KENNEDY: POPULIST TALK MASKS LABOUR'S CRIME FAILURE

In a keynote speech to Liberal Democrat activists at the National Liberal Club, Charles Kennedy, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, set out to explain new Liberal Democrat thinking on crime issues - as well as to debunk some of the Labour myths about crime.

Mr. Kennedy said:

Since Labour took power we have had 26 Government bills, hundreds of initiatives, and thousands of targets all designed to make good on Tony Blair's famous sound bite:

"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."

And we can expect more in the next Queen's speech.

Labour is making no secret that this will be a battleground at the election. And the party's extraordinary behaviour during recent by-elections suggests it will seek to caricature and mislead the public about what its opponents have to say on these matters.

I would like to use this occasion to set out what it is that the Liberal Democrats are really saying - as well as to debunk some of the Labour myths.

The reality is that the Government has been tough on rhetoric, but weak on solutions. Its approach is piecemeal, knee-jerk, headline chasing, focusing on the symptoms - the criminals - at the expense of sound policies aimed at tackling the disease - crime itself.

This has made Labour particularly ineffective at making good on the second part of that sound bite - tough on the causes of crime.

LABOUR'S FAILURE

By attempting to paint solutions designed to tackle the roots of criminality as 'soft' - as they did consistently in Leicester, Birmingham and Hartlepool - Labour seeks to deflect the real debate about how to deal with crime, security, law and order.

The Conservative party and some of the tabloids have long been adept at this. And moral outrage is always a powerful political tool.

But by creating a climate of fear, and stoking public anger; by ratcheting up the rhetoric and then resorting to gimmicky quick fix solutions, the public rapidly loses sight of the real facts.

Do not misunderstand me.

Crime and public disorder are sources of misery and real concern to far too many people trying to live a normal life in Britain today.

The British Crime Survey estimates that around 13 million crimes are being committed a year. The true figure is probably much higher, but even on that partial assessment that is 35,000 crimes a day, 7,000 of them crimes of violence. And of these only around 3% result in caution or conviction. So the vast majority of crime goes unpunished.

My colleague Mark Oaten sums up the Liberal Democrat approach to these problems in the phrase 'tough liberalism'.

The real, effective solutions to crime are liberal solutions - punishment and rehabilitation.

But action to tackle re-offending, or to guide those headed for a life of crime into lawful productive lives, is certainly not a soft option, in fact it is not an option at all. It is essential if we are going to reduce crime.

We must balance our response. We must certainly punish crime, where punishment is required. But we cannot stop there. We should also work on prevention; only that way will the crime rates permanently come down. That is tough liberalism.

ASBOs, LOCAL JUSTICE AND THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

I can best demonstrate 'tough liberalism' by putting it in context. One of the most high-profile social problems today is anti-social behaviour. Its effects can be debilitating to communities and particularly worries older people.

It's not simply a problem of intimidating behaviour. Graffiti, littering, noise pollution, and decaying urban spaces all contribute to the feeling that our communities are slipping out of control.

Labour likes to reduce this complex social problem to a tabloid crusade against yobs. We hear little of the other side of the coin; little about our culture of long working hours and weaker parenting where young people are increasingly drawn to their playstation rather than the playground.

Our Liberal Democrat approach takes as its base the need to identify the causes of anti-social behaviour as well as the offenders. And we say the use of punishment tools must always be evidence based.

There's no doubt that the Anti-Social Behaviour Orders that were introduced in 2000 have been successful in many communities in providing short-term relief. We supported them.

As a sticking plaster, ASBOs can work, as can the judicious use of dispersal orders. But unless there is also a strategy for changing the behaviour of offenders, we either push the problem behind closed doors, or shunt it from one community to another.

Currently ASBOs have a 36% failure rate. That's much too high.

One reason for this is that they rarely contain effective measures to change behaviour; instead they focus on exclusion and punishment.

Let's take an example. A man with mental health problems was given an ASBO forbidding him from begging in the centre of Birmingham. I don't doubt that his behaviour was intolerable. It needed to be tackled. But his mental problems meant he never fully understood the terms of the order. He ended up serving five years for an offence which would normally attract a fine. The effect of this ASBO was simply to remove the individual rather than solve his problems.

That's why Liberal Democrats are now calling for ASBO PLUS. This is 'tough liberalism' in action. Where there is a need for an ASBO, you issue it. But it must only be used in conjunction with action to tackle the underlying causes of these problems.

There is no point in simply issuing a young person with an ASBO banning them from the town centre if that is the extent of our efforts to change their behaviour.

There are plenty of things we should try before we even get to an ASBO. But even when we reach the point where there is no alternative but to lay down some clear restrictions on behaviour, the interventions must not stop.

Youth workers to sort out attitudes and to divert them into positive activities. Social workers to encourage families to pull together. Drug workers to tackle substance misuse. Education and training for those who are excluded from school or unemployed.

ASBO PLUS is a direct challenge to Tony Blair and David Blunkett. Punishment and prevention.

But the tough liberal approach to such problems doesn't stop there.

Liberal Democrat Councils have done much innovative and pioneering work to tackle anti-social behaviour.

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, designed by the Liberal Democrats in Islington, are an effective alternative to ASBOs when anti-social behaviour is in its early stages.

Our Lib Dem emphasis on the importance of community also comes into play here. We believe that local communities have a central role in finding a solution to anti-social behaviour.

Community Justice Panels - made up of victims and volunteers from the local community - are potentially an effective way of modifying behaviour.

Offenders arrested for minor crimes like graffiti, vandalism or being drunk and disorderly would be given a choice - go to court in the normal way and face a criminal record, or go before a panel of local people. The offender would be expected to explain and apologise for his actions, and agree to a programme of work or reparation to make amends for the damage he has done. Where the offence affected individual victims rather than the community as a whole, the offender would be expected to compensate them.

The scheme would give the public an unprecedented say in the way that local crime problems are dealt with, as well as offering offenders a way to pay back for the harm they have done to their community.

This is not a soft option. Going before one of these panels would be a very uncomfortable experience. I want offenders to see the anger and hurt they cause to those living in their streets and their communities.

And it's not just about punishment - it offers the offender something that a court appearance cannot - a chance to earn back the respect of the community and demonstrate that he or she can act responsibly.

PUNISHMENT AND PRISON

Reducing re-offending rates must become the priority in our prison system. Prison is of course about punishment. But rehabilitation should be at the forefront of the strategy for cutting crime.

Today, of those who are caught and convicted, an increasing number are being fast-tracked into the prison system. Ten years ago, magistrates were sending one in twenty convicted criminals to prison; now that figure is one in eight. Our prison population is at record levels and has grown by 20% since 1997.

It's hard not to conclude from these figures that overcrowding is a price Labour believes worth paying, presumably because it creates the illusion of security.

Once inside, suicides rates are at an all time high; and re-offending levels are running at 59% overall, with a depressing 71% re-offending rate for 18-21 year olds.

If the Blunkett tactics are failing, what's the alternative?

One obvious answer is to provide offenders with the skills and the qualifications they need to go straight when they get out.

It is an appalling truth that half of all our prisoners have the skills of an 11-year-old in reading; two-thirds have the skills of an 11-year-old in numeracy; and a staggering four-fifths in writing. Too many cannot write a CV, operate a computer or conduct themselves in an interview.

Let's get them out of their cells and into the prison classrooms and workshops. Indeed we could link such a regime to early-release schemes as a practical incentive to learn.

This isn't a 'soft' option. And it is certainly likely to have a greater dividend in the long term than simply reserving a cell for when they return.

CUTTING CRIME

Current crime levels are far too high. We can and should increase visible police presence. We can and should catch and convict more criminals.

But crime will always be with us.

What both Labour and the Conservatives have failed to understand is that in order to develop effective policies we need to understand how our society is changing.

The United Kingdom is not alone in experiencing large increases in crime in the last 50 years; the same is true of nearly all industrialised democracies. The reasons for that are not as mysterious as some suppose. The way we live our lives has changed:

Altered patterns of work and travel have loosened the tight knit geographic communities;

A materialistic consumer culture that gives rise to new jealousies;

Family structures are changing;

The decline of deference and automatic respect for tradition;

Alienation is driven by the growing divide between rich and poor.

We live, increasingly, in a society of strangers. We are more likely to switch on the TV than to chat with a neighbour; we are not looking out for each other, or each other's children, in the way that we used to. Fear of strangers is drummed into us from our school days onwards, reinforced by a media which thrives on our insecurities.

I believe this alienation is fundamental to the crime problem. Crime is easier if the victim is anonymous, and if there is no community to censure criminal behaviour.

And punishment is easier if the criminal is anonymous. We become wary of giving them a second chance because we do not truly believe they can be rehabilitated, or at least we feel it is not worth taking the risk.

So if we are really to be tough on the causes of crime, we must take steps to rebuild our communities; and we can actually do this, even as we punish offenders. For example, non-violent offenders should be made to do supervised, compulsory work in the community, with the community helping to choose the work that is done, as a form of pay back.

That way, instead of locking the problem away for a few weeks, we give communities the reparation they deserve - improving the quality of life in run-down areas as well as demonstrating to the offenders that they can do something positive with the lives.

In addition, I want to see offenders brought face to face with their victims wherever possible, so that the criminals can see the hurt they have caused and understand that their actions have consequences for others.

I believe the time for such an approach is right, both politically and practically. New tagging and tracking technology allows for an unprecedented level of security in addition to the supervision skills of the probation service. If we need to, we can pinpoint an offender's location electronically, and if they breach the conditions of their sentence we can add further restrictions on liberty before we consider prison.

THE POLICING CHALLENGE

The world is moving on and our policing methods should move with it.

The internet, electronic finances, identity fraud, the rise of gun crime, the new threat of international terror, and a new generation young people with money to spend and the problems with binge drinking that come with that.

21st century problems, which cannot be dealt with by 20th century methods.

These, of course, are in addition to the same old problems burglary, street crime, rape, and murder.

So our police forces are faced with multiple challenges, old and new.

The Government has made some progress on modernising the police force. Police numbers have grown and the innovation of Community Support Officers has been successful. The Liberal Democrats would increase this trend with 10,000 more police.

The Policing White Paper announced last week has much in it to commend it: an approach that builds closer links between local people and local police; a return to more visible policing focussing on prevention as well as detection; and the establishment of the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

Indeed, while on their leaflets, Labour condemns the Liberal Democrat approach to crime, it is actually adopting many of our proposed modernisations and reforms of the police.

But Labour's biggest failure with the police has been the ineffective attempts to reduce the burden of bureaucracy and paperwork that pins officers to their desks and in the courtrooms, rather than sending them out on the streets.

The admission by the Home Secretary that 12,000 police officers, almost 10% of the force, are currently tied up by dealing with paperwork is a sad indictment of Labour's obsession with targets.

But there are solutions to the paperwork mountain that do not undermine the necessity for thoroughness and accuracy, and at the same time do not endanger civil liberties by police action going unrecorded.

Why are we set to spend £3bn or more on a high-tech identity card system, which is unproven and unlikely to provide the cure for all ills as the Government appear to claim, and yet our police are expected to take to the streets with a radio, truncheon, and notebook?

Technological breakthroughs such as handheld computers must be deployed in the fight against crime. Voice recognition software could allow officers to file reports remotely allowing them to remain on patrol longer.

Visible policing is not only a public demand but is also an operational necessity. Abstractions from local areas to deal with major incidents elsewhere, the demise of magistrates' courts in small towns and the loss of many local police stations have all served to drag officers off the streets and out of the communities they serve.

The connection of the force to its community is crucial for re-establishing visible policing, reducing crimes of opportunity and petty thuggery. And the co-operation of the community with police officers is essential in detection and securing conviction.

That is why the Liberal Democrats have set out plans for a minimum policing guarantee as part of an overall Policing Contract between local police authorities and the communities they serve. It could stop the trend to cut back on police in rural areas. It could greatly increase accountability and achieve a better rapport between officers and local people. And it is to local people that criminals, especially petty criminals, should be ultimately answerable to.

CONCLUSION

Despite all the rhetoric, the fact is that Labour's approach to crime has failed.

It has fed rather than diminished the climate of fear. It has led to a record prison population and record re-offending rates. It has been tough on crime, but soft on the causes of crime.

HG wells once said:

"Crime and bad lives are the measure of a State's failure, all crime in the end is the crime of the community."

Labour's crime has been to resort to the quick fix, with no long-term strategy to bring local communities into the process so that people can be part of the solution rather than powerless victims.

And as I have set out today, the real liberal approach to law and order issues can be tough - very tough - without descending into populist illiberalism.

That is the task we are setting ourselves. We are sure it can work.