Proceeding contribution from Alun Michael (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 21 October 2010. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Cutting Crime (Justice Reinvestment).
Cutting Crime (Justice Reinvestment)
It is not an individual who needs to be accountable, but the system. The way to ensure that that happens is to have the facts out in the open. It is tragic that, 12 years on, I still cannot get proper local analysis and information on trends in wards in my constituency. I know that the police are analysing the information they get and using it to inform their activity, and I know that the local authority and the police are working in partnership and sharing information, but it is not out there for individual members of the community. This is not about one individual—it does not matter whether they are an elected mayor, the chief executive of a local authority, a chief constable or whatever. Anything that depends on just one individual is doomed to failure; indeed, if I may say so, anything that depends even on one Minister is of limited value. It is a question of having transparency so that there can be proper accountability. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Lady. I am very much describing a system that allows proper accountability and transparency. I referred to the work of Professor Shepherd in Cardiff because many lessons have been learned from it, but the real lessons—about applying a proper methodology and having transparency—have not been learned adequately or transferred to other bodies. Targeted policing has reduced licensed premises and street violence, as well as reducing violence-related A and E attendance in Cardiff by 40% since 2002. That is a 40% reduction in the number of people going over the A and E threshold for treatment. That is a much more effective measure than any of the general police or criminal justice measurements. That endorses some of the evidence from the British crime survey. There is a second big point that I want to make. One reason why there is a muddle is that we are still not totally clear about the purpose of the criminal justice system. We need to be much clearer that it has a single purpose, which is consistent with what the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in recent evidence to the Home Affairs Committee and with what Sir Robert Peel said when he gave his reasons for establishing the police service: the criminal justice system is meant to prevent offending and reoffending. If every agency focused on its contribution to that objective, rather than intermediate objectives, we would reach the point we all want to reach, with fewer people becoming victims. I mention victims because we keep talking about their interests, and it is right to do so, but let us be clear about what we mean by that. I have been enormously struck by the clarity that has been offered on more than one occasion by Victim Support, which has said that what victims want, other than not to become victims of an offence in the first place, is to know that they will not become victims again. They want to know that something has been done about the activity that led to their becoming victims so that such things are less likely to happen in future. One positive development in recent months has been the establishment of the Sentencing Council, which I welcome. I sat on the Committee that dealt with the legislation that introduced it. We should go a stage further by being much more precise about the council's purpose, and I tabled amendments at the time that I would have liked to make to the legislation. The council's purpose should be to analyse what works so that when sentencers take their decisions, they are fully cognisant of the likely impact in terms of lessening the likelihood of further offences. The report specifically refers to these issues. The Committee says:"““We believe that the role of the Sentencing Council should be to ensure that sentencing practice succeeds in reducing offending and re-offending.””" We talk about the need for the council to be"““well-resourced to enable it to perform its research function.””" We mention the time that it has taken for data to be adequate to inform decision making. We ask for the council to be told to"““consider how sentencers can be given a better understanding of what works in terms of reducing offending and re-offending””." Ensuring that judges and magistrates understand the implications and likely effects of their sentences would help the whole criminal justice system and be very much in Ministers' interests. I could develop that point, but it is fairly clear and simple, and the report's recommendations are clearly set out.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 516 c335-6WH
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Contracts Crime prevention Administration of justice Construction Cooperation Finance Offenders Prisoners Prisons Probation Overcrowding Rehabilitation Sentencing Standards Reoffenders Cuts Community orders Veterans
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 21:45:28 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_671810
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_671810
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_671810