Gove the idealist could advise Truss
There is an irony. Because of certain events earlier this year, a lot of voters formed the impression that Michael Gove is a cross between Iago and Machiavelli. In reality, there is no greater idealist in British politics. As a baby, Mr Gove was adopted. He was lucky. Loving parents gave him a stable and happy childhood, while an excellent school provided such a fine education that he won a place at the second best university in the world.
But he has never forgotten his good fortune. When he was education secretary, he could not bear the thought that bad schools were failing their pupils, thus denying them the opportunity to get on in life. Alastair Campbell spoke complacently about bog-standard comprehensives. Like a lot of Lefties, he gave the impression that he did not care whether everyone had a bad education, as long as no one had a good one. That was anathema to Michael Gove. A man with a low boiling-point, he was driven to fury by the thought of bog-standard comprehensives. That is why he often seemed too excitable, like a bull who carried a china shop around with him. That is also why David Cameron concluded that Michael Gove’s reforms would be easier to implement if someone else were in charge.
Even so, the idealism was undiminished and found a fresh outlet. As Lord Chancellor, Mr Gove was in charge of prisons. He quickly discovered that many of them were truly bog standard: merely an expensive way of making inadequate men more inadequate; often, a means of turning career weaklings into career criminals. Had he continued in office, Michael Gove would have turned his compassionate radicalism loose on the prison service. But Theresa May sacked him, so for the time being, denied the scope for action, he has to console himself by speaking.
The late Frank Longford, a sometime Labour Cabinet minister, was deeply involved with prisons – and deeply frustrated by their failures. There is an annual lecture in his memory, and this year the organisers had a clever idea: invite Michael Gove to deliver it. Anyone interested in the subject should read the text, which is a delightful blend of intellectual provocation and linguistic coattrailing. This starts with the title: “What’s really criminal about our criminal justice system: in praise of a Liberal elitist”.
Mr Gove pointed out that Lord Longford was an aristocratic Old Etonian who had never been elected to anything, but was a force for good throughout a long involvement with public service. This tribute would have horrified many old-fashioned Tories. They tended to regard Longford as a figure of fun who was constantly in danger of becoming a menace. They feared that if prisons became more humane under the Longford influence, we would all be murdered in our beds by incorrigible rogues.
In defence of Frank Longford, Michael Gove highlighted that our present system is shockingly bad at preventing reoffending. If he had his way, instead of being in (very expensive) custody, many short-term inmates would be sentenced to rigorous work-based programmes of rehabilitation and training in the community. Electronic tagging could be used to ensure compliance. Mr Gove was not talking about a soft option. As for those who were imprisoned, they too would have a regime of work and education. At present, far too many prisoners spend up to 23 hours a day banged-up in cell-based idleness. As we know, the devil makes work for idle hands.
Mr Gove recognises that there are dangerous prisoners. Where they are concerned, secure custody is essential. But the vast majority of prisoners are individuals who have lost their way and the prison service should be trying to rescue them.
That is not the only rescue mission. The drastic reduction in legal aid, plus the emergence of solicitor-advocates, is now threatening the existence of the criminal bar. That not only means a decline in the quality of legal help available to defendants. The criminal bar has always provided most judicial recruits at Crown Court and indeed high court level. So a weakened criminal bar will undermine the entire judicial system. Mr Gove wants to pay criminal lawyers more money. From a Tory, that really is radicalism.
After reading Mr Gove’s lecture, many will conclude that we have lost an admirable Lord Chancellor. Instead, we have Elizabeth Truss. Lacking Michael Gove’s penchant for preemptive attack, she is still feeling her way. Miss Truss has already had problems with the Prison Officers’ Association, a truculent trade union. As Mr Gove acknowledged, there are plenty of conscientious prison officers. But in some prisons, although the Governor may be in nominal charge, his writ does not run. If he tries to assert himself, the POA will prevent him. It will defend idle “officers” who spend long hours in over-heated messes, reading the and working out their overtime payments. At its worst, as in the strike action earlier this week, the POA is the last Scargillite trade union. It may well need to be faced down and broken, as Scargill was.
If so, that task now falls to Liz Truss. She is bright and charming, but it remains to be seen whether there is a core of steel. She will need one. She would also be wise to seek lots of advice from Michael Gove – without telling Theresa May.