall reduction in crime. The total US prison population grew from 123 prisoners per 100,000 people in 1980, to 400 in 1996. In 1996, we imprisoned just 102 per 100,000.

Indeed, despite the rhetoric about short-sharp-shocks, during the 1980s the Tory Government pursued an overall anti-prison policy. The prison population was actually cut by nearly 10% between 1988 and 1993, even with a rocketing crime rate. The crime rate reached an historic peak soon after and towards the end of 1993 the policy was reversed by Home Secretary, Michael Howard. Within 2 years of reversing the anti-prison policy, Michael Howard witnessed a sharp reduction in crime rates. In his own words, “prison works”.

There tends to be the argument that the UK is a country with a high population of prisoners, yet we still have a relatively high crime rate. Despite this misleading rhetoric produced by the anti-prison lobby, our prison population is not large in comparison to other European countries. Yes - we have a large absolute prison population - but this is small compared to the number of crimes. Comparing absolute numbers of prisoners is a very misleading way of representing the statistics.

Even now, with an expanding prison population courtesy of Mr. Blair’s administration, just 12 people are imprisoned for every 1,000 recorded crimes. In Spain, the number is 48. Spain's crime rate is roughly one quarter of ours.

Prisons are not perfect: they are next to useless if we have an ineffective, inefficient police force; reoffending rates are tremendously high, although in a lot of cases lower than non-custodial sentences; prisons mop up the failures of the care and education system; and there is a large drug problem in our prisons.

These issues need to be addressed. But prisons do one thing – and do one thing well – they reduce crime. And that has to be the first and foremost criminal justice policy. This policy is simple: in the first term of government, the Conservative Party must double the number of prison places.

One final point – increasing the number of prison places has other, less obvious effects. As a whole, the prison system has been overcrowded every year since 1994, although they are considered safe. At the end of January 2006, 53% of prisons were overcrowded. Overcrowding has significant effects on the whole of the criminal justice system. For example, as a direct result of overcrowding, an increasing number of prisoners are being held a significant distance from their home towns. This costs the taxpayer millions of pounds in transportation costs and in delays to the criminal justice system, as a result of late arrivals for court appearances. It also jeopardises family relationships and the chances of successful re-integration back into the community on release; two of the most important factors in reducing re-offending.

So not only will doubling prison places reduce crime directly, it will reduce it indirectly, by increasing the effectiveness of the prisons we already have.

> Political risks and opportunities

The Conservative Party is traditionally the party of law and order - there was a time when people looked to the Conservative party for ‘tougher’ action on crime. Let us not forget our roots – we must keep the public’s faith in our party to deliver lower crime rates and a fairer society. But we must be careful – we must ensure that we don’t fall foul of the classic Labour attack. They will want to brand us as unchanged and they will want to bring back memories of past glories, and failures. So not only must we build more prisons, we must make them work better.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

61% of all prisoners released in 2001 were reconvicted within two years. How do we address this?

Almost a third or prisoners spent time as children in care and the prison population as a whole has a frighteningly high rate of mental illness. How should the prison service deal with this? Is it the job of the prison service to deal with it?

> Costs

The anti-prison lobby often cite how expensive prisons are, as an argument against building more of them. However, they fail to take into account the cost of crime in their calculations. Doubling the number of prison places would cost around £7bn, yet in 2000, the Home Office estimated the cost of crime at £60bn. Taking inflation into account, that's £3,000 pa for every household. Considering the average wage is only £18,961 (median) or £23,400 (mean), that accounts for a 16 pence (median) or 13 pence (mean) increase in income tax. And it would only take a little over a 10% reduction in crime, from double the number of prisoners, to make the project self-funding.

Robert McIlveen: Legalise prostitution

Robert McIlveen lives in Sheffield and is doing his PhD there on the Conservative party, its organisation and electoral strategy.

> Policy Summary

Prostitution should be legalised under a regulatory framework with the aims of hampering the trade in trafficked women, improving public health and cutting off an income source for organised crime.

> Policy Explanation

There are an estimated 80,000 prostitutes working in the UK, with large numbers of women trafficked from abroad and effectively enslaved. While prostitution itself is technically legal, advertising, soliciting and other aspects of it are not. While this policy does not necessarily imply approval of prostitution itself, a pragmatic policy offers benefits. Bringing in licensing and regulation, something Conservatives would usually seek to reduce, has been done in several other countries, such as the Netherlands and Germany, which seek to protect the women and men working as prostitutes while hitting traffickers, pimps and kerb-crawlers. This policy views many sex workers as victims of crime, and by regularising the ‘industry’ to alleviate this.

The scheme should involve the registration of prostitutes, licensing of brothels (with suitable caveats about location, hours etc up to local councils) and regular health checks on prostitutes, with condom use mandatory. STD infections are sky-high in this country at present, with unprotected sex with prostitutes becoming more common, especially with trafficked and enslaved women.

Combining the regularisation of prostitution with a crackdown on pimps, traffickers and kerb-crawlers would mean that we could attack prostitution as a source of income for organised crime and more effectively tackle human trafficking.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

The obvious risk is that most Conservatives will instinctively oppose ‘condoning’ prostitution. There would also be condemnation from some feminist groups. A typical response would be that we should crack down on prostitution, not encourage it. These  would have to be countered by arguments from pragmatism and principle. Pragmatically, prostitution has always existed, including in much less tolerant states than our own. Ending it is impossible, so making the best of an unfortunate reality is the right thing to do. From a Gordon Brown perspective, it would also bring in tax revenue, although this is very much a side-benefit. Legalising prostitution would enable the police to focus on the more important criminals behind the industry, including those involved in child prostitution, rather than its principal victims and enable prostitutes to access legal and employment rights they are currently denied. Paying national insurance an receiving targeted health checks are among the positive benefits for the workers.

The opportunities in this are less obvious, but real. This is not the sort of thing the public would expect from the Conservatives, in much the same vein as IDS’s Centre for Social Justice  would counterbalance traditional Tory themes on Law and Order without contradicting them. This policy represents an attractive blend of compassion and pragmatism with a moral virtue of liberating victims of enslavement. If adopted it is defensible both in terms of pragmatism and principle.

As a policy it might have something of the Liberal Democrat conference floor about it, yet this perhaps is a positive. If we can demonstrate our caring compassionate side on an unlikely subject we will grab the attention of voters who have convinced themselves that we do not care about the vulnerable in society and change their minds. Taking the hard edge off the party has been a core achievement of David Cameron since his leadership: this would be an extension of that attitude.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• How can we counter a Daily Mail style condemnation of this idea?
• Can we sell a policy on pragmatism alone?
• Legally, what would a regulatory framework look like?

> Costs

Bureaucracy costs money, but in this case tax revenues would also increase, probably producing a small net gain for the Exchequer.

David Davies: Prisoners should serve full sentences

David Davies is MP for Monmouth.

> Policy summary

All prisoners to serve in full the sentence handed down to them in the courts.

> Policy explanation

It is well known that few prisoners serve the sentences that they are given in court, but most people are unaware of how lenient the system actually is.

Most prisoners are automatically released half way through their sentences. Many are released on a tag prior to the half way point being reached. A criminal sentenced to four years imprisonment can be released after just over one year and seven months. A prisoner given a two year sentence may be released after just over seven months behind bars. Those who are not automatically released half way through their sentences will usually be successful in gaining early release by a parole board.

The term “life imprisonment” is completely meaningless. Over 50 prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment since 2000 have already been released. Some of these “lifers” served less than 18 months behind bars.

Under this proposal all forms of early release would end. There would be no automatic early release, no tagging, and the parole boards would be disbanded. Prisoners would serve their sentences to the day.

> Political risks and opportunities

Risk: Prison discipline would deteriorate.

Response: Prison governors use a range of carrots and sticks to maintain discipline – moving prisoners between different prisons, on different regimes, and allocating better or worse jobs.

Risk: If judges know that sentences will be served in full they may simply compensate by reducing the sentence they give.

Response: This could happen but at least we the public would know exactly how sentencing operates and if sentences are too lenient the government of the day will be put under pressure to find ways of increasing them.

Opportunity: People are angry. In South Wales last month, a child rapist was released early from prison only to recommit the same offence. This policy would prevent many such offences from taking place, make our streets safer, deter habitual criminals and restore some much needed public confidence in our system of justice.

> Costs

The intention of this policy is to ensure that criminals spend longer in prison. In the short term there would be a significant cost. More prisons would need to be built, more prison staff taken on. It might be necessary to gain their support and cooperation by giving prison officers a rise in pay.

These costs will not be as high as they appear. By keeping people in prison large numbers of crimes will be prevented. There is a significant cost to investigating these crimes, bringing defendants to court and paying their legal fees. There is also a financial cost to the victims which is passed on to us all via the insurance companies. In addition it should be remembered that many prisoners, on leaving prison go straight on to benefits, therefore the real cost to the government of keeping people in prison is less than it first appears.

In the long term this policy could actually lead to a reduction in prison numbers and therefore costs. Sentences are so lenient at present that they offer no deterrent to hardened criminals. Increasing the length of sentences served could act as a deterrent and reduce the number of people willing to take the risk of committing crime.

However in thinking about financial costs we should also remember the cost in human misery paid by those many people, including young children, who have been raped murdered or seriously injured by criminals on early release from prison. We can prevent crimes like this from being carried out by prisoners on early release, and I would be happy to pay to do so.

Louise Bagshawe: "To make forced marriage illegal."

Louise Bagshawe is the author of eight bestselling novels and is on the Party's priority list.

> Policy summary

To make forced marriage illegal.

> Policy explanation

The Labour establishment is currently displaying contempt for the rights of women. Their quangoes have suggested reduced penalties for rape because "prison is tougher", and allowing domestic violence abusers to receive lesser sentences if they merely express remorse in front of a judge. As part of this depressing pattern, Labour recently announced that forced marriage would stay legal in Britain. The Times reported that between 2003-5, 518 forced marriages were recorded in London and in 2005 alone more than 140 in Bradford. Victims have been killed, abused and maimed for refusing.

Baroness Scotland has been the point person on Labour's appalling refusal to protect young, vulnerable British women in the name of cultural sensitivity. Commander Steve Allen of the Metropolitan Police stated that this decision has already been taken, to his knowledge, by some groups as meaning that forced marriage is now approved.

Forced marriage and arranged marriage are not the same thing. It's important to be clear that Islam does not permit a woman to be forced into marriage against her will, and to make this vile practise a crime is not an attack on any religion. But real British girls are really dying. The majority of victims are aged between 16-20. And of course, if a woman marries solely out of fear and is made to set up home with a man she does not choose, then forced marriage becomes forced rape - multiple times. If Labour will not stand up for them, we should make sure that the Tories will.

> Political risks and opportunities

Some - and I emphasise some - Muslim groups have expressed the view that such a law might scapegoat their community. Many other Muslims, however, stand strongly against forced marriage. For example, Nafir Azal, a Crown Prosecution Service Director in London, stated "Forced marriage in Islam is no marriage at all." He supports a ban. The party would have to be careful to emphasize that the ban would be aimed solely at protecting victims and not at any given section of society. In terms of advantages, I do not believe you can couch a life-saving policy in terms of political opportunity. If we are indeed a moral party, and if we are serious about social justice, the public will see that if we act upon it. Even Yasmin Ahlibibi-Brown, not a woman I ever agree with, is in favour of a ban. When it comes to protecting women, why are Blair's babes so silent?

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• How could we best emphasize that we are prepared to defend young women's freedom of choice?
• How could we make it absolutely clear that the ban was not aimed at any community?
• What would be the legal standards to compulsion (victim statements, witnesses, etc).
• What would be the punishments for forcing somebody to marry under duress?

> Costs

Nothing above the normal costs of policing.