CELL DIVISION

Blunkett And Brown Must Agree On Crime Policy

Impulsive and opportunistic behaviour resulting from short-term thinking
causes some of the worst street crime. It is also a common cause of poor
crime policy. This week the Home Secretary finds himself under pressure
from screaming headlines about crime and inadequate planning by successive
Governments. It is vital that he does not allow either to prevent the
development of a sensible strategy for fighting crime.

When Michael Howard became Home Secretary in 1993 he reversed forty years
of settled policy and set about increasing the risk of imprisonment faced
by criminals. Throughout his period in office, colleagues in the Treasury
resisted his programme as best they could, unwilling to finance properly
the extra prison places that might be required. Neither the policy of the
Home Office nor that of the Treasury has changed fundamentally since this
Government came to office. There have been two completely predictable
results a " crime has fallen and prison overcrowding has increased.

A surge in the prison population in the early months of this year has
presented David Blunkett with a problem that always seemed likely to arrive
at some point. The prisons are almost full and he needs to do something
about it. He has chosen to extend his Home Detention Curfew Scheme which
involves early release of offenders who must wear an electronic tag and
remain at home at night. A surge in street crime has produced the worst
atmosphere in which to make this announcement and lurid accounts of
criminals on the loose have abounded. Nevertheless the tagging scheme is an
intelligent response to the situation the Home Secretary finds himself in.

That is not to argue that the scheme is without defects. The Home Office
proudly boasts that only 2 per cent of criminals who are released early
offend while they are tagged compared to 58 per cent of reoffending
overall. This is a spurious comparison. The first figure covers a two-month
period supposedly under strict supervision and a curfew, the second a
two-year period of complete freedom. In addition those released on the
scheme are chosen carefully and are those least likely to offend, something
that will change now that the Home Secretary has made the rules more
permissive. The offending rate is something to be worried about rather than
proud of and it is clear that changes to the Home Detention Curfew need to
be made.

Beyond this, the aim of the Government must now be to ensure that it does
not find itself in this position again. In the short term it needs to
create more prison places rapidly, using whatever means necessary, so that
its prison policy supports a coherent strategy on crime. It must not find
itself unable to pursue the more vigorous assault on street offences that
it has promised.

Alongside this vigour and willingness to support tough policing and sen
tencing must come an intelligent approach to both. The early encouraging
signs from Lambeth about the results of the experiment with a different
strategy for dealing with drug use suggest that the Home Secretary should
have the courage to continue to allow others to innovate and learn from
their experiences whatever criticism he may get for it.

The Shadow Home Secretary is also right to argue that in the long term a
radical review of the treatment of young offenders is essential. The
evidence that supervision after release may reduce reoffending should be
incorporated into such a review.

All of this will need to be financed. Whatever the personal differences
between Mr Blunkett and Gordon Brown, the policies of the Home Secretary
and the Chancellor must be tightly bound together. This week shows what can
happen if they are not.