CRIME, JUSTICE, CITIZENSHIP AND EQUALITIES

RESPONSE TO PARTNERSHIP IN POWER SECOND YEAR CONSULTATION:

1. CHRISTIAN SOCIALIST MOVEMENT (CSM)

1.1 CSM is a movement of Christians with a radical commitment to social justice, protecting the environment and fostering peace and reconciliation. CSM believes that ‘loving one’s neighbour’ in the fullest sense involves struggling for a fair and just society, one in which all can enjoy the ‘fullness of life’ Jesus came to announce.

1.2 CSM is proud to be affiliated to the Labour Party and engages fully with the Party at all levels. Members are active locally in their CLPs and CSM sends delegates to Party Conference each year. At the Party’s invitation we organise the official Conference service and we also run a high-profile fringe programme. We currently have some 50 members in the Lords and Commons, including current and former Cabinet members and the Prime Minister. CSM members pledge to work in prayer and political action for the values of Christian Socialism. Our values form the basis of our response to this consultation.

2. CRIME AND JUSTICE

2.1 CSM welcomes the general thrust of the consultation document on crime justice, citizenship and equalities and the balanced approach that it brings to constitutional and justice issues. The need to balance rights with responsibilities is clearly articulated as is the importance of balancing just sentences with achieving high levels of public, community and personal safety. It is against that background that we come to our suggestions for improving the criminal justice policies that are proposed.

2.2 We welcome the reaffirmation in the document of the need to be “tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime” because there is a need to take firm action to protect victims and potential victims and also to assert standards of behaviour and “respect”. At the same time there is a need also to recognise that offending is likely to damage the offender and his (or sometimes her) family and friends as well as the direct victims and the wider community.

2.3 Laws “rarely prevent what they forbid” and the purpose of public policy must always be to reduce offending and protect the public rather than just to catch and punish offenders. For that reason we welcome the successful use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders to set limits on the behaviour of offending adults without giving them a criminal record unless they breach the requirements of the order. However, the principles of the ASBO are based on the offender realising that he or she has something to lose, and teenagers – especially those with chaotic home backgrounds and lifestyles – have little sense of “risk”. We therefore question the extent to which ASBOs have been used on young people and propose a policy commitment to focus and limit the use of ASBOs on young offenders and target their use more effectively in the light of ten years of experience.

2.4 We ask that Labour Party policy make it clear and explicit that reducing crime is in the interests of victims, families, communities and offenders themselves. Catching, arresting, prosecuting offenders is an important part of the criminal justice system – but it is not the whole story. It follows that a sentence which is proportionate, but which does nothing to prevent re-offending, is neither fair nor just. Fairness in sentencing to “make the punishment fit the crime” is important in terms of public confidence in the fairness of the system, but it is far more important to ask “what works?” in terms of preventing further offending, protecting the public and reforming or rehabilitating the offender.

2.5 For that reason we believe that there is a need to move away from accepting official and traditional analyses of crime and its causes. In the 1990s the Labour Party rejected both the “soft” approach which traced the social factors that encouraged high crime rates and therefore excused offending and the “hard” approach which was merely punitive and failed to discover ways to reduce the likelihood of offending and re-offending. While the Labour Party expresses the same principles today, there is a feeling that Ministers have become detached from the analysis on which we built our policies in opposition and that there is a need to return to first principles and the “Values” which Gordon Brown has reasserted in order to drive policy rather than being well-intentioned but managerial.

2.6 We also want to see the Labour Party tackle the fact that the UK has far too many young people held in secure accommodation. The debate is far too polarised between those who simply assert that “young people should not be in prison” and those who believe that there is no other way to deal with youngsters who are out of control and fail to respond to community sentences or intervention and that “prison works”. The Labour Party’s policy of co-ordinated intervention through Youth Offending Teams and the strategic oversight of the Youth Offending Board has borne considerable fruit, with a considerable reduction in re-offending, Nevertheless, the number of younger offenders in prison and secure accommodation remains far too high. Suicides and a failure to tackle issues of literacy, skills, aspiration and relationships show that our policies are not succeeding at the “hard end” of youth offending. We therefore call for a policy commitment for targeted action to deal with this difficult and challenging group of young people without consigning them to the prison environments that often consolidate offending into a life-time pattern of behaviour. Rather than a simplistic approach to these issues we ask for a commitment to make this a clear priority for Ministers and for the youth Justice Board, with clear targets against a specific timetable.

2.7 There is more than one way of analysing the causes of crime, and one way to do so has been articulated by the Jubilee Centre in its work on “Relational Justice”. A crime demonstrates the lack of a healthy relationship between the offender and other people. An individual will rarely commit an act of violence against another or steal from another person if there is a relationship of respect between them. The lack of relationship either arises from the offender’s inability to create relationships or from the breakdown in relationships. In either case, punishment alone is unlikely to create a new and positive relationship or to enable the offender to build relationships with others. It follows that, as well as considering what should be done in terms of punishment there is a need for there always to be an element of restitution or reparation which seeks to enable the offender to build fresh and positive relationships and to understand the way in which the offending has affected “people”.

2.8 Similarly there are clear statistics, which make a connection between offending and problems of mental illness, educational underperformance and lack of opportunity. None of these provide an excuse for offending since many people with such disadvantages do not offend and lead positive and constructive lives. Nevertheless, it is clear that enabling people to overcome disadvantage is a means of decreasing their likelihood of offending or re-offending.

2.9 Finally, there is a clear connection between dependence on drugs and high alcohol consumption on the one hand and offending on the other, whether to feed a habit or resulting from a loss of control. Again, this does not provide an excuse for offending but it is something that we need to understand and on which it is important for society to intervene. For instance the work of the Trevi Centre in Plymouth demonstrated that many young women become caught in a cycle of drugs, prostitution and prison with a degree of desperation arising from the loss of a child or children as a result of them being taken into care at the point of imprisonment or even before that. It is possible to intervene in this cycle, by providing an environment in which a group of women can support each other, tackle their drug habit together while having their children with them and therefore have the motivation to try to proceed towards new domestic arrangements, which are positive for the child and positive for the mother. Such circumstances require positive intervention which can be difficult and costly - but far less costly and less difficult than repeated imprison-ment. It is currently easier to get treatment if you have actually offended which is perverse and should be changed. Investment in earlier intervention would pay dividends and we ask for a clear manifesto commitment to making sure that access to rehabilitation is early, quick and well-managed. It must also be recognised that rehabilitation is a long-term process and that it is in neither the interests of the individual nor the interests of society for someone to slip in and out of short-term help in a way that can reinforce a sense of failure and undermine the long-term prospects of success.

2.10 In this context it is clear that the silos of government departments remain an obstacle to joined-up action. A lack of drug treatment and the length of time waited for treatment is a failure in the NHS but the price is paid by victims and citizens, in additional demands on police and court time and in the end by the community as a whole. This is unacceptable. The Cardiff violence reduction initiative was led by a surgeon, Professor Jonathan Shepherd, whose use of clinical methods to analyse the background to violent incidents in the city led (a) to the reporting of cases that had previously been unreported (b) an analysis that enabled targeted action to take place and (c) a drop in the number of incidents. It also reduces costs for the NHS.

2.11 We therefore urge that the Party undertake a fresh evidence-based analysis of crime and offending in order to articulate an approach which is clear and tough in bearing down on offending and which defends the interests of the victim, but which also analyses carefully the factors that make offending or re-offending more likely and seeks to intervene at an early stage through diversion, education and targeted intervention or at a later stage with positive intervention to break the cycle.

2.12 We also seek a positive approach to crime reduction and prevention, a freshening of the requirement for local crime and disorder audits which genuinely inform and drive the actions of the police, the local authority and other agencies who together make up the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships that have formed a successful cornerstone of Labour’s policies in power. We also request a careful examination of the statistics over a period of at least 10 years, locality, by locality, in order to use accurate information to specifically tackle the real local issues, and therefore drive down crime locally and nationally.

2.13 Looking at the consultation document itself we strongly support the emphasis on public safety and strong communities. We agree that it is important to value individuals as victims, but also to look at offenders as individuals too, especially in respect of young offenders, who even more than adults tend to ruin the lives of their own family, as well as the wider community and their victims.

2.14 The document makes a strong case for promoting volunteering and for empowering citizens. This is an approach which we support -- but the government needs to do more to support volunteering through backing initiatives by voluntary organisations and supporting the existing infrastructure rather than through yet another set of gimmicks and “initiatives”.

2.15 While immigration and asylum have come out strongly as key issues in many communities we believe that this must be seen in the context of scaremongering by the tabloid press and we would urge Ministers to continue with the approach of emphasising the contribution made by immigrants at the same time as making it clear that a Labour government will focus strongly on ensuring that every individual is treated appropriately. It is important to value the contribution made by immigrants and refugees to our society over many decades but we should avoid a dependency on low-paid immigrant or temporary workers for important roles which our own citizens are reluctant to undertake.

2.16 Similarly, it is important for a Labour government to promote the reality of neighbour-hood policing and to leave aside gimmicks such as PACT meetings which work in some areas, but often absorb a disproportionate amount of police time and are often not rooted in the community's understanding of its own problems.

2.17 We note the evidence contained in a consultation document, which makes it clear that many communities see only the large headlines bemoaning the level of crime or perhaps highlighting a particular local case. There clearly remains a perception that crime is going up when it is in fact, going down. There is a danger that police community support officers – a superb and successful Labour initiative – could be undermined by PCSOs being diverted to other duties because discretion is left to Chief Constables, as has already happened in some cases. The Government should insist on them being deployed at the sharp end of liaison with the local community. This role is massively underestimated, as is the role of neighbourhood watch, which also provides a valuable service in those areas where it is understood why people want to make a real difference.

2.18 We strongly support the recommendation of early intervention to prevent crime and reduce the likelihood of future offending. Investment in youth services, work with the peer group, mentoring programmes and peer-led programmes are important as part of the initiatives necessary to tackle the gang culture in some parts of the country. The work of the youth offending teams and the Youth Justice Board, together with antisocial behaviour orders, has made a positive difference, but resources continue to be a problem including the allocation of capital expenditure, for instance associated with a new building. Cutting the time to get offenders before the court has also helped, and a fresh initiative should be undertaken to further speed up the process.

2.19 We strongly support the concept of early intervention to prevent crime and a proactive approach to assisting the victims of domestic violence. We urge that a commitment to further work and consistency in learning the lessons of “what works” be applied in this field of offending.

2.20 We strongly support the increase in police numbers and the introduction of police community support officers. This and other initiatives have made a considerable difference over the past 10 years, but criminal activity and disorder will always be a problem and there is therefore a need to refresh our approach to these issues based on a proper analysis and evidence on what works.

2.21 It is increasingly likely that individuals will become the victims of crime on the Internet through fraud, scams and a variety of other approaches. This has been the subject of work undertaken recently by Parliamentarians, together with government departments. We therefore propose a proactive approach to Internet crime, not as an example of a different sort of crime but as crime which would be illegal off-line and which is assisted through the speed, reach and extent of the Internet in a way that Government could never keep up with through traditional approaches to legislation and policing.

2.23 We applaud the fact that for young offenders in particularly the time from arrest to sentence has fallen sharply. This has been beneficial and meets one of the 1997 election pledge-card promises. However, we believe that it is still feasible to further drive down on the time taken to get before the courts quite drastically, and that such a reduction in time would greatly benefit society and the prospects for reducing re-offending. We urge that work be done to quantify the prospects for further reductions in time for young people and also in the adult courts, and that clear targets and commitments be made.

2.24 The creation of the Department of Justice has brought together in one Department the criminal and civil courts, prisons, sentencing, community penalties and rehabilitation of offenders along with constitutional and electoral issues. While creating some useful links it has also divided away other elements of criminal justice and created a different sort of schism in the public service. It is impossible to say whether this particular reform will have made things better or worse in the long term, but it is clear that serious instability and fragility was created in the short term by a restructuring that was undertaken “on the hoof” with little advance planning. Stability is greatly in the interests of all concerned and we urge that any further reforms be undertaken only after serious thought and planning and if there is considerable evidence of major gains in effectiveness and delivery. In the short term the emphasis should be placed on making the present systems work as effectively as possible.

2.25 We note that the draft policy paper provides details such as the reconviction rate within two years of release. However, such information is meaningless without a 10-year comparison to see whether things are getting better or worse and to what extent trends can be identified. We urge that the final document demonstrates its case with figures that are open to challenge and which give a historical perspective. We strongly believe that this will provide some reassurance and give the lie to those who allege that the incidence of crime is getting worse. Having said that we must not be defensive, because there are clearly still major issues to be tackled in the field of criminal justice

3. CITIZENSHIP AND EQUALITIES

3.1 We have focussed on the overlapping issues of crime, justice and ways to tackle re-offending in the first part of this response to the Second Year Consultation paper because we believe that the way in which we tackle these issues is key to the society we create in Britain in the 21st century. But citizenship and equalities have to be a part of that process too, rather than being seen as matters for regulation or rights which are asserted separately from issues of responsibilities and community engagement.

3.2 Communities which understand each other’s beliefs, or at least respect the differences and are comfortable with them, are likely to be able to withstand the storms of international misunderstandings and conflict better than those where the “other” is regarded as strange and threatening. As a Moslem leader in Cardiff said to a Labour Eid Party “when I grew up in Butetown, we all celebrated each other’s festivals because we all enjoyed a good party”. Community cohesion is about seeing each other as human beings, and valuing the differences. We therefore strongly support the Labour Party’s wish to take faith out of the silos of belief and strongly support inter-faith work in the field of politics and community.

3.3 In relation to terrorism, we support the view in the document that it is important to challenge the causes of terrorism. However, extremism within the communities of Britain is less likely to gain ground if inter-faith work and cultural diversity are encouraged and if the connection between ethnic minority communities and the countries from which they or their forbears have come is understood and respected.

3.4 In relation to migration, it is clear that both immigrants and migrant workers make a significant contribution to the British economy. Considerable numbers of work permits are issued because work is available which people already here in the United Kingdom are unwilling to undertake. That needs to be addressed especially when people are being attracted to the UK when their own country desperately needs their skills and when they are likely to be employed in the UK in roles that do nut use those skills to the full. It is also important that in future, we create appropriate expectations and avoid the dangers of excessive unplanned numbers at any point and we endorse the document’s stress on fairness in our systems.

3.5 Equalities and human rights are important both in terms of policies within the United Kingdom and internationally. We call on the Labour Party to assert the importance of treating every individual is a human being, even when they need to be constrained or even imprisoned. For example, a society that fails to respect its prisoners and treats them as being “other” should not be surprised when violence is the outcome.

3.6 Faith communities often make a significant contribution to social responsibility and community development especially in inner city communities where the clergy are often the only resident professionals. We strongly urge that the role of faith communities in inner city renewal is respected and encouraged with practical measures and a recognition of the value of partnership.

3.7 Democratic renewal is also crucial to our future and we endorse the Labour Party's aim of improving democracy and government institutions. We support the wish to encourage a sense of pride in our communities through people being involved in the decisions that affect their lives. Devolution of power to the local level is essential alongside measures to encourage and facilitate citizen involvement. In the last 10 years some major changes have taken place including devolution of power to London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The lack of democratic accountability at the regional level in England needs to be addressed along with a need to take stock, along with our Labour Party colleagues in the devolved administrations, of what works and how to promote best practice for the future. There are no easy answers to the variety of organisations and structures across different parts of the United Kingdom but there is a place for faith groups in all of these areas is important, as is the application of CSM’s values to each of the debates. We will make our own contribution and seek to facilitate the engagement of other faith groups – and we hope that the need for this will be recognised in the way the Labour Party consults further on its policies.

3.8 Participation in elections needs to be encouraged and promoted, but we do not believe that measures such as individual registration will do anything to help unless preceded by efforts to maximise registration via the existing system. A move towards individual registration with then be possible once maximum registration has been achieved. That is a matter of urgency and the Electoral Commission needs to be much more proactive in increasing the level of registration and consistent performance by every local authority. It is important to remember that the right to vote is extremely precious and is at the heart of democratic rights, so maximising the registration of those entitled to vote to as near 100% as is humanly possible should be regarded as a key matter of principle rather than merely “desirable” or an optional extra. Churches in many areas play an important role at election times – hosting hustings which are respected as a neutral opportunity for mediated debate between the Party candidates. CSM is committed to encouraging churches to engage with mainstream politics and to working with Christians in other parties as well as with other Faith groups to that end.

3.9 In recent years the Government has increasingly talked about the “Third Sector” and while Ministers have fully acknowledged that there is a rich variety of organisations, structures and approaches within that “Sector” there are still dangers in seeing it as a single sector. Are there not a series of specific sectors which can be identified within the “Third Sector”? Trades Unions, Co-operatives, Social Enterprises, Charities, Faith-based Organisations, Churches and Faiths themselves, Local and community organisations, Youth Groups… There is almost endless variety. We incline to the view that this is more than a sector and that these organisations together form the framework for Civil Society whose value is recognised in the document. Indeed “Civil Society” would be a better term than Third Sector, allowing recognition that there are distinct sectors within the whole. It is also dangerous for Government to define a “Third Sector” and unacceptable for the independence of the sector to be constrained. While expressing some of these reservations themselves, umbrella organisations have sought to define themselves and identify what they have in common. rather than waiting for Government to define them. Their conclusion was that the one thing that organisations across the Third Sector have in common is being “value driven”. They have gone un to work within the Third Sector network to produce a powerful “Statement of Values” and we recommend that the Labour Party makes a clear statement that it is Labour Party policy to accept the Sector’s own definition of itself and that any future Labour Government will seek to work with the sector as a partner and not to impose definitions upon it.

3.10 We strongly believe in the value of volunteering which is generally associated with voluntary and community organisations but which is cross-cutting into the public sector and even to parts of the private or commercial sector. Churches and other Faith groups have always been at the forefront of encouraging volunteering and good citizenship within the local community and elsewhere. We look to the Labour Party to make a manifesto to carry forward the recommendations of the Volunteering Commission in February 2008. As well as continuing to promote employee volunteering generally, we strongly recommend that there should be an initiative across Government to promote volunteering by employees within the public service and develop amongst civil servants an understanding of how to create an appropriate relationship between each government department (and each of the silos within its structure, along with that Department’s agencies and other bodies) and to properly understand what is involved in promoting volunteering. We also urge that proper promotion of volunteering be build into the requirements of Investors in People.

3.11 And we call for a strong commitment in the next Labour Party manifesto to further development of the “Voluntary Sector Compact”, exploring its potential as the basis for a wider agreement and strengthened relationship between Government and the “Third Sector”. We strongly support the development of this labour Party initiative which was based on the principles of partnership and mutual respect. We also call for a Labour Party commitment to strengthening the role of the “Compact Commissioner”, guaranteeing additional muscle for representation of the interests of the sector within Government and within local government.

3.12 We agree that there is a need to continue the work of modernising the constitution. While considerable progress has been made in the last 10 years, particularly in respect of devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, we are concerned that too many later initiatives seem to have been driven from the centre and/or appeared to have been based on a search for a “quick fix” or for compromise rather than consensus. We therefore urge that a commitment be made by the Labour Party to the painstaking work of applying principles of democratic socialism to the challenge of modernising the constitution and reforming our democratic institutions at local, regional and national level. CSM stands ready to be a part of that process, seeking to apply our declared values to constitutional issues.