The whisper of change in criminal justice

By Stephen Gummer

The plethora of Labour Leadership hustings have been criticised as being too much, too plentiful and too many. However on Wednesday in front of a packed Islington Town Hall the leadership hopefuls met to discuss a phenomenon proliferating more quickly than any Labour Party hustings; the prison population in England and Wales.

The hustings organised by the Howard League for Penal Reform (who are in the middle of a campaign across Islington) and Tribune magazine, in association with the trade union Napo stayed true to the issue of criminal justice, discussing the future of probation, the use of short sentences and the possibility of justice reinvestment.

So let’s start with the analysis. The night’s biggest winner was criminal justice as a whole. With over 85,000 people in prison, at £41,000 per head per year and a National Offender Management Service dominated entirely by an overbearing Prison Service, this issue is arguably one of the most critical facing the country. The fact that the candidates were taking on the debate was a testament to the importance of this issue.

The night’s biggest loser was undoubtedly Jack Straw. When asked directly whether the candidates saw themselves following the mould of Jack Straw/Michael Howard or Ken Clarke, Ken won the day, with all the candidates acknowledging that prison could be used at least a little less. While most of the candidates dodged specifically attacking Jack, Diane Abbott’s conclusion that Jack was, “a lovely man but…” perhaps said everything.

The evening offered a good deal of hope that the New Labour mantra of tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime might be coming to an end. David Miliband articulately addressed the fact that Labour needed to rethink its core messages and not underestimate why it had been defeated in the polls back in April. All of the candidates embraced the idea of justice reinvestment and felt that the idea of dealing with crime in local communities could play a big role in the future.

Line of the evening went to Ed Balls paraphrasing Martin Narey. Explaining the importance of frontline service provision and why Frank Field’s dismissal of breakfast clubs was an opportunity missed for frontline intervention, Ed explained that on the day a child is excluded from school they might as well be given a date for prison.

Ed Miliband offered hope to all those who have lobbied so hard against the mass use of short sentences by telling the 400 strong audience that community options were likely to be more effective and that short sentences had been over used. He also stated the party needed a new approach on civil liberties issues. Meanwhile, Hazel Blears, appearing on behalf of Andy Burnham, set out her store saying she had great faith in restorative justice programmes.

The night was often fraught and some of the dialogue barbed, none more so than when Diane Abbott, seemingly incredulous at calls for reform of some of the other candidates, asked whether with 85,000 people in prison and 13 years in government, the other candidates, all former ministers, had been away the day criminal justice had been discussed in Cabinet.

Despite the multiple positives the night ended in a crescendo of conflicted consensus on the age of criminal responsibility, for almost all the answer was one of those “yeah…but…no…but…” issues. While I’m not sure that the one angered member of the audience, who described himself as an ex-Labour Party member with an interest in criminal justice issues, will be rushing to rejoin, the evening signalled a small step towards Labour reclaiming ground on civil liberties that should be natural Labour territory.

Related posts:

1. Criminal Memoirs: The Daily Mail Test and why the Coroners and Justice Bill is wrong
2. Justice reinvestment: A new form of penal system
3. Justice reinvestment could be the key to penal reform
4. Climate change is not just an environmental issue – it’s a matter of social and economic justice too
5. One step closer to justice