Conference policy motion: Cutting crime by catching criminals

It has been impossible to have a grown-up debate on crime since Tony Blair became Shadow Home Secretary in 1992 and declared that Labour would be “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.” Since then, Labour’s policy has been to out-tough the Tories. The result has been a sentencing arms race as Labour and the Tories appeal to the most punitive parts of public and tabloid opinion.

We desperately need to shift the debate to what works to cut crime. That is why the Justice and Home Affairs Team have produced the Cutting Crime by Catching Criminals paper for our Autumn Conference. It sets out plans for a radical decentralisation, and a major shift in priorities towards measures that are shown by the international evidence to cut crime.

The Government’s own expensive research has shown that sentence severity has a negligible effect on crime. When only 1 in 100 crimes culminate in a conviction, posturing on penalties is pointless. It is the chance of getting caught that acts as a real deterrent to criminals. Catching more criminals is what works to cut crime.

That is why we focus on a significant shift in priorities away from prison towards policing. We are the only party to propose putting more police officers on the streets – 10,000 more, paid for by scrapping ID cards. Visible, neighbourhood policing is essential to good community relations, intelligence leads, and encouraging witnesses.

This is not just about more policing, but better policing. We propose a new National Crime Reduction Agency to assess the evidence on policing and criminal justice policy and to spread best practice. Even for the most serious crimes, detection rates vary wildly across the country. The clear up rate of violent crime, for example, is 67 per cent in North Yorkshire but just 36 per cent in the Met.

Even other comparable urban areas such as Greater Manchester and Merseyside have detection rates for violent crime of more than 50 per cent. Improving the national average detection rate to the rate of the top 10 per cent of forces would see 400,000 more crimes solved, including 140,000 violent crimes.

Unlike Labour and the Tories, we will not duck the big issues in police reform. Some of the most restrictive working practices in the police have gone unchanged for decades. We will urgently review the single point of entry; the 30 year lifetime career; and the determination of pay by seniority instead of talent and effort. It is unfair on the vast majority of diligent and hard-working officers that less conscientious colleagues are not tackled.

At the heart of our proposed reforms is a radical decentralisation of power in line with the public services commission ideas in the last parliament. Police authorities will hold chief officers to account (including sacking them if necessary); set local priorities instead of following counter-productive Home Office targets; and set budgets and precepts without capping. Local powers are essential in the public services if there is to be experiment and innovation: good practice will be copied, and failure shunned.

However, if we are to give police authorities greater unfettered powers, the electorate must be able to hold the majority of their representatives directly to account. There is a time-honoured liberal tradition of no taxation without representation. Police authorities need the mandate to resist Home Office centralisation and set budgets and precepts.

Of course, councils should be the focus of local accountability wherever possible. That is why we propose that councils should act as police authorities whenever police forces have the same borders as councils. But many forces have now been merged, and there is no appetite for another upheaval. So where forces straddle many different councils – 14 for example in Hampshire – we need other solutions.

Part of the solution is to align police command units with local councils to improve dialogue and accountability. Councils can make an enormous difference to crime-fighting, as our own successes in Liverpool and Newcastle have shown. But you cannot have a chief constable accountable to all the councils in his or her area, as that would be a recipe for chaos.

So for the 35 police authorities that straddle lots of councils (out of the total number of 43 in England and Wales), we propose that two thirds of their members are directly elected by fair votes (single transferable vote). One third would continue to be nominated from councils. Authorities would also be able to co-opt other members, like magistrates, to ensure diversity and expertise.

Unlike Labour and Tory plans for elected sheriffs, our proposals ensure that all groups and opinions, including women and ethnic minorities, would be fairly represented. Elections would be about policing issues, not populist posturing. These plans also breathe life into our commitment to localism by ensuring that councils take control where possible, but that police authorities are fairly elected otherwise. And they set out a route march for a real attack on crime by focussing not on what sounds tough, but on what works.

Chris Huhne is the Shadow Home Secretary.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Conference and News.
Advert

7 Comments

  • London Liberal 12th Sep '08 - 8:13pm

    For too long we’ve been sidelined in the debate on crime and policing and I’m glad that Chris is trying to put us on the map.

    This paper and the one on youth justice over the summer got us a lot of coverage in the mainstream media on Home Affairs. It’s not all going to be positive but it is nice to be mentioned.

    I hope this is the start of Chris positioning us away from the hang em and flog em brigade of Labour and the Tories.

    I for one will certainly be voting for the motion at Conference.

  • Bibliophylax 12th Sep '08 - 9:12pm

    Yes yes, good policy statement, but what about the alliteration? I especially enjoy “when only 1 in 100 crimes culminate in a conviction, posturing on penalties is pointless”.

  • good to see us carving out an fresh and common sense line on crime – you know your doing when the Sun writes an editorial against you! Not sure the Police Fed will like the talk of reviewing working practices, but doesn’t mean it is not needed.

  • I like it.

    James Anderton used to maintain that ALL criticism of the Police was illegitimate. And in days gone by much of the public agreed with him. It didn’t matter what a terrible job they did, how corrupt they were, how many innocent people were harassed or beaten up. Unlike other public servants, the Police were sacrosanct.

    Well, I am glad to see that public opinion has shifted. I know “Daily Mail” readers who think the Police are lazy, incompetent and dishonest, and Masons to a man. Views unthinkable from such quarters 20 years ago.

    I would like to see accurate, longitudinal figures relating to crime clear-up. If 1 in 100 is right, then there are a lot of policemen who spend their time bitching in the canteen, or bullying unpopular minorities, rather than doing the Hercules Poirot bit.

    Successful policing means catching criminals. It means burglars, muggers, shoplifters, etc, collared, charged and up before the beak. Yet this isn’t happening, despite the largesse poured into the Police money pit.

    Police on the streets is a waste of time. We need more detectives, more specialists. Less plods.

    Oh, and we are not going to get value for money in policing unless we outlaw Freemasonry within the force.

  • Robert Gomm 13th Sep '08 - 8:19pm

    If the idea is to catch more criminals – indeed a very sensible one! – presumably one needs places to put them once they are caught. If that means reducing sentences so people are in prison for a shorter time, one can imagine a revolving door prison system more than ever.

    I understand the point, I think, and agree that “tougher punishment” is just rhetoric and doesn’t really work. But one must ultimately examine what crime is. People know this to a man but that does make a difference as few truly believe it. I would be interested to hear Mr. Huhne’s answer to the question of what crime is.

    Also, I salute the alliteration in the article. Spectacular at points!

  • Hywel Morgan 13th Sep '08 - 11:18pm

    “I would like to see accurate, longitudinal figures relating to crime clear-up. If 1 in 100 is right,”

    I’m always a bit sceptical about this. I suspect that the police are pretty certain when they catch someone that they’ve committed many more offences than they can charge them but don’t have the evidence.

    If they get someone bang to rights for stealing 5 satnavs there’s a pretty good chance they’ve stolen tens if not hundres more – but its probably a marginal return to pursue the others with virtually no evidence

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Ruth Bright
    Such a heartening Question Time from Jake 👏...
  • BigTallTim
    A very good article Mark....
  • Daniel Walker
    @Tom Bailey "How many voters of Holborn and St Pancras, Lisbon, or Seville voted for Ursula von der Leyen? Answer : None, because 250 million Europeans, neve...
  • Richard Good
    I first met Michael in the Ripon By-Election in the mid seventies when Leeds Bookseller David Austwick won the seat . He was a good friend and adviser when I wa...
  • Matt (Bristol)
    Jenny, the whole thread discusses the opinion of LGBT+ Lib Dems that the party should argue for a new piece of legislation redefining and replacing the GRA as i...