WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BEING TOUGH ON THE CAUSES OF CRIME?

As it approaches its fifth anniversary, it is possible to see just how
disappointing the performance of the Blair government has been in its
failure to deal with the grim quality of life endured by those on Britain's
"sink estates". This is especially true of the unacceptably high levels of
crime that prevail in such neighbourhoods.

But, recalling Mr Blair's famous soundbite, there are disturbing signs that
ministers are giving up on the task of dealing with the causes of crime and
are instead contenting themselves with appearing tough on criminals.

Mr Blunkett's latest announcement, that he is to lock up persistent young
offenders, will, like his other tough-sounding initiatives, yield a quick
political dividend in terms of approving headlines and comment in the more
reactionary sections of the press.

But his approach offers little hope of dealing with the dreadful conditions
that turn children into criminals by the age of 8 or 12.

It was not always thus. One of Mr Blair's first acts on coming to power in
May 1997 was to make a high-profile visit to a typical deprived inner city
district, the Aylesbury estate in Peckham, London. It was characterised, as
so many are, by drug abuse, graffiti, vandalism and high crime.

Standing surrounded by its grey blocks, Mr Blair declared that, under him,
there would be "no forgotten people and no no-hope areas", and promised to
tackle the "dead weight of low expectations, the crushing belief that
things cannot get better".

Mr Blair said then that "work is the best form of welfare". True enough;
unemployment is the primary cause of poverty.

Whether by accident or design, Mr Blair's government has enjoyed a
relatively benign economic background. Employment and prosperity has increased.

But despite the working families tax credit, the surestart scheme and all
the the other paraphernalia of New Labour's reforms, some are still being
left behind.

Educational opportunities in the schools for the poorest remain, mostly,
dismal.

There are very few ladders out of the sink estate.

Small wonder, then, that we have a problem with young offenders; given the
quality of life that prevails in the worst corners of London, Leeds,
Cardiff, Bristol, Newcastle and other cities, perhaps the surprise is that
there are so few delinquents.

And yet, even as we ponder what can be done in the long run to eliminate
the breeding grounds of crime a " bad housing, failing schools, the culture
of drug abuse a " there are too many fellow citizens who are having their
quality of life destroyed.

Middle England would not put up with it, so why should those who live on
these run-down estates have to put up with having their windows broken or
watching their cars being burned out, or live in fear because of racial abuse?

In those circumstances it may be that a small number of persistent
offenders do need to be placed in detention, at least in the short run, to
protect the community. But prison, even the junior version represented by
the secure unit, is not the answer.

If we really want to turn a 12-year-old joyrider into a serious
professional criminal then, yes, we can start his apprenticeship early and
introduce him to 16-year-olds who will be able to teach him some new tricks.

There are other ways of dealing with persistent young offenders, although
they require more patience than locking them up. There are anti-social
behaviour orders, parenting orders and tagging; all could be pursued more
effectively if, above all, there was much closer supervision by social
workers and the police.

The culture of neglect is still endemic; there are still too many forgotten
people and no-hope areas.