Police and crime commissioners must be champions of early intervention

PCCs can bring a strategic and long-term view to reducing crime.

"One thousand extra police officers would be great, but one thousand extra health visitors would be clever."

So says former head of homicide in Glasgow, John Carnochan. One of a new smarter breed of top cops. He knows that working with partners to stop crime before it happens is the future for policing. The new police and crime commissioners (PCCs) can be the midwife of this cultural change in policing from late intervention to early intervention.

The police will always have the tasks of reacting to crime and providing a presence in local communities to dampen the fear of crime. But to achieve the sustained prevention and reduction of crime requires a strategy which unites the police with all the agencies, whether public or private or third sector, which tackle the behaviours and lifestyles which generate anti-social behaviour and crime.

The best time to do this is in the first three years of life. This has been common sense wisdom for centuries, and it has been confirmed by a growing body of robust evidence. If a child acquires in the first three years of life a bedrock of basic social and emotional skills he or she has a better chance of making a success in the rest of life, of achieving at school and further education, and in work, in developing good physical and mental health, in finding or creating a stable household and making good lifestyle choices and, above all, in forming relationships and becoming a parent or carer for the next generation. For all of these reasons, a good start in the first three years of life is the best possible method of preventing future criminal behaviour. With the right evidence-based early intervention programmes, local communities can give all local babies and infants the best chance of getting that good start.

That was the central message of two reports I wrote for the government on early intervention. That is why I wrote to all police and crime commissioner candidates challenging them to adopt early intervention policies as their "unique selling point" in their relationship with the police. Instead of treading on operational toes, PCCs can bring a strategic and long-term view to reducing crime which police officers, victims and taxpayers will welcome.

PCCs will be perfectly positioned to build the strong partnerships with health, education and third sector and explore the role of evidenced based programmes, social finance and payment-by-results in reducing crime. We pioneered this approach with the police and other partners in developing Nottingham as the first "Early Intervention City". Here it was enlightened, forward-planning senior police officers who became the driving force of the new partnership.

The PCCs should follow in the footsteps of Sir Robert Peel who wisely put preventing crime first even ahead of catching offenders.  With the right early intervention policies, we can forestall many of the mental and social problems which are factors in generating anti-social behaviour and crime later in life.  Early intervention has the ability to break the cycle of dysfunction which can turn families into repeat offenders.  It can do this much more cheaply and reliably than intervening later, and generate lasting savings for local budgets and lasting gains in the quality of life for local neighbourhoods.

PCCs should use early intervention to attack the causes of crime at the source and in so doing unlocks with tiny investments a huge new stream of money. We are already seeing payback from investment in social and emotional programmes. Those involving young offenders are massively reducing costly reoffending. These programmes are also the pioneers of social finance and innovative Bond issues in Peterborough and Doncaster prisons. I was recently in New York, where the Deputy Mayor make an innovative agreement  with Goldman Sachs and a Social and Emotional Development provider. This has reduced recidivism in 16-18 year olds, generated a profit for Goldmans and may ultimately result in a wing or prison closure. PCCs oversight of policing budgets should include such money saving ideas as standard.

Earlier intervention also has proven results. For example in attaching health visitors to teenage mothers, as we do in Nottingham,  we draw on a 30-year evidence base of reduced crime, better job prospects and educational achievement.

If PCCs use their position creatively to become champions of early intervention, to argue for effective crime reduction programmes that make us safer and return money to the taxpayer, then all those voting today will be voting for a better tomorrow.

The first-ever police and crime commissioner elections will take place in 41 police authority areas in England and Wales today. Photograph: Getty Images.

Graham Allen is Labour MP for Nottingham North.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.