(LAB SP) Tough on Crime, the Labour Way (Society of Labour Lawyers)

Post Reply
User avatar
Andy Edwards
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:30 pm
Constituency: Ellesmere Port and Neston
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: aboltik

(LAB SP) Tough on Crime, the Labour Way (Society of Labour Lawyers)

Post by Andy Edwards »

Home Secretary Andrew Edwards, on invitation, spoke at an event hosted by the Society of Labour Lawyers. The topic was "Tough on Crime, the Labour Way."

It gives me great pleasure to be here speaking with the Society of Labour Lawyers today. I know this organisation is an important one for the Labour Party and indeed for the country as a whole through their work given the insightful views and analysis that the Society provides on important issues related to basic and fundamental rights as well as access to legal aid. My first real introduction to legal aid- that I can remember- was when my family had to take advantage of it to provide effective and meaningful legal advice and representation for my brother following an arrest and a criminal trial. While there are still policy changes needed to help individuals like him throughout the United Kingdom, I doubt we would have had the ability to even get basic information or assistance without the work of the Society throughout its history to make sure that legal aid is actually there to help those in need.

So it is quite the honour to be here, and I must thank you all for your efforts as well.

I particularly appreciate the invitation to speak to the Society on the issues of being tough on crime and the causes of crime. Too often the discussion about crime focuses significantly on the first part… and not at all on the second. We talk about how many police officers are hired, about how many new prison places we’re setting up. And then we hope that alone will just make crime go away. The recent debate on the budget highlighted that much- the fight over who could hire more police or build more prisons was evident, and not a peep to doing anything to divert people from committing crimes in the first place.

Nor was there a meaningful discussion on cutting repeat offenses- at least beyond that of which Shadow budget would spend more or less on rehabilitation services. But even that conversation was short-lived. This is a shame, particularly given the prevalence of repeat offenders in our criminal justice system; in 2000, over 43% of former offenders were repeat offenders.

But I know that you didn’t invite me here to talk about statistics or about where things have gone wrong… but rather to look at where we might go to get things right as members of the Labour Party. After all, if we wanted to just talk about the number of police officers and prison cells as though that alone would solve every issue, we’d be in a permanent opposition.

First, we need to remember that the idea of being tough on crime does not stop just when someone is arrested, charged, convicted, and put into prison. Right now in our criminal justice system, once an individual is released from prison, they are placed on probation. Those who have served time in prison are monitored, checked in on. But at no point should we view this as an end of their time in paying back society or the end of criminal justice- particularly if we want to tackle the sizable and meaningful issue of repeat offenses. What we need to do is to examine probation- to find ways to make it more intensive. For drug offenders, this absolutely should include further drug testing and requirements to enter into treatment programs; these shouldn’t end when an individual is no longer a resident of Her Majesty’s Prisons. For violent offenders, this absolutely should include more frequent and more intensive check-ins with probation officers, making sure there is a strict schedule, to keep these offenders from being in a position where they could get violent again. And this intensity should also be focused on the particulars of a crime as opposed to a general one-size-fits-all approach… to make sure those 43% of former offenders do not get the chance to repeat offend again.

I’ll commit to legislation to change how we look at and implement probation to make sure that we’re staying tough and that we’re making meaningful progress on reoffending, and it’s something the Home Office is starting to work on. But what we would definitely benefit from is the input of the Society- from those who have been on the front lines of criminal justice as solicitors, barristers, as magistrates- weighing in on what is needed and what is going to work. We know broadly, thanks to studies conducted in various jurisdictions throughout the world, that intensive probation does reduce crime and the return on a financial investment- when you consider the costs of future crime and future victims- is a positive one.

And yet, despite what we know, despite what we accept as a meaningful problem that needs to be solved, the focus is all too much on how many police we hire and how many prisons we build. That’s why we need a Labour approach, particularly now: one that is focused on sensible and cost-effective policies rather than just adopting a knee-jerk hustle to the far left or the far right solution.

Second, we need to remember that being tough on crime means that we need to include being tough on the causes of crime. For one, this requires a whole-of-government approach where we do more to make sure that poverty or lack of access to essential services. And this is where Labour has always been in a particular position to shine. For years we saw a Conservative Government where the policy of the day was to try to cut benefits and cut assistance... and while it surprised the Conservatives it shouldn’t surprise us that the number of violent crimes as reported in the Crime Survey doubled during their time in office. When people lack access to their basic needs, then crime is a natural result.

This Government has worked to address that more than any other. As we increase access to basic necessities: income support, jobs, education, we’ve been seeing violent crime decline. In our latest budget, we have shown that we will continue to push this approach and we can fully expect the results, on the whole, will be similar.

The Society has worked on this as well. Far from the Society being a group of lawyers that talk about how to punish crime more and more, they have branched out to look at how to make it so crime cannot take hold. The Society has put together important research on the importance of accessing housing, for instance, and the role that effective healthcare access plays in our communities in need. It is not something that the Home Office can just do on its own with the snap of fingers- or as the Conservatives want, with just a bit more money in one area.

So if we know that this requires a whole-of-government approach, then we should also consider a whole-of-community approach at the local level for addressing the causes of crime. Because we know that police officers are often called on to do more and do everything… but they can’t. And nor should they be. A police officer should not be asked to be responsible for making sure individuals have access to mental health or to benefits that can keep them from poverty or from falling into crime. This means bringing representatives and advocates for these services together as part of a team to comprehensively address crime in our communities- and making sure they can work together to identify potential problem areas and address them… all before police are called and people are locked away.

I want to expand more on this point, because this does allow us to be both tough on crime and on its causes: the sort of approach that Labour should be taking when it comes to dealing with an issue of importance to many millions throughout the United Kingdom. We call this community policing.

In community policing, the idea is that the police are no longer the sole guardians of law and order. They still have a very important role to play in the last line of defence against crime, but this also places new emphasis on making the community, rather than just police, the key players in problem-solving. It democratises law enforcement, and it allows us to respond to the needs of individual communities while also tackling crime that is affecting our cities as well as suburban and rural areas.

The first effort is to determine who should be involved. Our police authorities already engage with elected officials in the communities they serve, as well as with magistrates who understand the importance of a society built upon laws that we all as people accept. But these authorities should be expanded. Not just to include elected officials, but actual representatives of communities that are engaged in criminal justice and that are impacted by it: residents, victims, and with a special focus on groups that have been left out of the process including the disabled and ethnic minorities. These groups deserve a say in how policing operates in their communities to build trust and to build collaboration. Without that trust you see a situation like we have now: crimes that are simply unreported and unaddressed. It’s a problem that has plagued attempts to actually and meaningfully address crime.

At the same time, there are issues that can lead to crime that need to be dealt with, and that can be dealt with in ways other than calling the police. An individual who is mentally ill, an individual who is homeless, an individual who does not know where they can access economic and social support due to them can very much act in a way that we might consider anti-social. They may very well lash out into crime: minor ones at first, ones that go unreported at first, but then it escalates into larger crimes.

Now imagine instead where you have these concerns, but instead of police being the only line of defence, they have a collaborative effort in place with housing advocates. With those that can assist in scheduling medical appointments. With those that have an understanding in identifying mental health issues and their treatment.

These various groups will work together to come up with a plan on how they will engage communities on policing as a part of their duties- and make sure that the public is aware of these plans and can provide input on them. And there is accountability as well; these authorities will have power to remove those who are breaking the compact between police and public to the detriment of our communities.

If we want to truly and honestly be tough on crime- and not just the person- this is the approach that will allow us to do so. Community policing makes it so that crime has no place to take root. It has no people who are wanting to attract the attentions of. And it will do far more to tackle crime rates than just hiring more officers and hope everything works out for the best.

This Government is going to be taking action on this concept of community policing- of making it so that it’s the community that works together to address crime rather than continually hoping the police will do it and then pretending we don’t know why the approaches aren’t working- the standard Conservative way of addressing this problem with short-sighted solutions.

The more we can connect police to other services and get them all focused on the goal of proactively fighting crime rather than merely responding to calls, the more we can serve our communities and keep crimes from happening in the first place. And by making these groups accountable to the public, and in turn making police accountable, we’ll have an effective tool that truly allows us to be tough on crime- by eradicating it before it has a chance to grow. In that way Labour is working to live up to the ideals that were born with modern policing itself: the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them. It’s not about the number of police- a popular fight it seems- but rather the ability to combat crime.

I will say this again- while I am here to promise what we’ll do and to commit myself to doing things, I am not letting the Society off the hook. This organisation has a long and storied history of providing detailed policy proposals to Labour leaders regarding crime and the causes of them. And so I hope that you’ll continue to do what you have on researching these important issues, and giving this Government the tools it needs to promote new policies and changes to the way we do business. I know that is the role that the Society has played since its inception, and as Home Secretary I’m here to say to you all: keep it up, we’ll be listening to you and ready with whatever suggestions you bring forward.

In working together in this way- our Government and your minds and your expertise- we can truly build a safer Britain. One where we are tough on crime and its causes in a meaningful, lasting, and impactful way.

Earlier this year I had the privilege of introducing legislation that would expand the rights of victims of crime.

It was relatively non-controversial legislation that sought to implement a number of reforms that we know are needed in policing. Not about trying to disadvantage one group or another, but to make sure that victims of crime can be a part of the process and so that they’re informed of what is happening in the cases that affect them. It also expands the compensation scheme to make sure those that suffer most are afforded compensation.

But what I would like to see far more- and what I think we can see with the efforts that I’ve outlined here, with the work that I know the Society is doing- is that we ensure fewer victims are created. We do that with a reasoned, informed push to reduce crime by ensuring it doesn’t happen in the first place. That’s what this Government is committed to. That’s what this Society is committed to. And that’s how you’re truly tough on crime, the Labour way.

Thank you.
Andrew Edwards MP
MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston (1992-) | Labour
Secretary of State for the Home Office (2001-)
User avatar
Marty
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:10 am
XP: 18
Trait(s): Technical Mastery
Discord username: Martinulus#9514

Re: (LAB SP) Tough on Crime, the Labour Way (Society of Labour Lawyers)

Post by Marty »

You nailed it.

Folks, take heed, this is what you should do if your A-team comes up to you with a speech invite like this. And by that I mean, one that was very much intended to see what happens if you ask a Socialist Campaign Group Home Secretary to give a tough on crime speech. Now, we picked the SLL on gut feeling, but it's also a plus that you know more than we knew about it when we set the invite. But from the prompt, it was clear that what was expected was a tough on crime speech.

And boy, did Edwards meet and even exceed my expectations. You actually made rehabilitation and prevention sound tough on crime. You did so by flipping the definition of tough on crime by saying "actually, being tough on crime isn't just being tough on criminals", making it look like this pretty comprehensive solidly left-wing approach to crime isn't soft, but actually rather meaningful and tougher than just being tough on criminals for image's sake.

Not everyone is happy. You've got quite a credibility gap to brave with the usual suspects at The Mail and The Torygraph ("TOUGHLY GIVE CRIMINALS FREE HOUSING, SAYS COMMIE EDWARDS"), and you won't cross it in one speech. But if you wanted to shift the needle of public opinion and the way people think about crime, this is a pretty damn good start that immediately gets the debate going.

Really, well done. +8 Labour, and +4 XP to Edwards, as well as the Marty Stamp of Approval for Speechifying Excellence (which does nothing, but might show you how impressed I am).
Dr. Marty of the A-team
Technical Wizard
Education and Children, Health and Social Security, Environment and Energy, Constitutional Affairs
Scenarios
Conservative Party advisor
Post Reply

Return to “Marked Press Cycles & Speeches”