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

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.