The failures that led to that murder were very many, but if, on the wing on which his killer had lived, we had routinely read all the letters the killer wrote and received, then the wing staff would have known that they had a dangerous racist on their hands In fact we no longer do that. When I joined the service we read every letter incoming and outgoing and censored them We now just look at a sample of letters. But that development in human rights in respecting the privacy of mail was one reason – not the only reason, by any means, but one reason – that led to our failing to keep someone alive.So protecting human rights in prison can sometimes require a very delicate balance. My view is that the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English law helps to ensure that that delicate balance is maintained, and I welcome the Act unequivocally. We will be, and are, a better prison service while our rules can be routinely challenged at court, and applications for judicial review, since the Act became part of English law, have doubled. Some actions have already been won by prisoners: for example those relating to the frequency of parole hearings.More will be won by prisoners in the future, not least because the court’s view of what is proper under the Act will change over time.

But, on the other hand, some judicial reviews have supported our stance on some important issues; most controversially, perhaps, our ability to impose added days on to a prisoner’s sentence in response to unacceptable behaviour.Above all, what is important is that prisoners can use the act to challenge us; it would be a very unhealthy prison service indeed – as many around the world are – if that freedom were not allowed.. In a speech to teachers the other day, Estelle Morris, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, said her policy was based on the “pillars of standards, behaviour, choice”. The left’s approach to issues of parental choice in education is confused. The left correctly sees the principle of educational equality as a vital principle to guide educational provision. The principle of educational equality says, among other things, that it is unjust for inequalities of prospects for educational attainment to be influenced by the socio-economic class backgrounds of children.However, parental choice is not necessarily inimical to greater equality of educational opportunity; in fact, there are strong reasons why the left should embrace it. The left is right to reject selection – selection is the enemy of choice, not its twin.

Without selection, greater parental choice of schools can be a useful strategy for promoting greater educational equality and higher standards. Designed carefully, a scheme that allows for greater parental choice can promote better and more equal education in ways that do not involve privatisation or lead to greater inequality.However, for it to do that, the present Government must fundamentally rethink its approach to parental choice in education. Some proposals in the current White Paper, such as expanding the specialist-schools programme and increasing the number of secondary schools run by religious foundations, actually undermine choice and equality.Specialist schools have the power to select 10 per cent of their students by aptitude for the specialism. Faith-based schools can select on the basis of interview and are allowed to prefer students on the grounds of their parents being serious members of the faith governing the school. Although schools are not supposed to use information gleaned in that interview other than information about the devotion of the family to the faith, it would be remarkable if, having got the information, they failed to use it. The Government’s policies are increasing selection rather than choice, whereas the reverse is what we should be aiming for.What is the case for parental choice? It stimulates parental involvement in a child’s schooling, which in turn enhances the achievement of children.

Schools are more responsive to the demands of parents if they are vulnerable to the choices of parents – parents need a realistic option of exit to back up their exercise of voice. That competition drives up standards is one of the basic assumptions of pro-marketeers, and there’s some evidence for it from studies within the private sector and also, more strikingly, within choice schemes in the public sector. Introducing greater parental choice in the service of spreading educational opportunity, for example through a voucher system, would need careful managing.Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of schools, has proposed in his recent book, Class War, that the Government should give vouchers to parents to use at the schools of their choice, whether run privately or by the state His proposal as detailed in the book is rather vague. It seems to be modelled on the nursery voucher scheme, in which a government gives a flat-rate voucher for each child, which a parent can then use at whatever school he or she chooses.