Clarke aside, not all the Tories’ ideas are mad, but their reforms are driven by cuts. Sadiq Khan argues that Labour’s approach must be both principled and effective. I agree, and effectiveness must include a public credibility test.
Our shadow shadow justice secretary says that one of the weaknesses of the last government was that ‘we had to give off the impression we were ever more tough on crime just to demonstrate we weren’t soft.’ He wants a bigger focus on rehabilitation and the merits of investing in reduced reoffending. That will strike a chord with justice ‘experts’ but how do we reconcile their views with the public?
The difficulties are obvious but government is supposed to be about representing the people and justice policies need to be credible. We have got to make sure we do not get stuck with something very clever and rational at the very moment rising crime and dissatisfaction with Clarke lead to demands for toughness.
If there is money in the election kitty, the Tories will go to the country promising more police and prisons. Clarke will be sacrificed for a hard man. Step forth, Eric Pickles: a northern Tory who delights in offence but connects with people. If that happens, we must be sure that our strategy is robust enough for the shock tactics. We need to demonstrate that we are about getting the maximum for our investment, that we will not let the system belong to the ‘experts’, and that we will curb some of the nonsense about offenders’ rights.
There are areas where reform can work for us. On prisons the question is not who runs prisons, but how they are run. Why is it easier to get drugs and other contraband inside prison than outside? Why is there so much legal help for prisoners compared with the help available for victims? And why do we not do more about literacy and numeracy to help stop reoffending?
Victims must be at the centre of Labour’s plans so that courts concentrate on the impact of the offence. Community courts, for lower-level crimes, have public support and should be pursued even if the legal establishment is sceptical. Intensive monitoring and supervision for those leaving prison and on community sentences work but must be enforced. Testing, direction and control must be absolute features of our substance-abuse plans.
None of this is easy, but our starting point should be that there are no savings and no quick gains. However, a combination of punishment and rehabilitation with the rights of victims and the law abiding at the forefront can be credible.
A policy forged with the public can succeed but they must feel ownership. We have to encourage participation in community courts and involve them in the design of punishment and justice projects.
So let’s attack the obvious flaws in Clarke’s approach and develop a policy that is effective and credible. And remember to keep an eye on Eric Pickles.