[Charles Kennedy is head of the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems), the third
largest party in the UK]

"=2E.But when our prisons are overflowing, does it really make sense that
the number of shoplifters in jail has increased 1000% in the last ten
years?

There has also been a 173% rise in the number of women in prison over
the same period. Very few women fall into the category of violent and
dangerous offenders and the possible impact of imprisonment on their
children is immense.

I agree with Cherie Blair when she said this weekend that prison should
be =E2=80=9Cthe absolute last resort for women=E2=80=BF..."

http://www.charleskennedy.org.uk/html/content.php/type/as/id/55/article/spe=
ech__tough_liberalism.html

Rt Hon Charles Kennedy MP


Speech: Tough Liberalism
Charles Kennedy sets out the principles that underpin the Liberal
Democrat approach to crime and justice - 30th March 2004

I am pleased to be here tonight and I want to thank the Independent for
arranging this event. I=E2=80=99m looking forward to answering your questio=
ns
a little later.

But first, I=E2=80=99d like to say a few words about how I think that our
society has been evolving over the last decade and how the Liberal
Democrat approach fits in with what is happening.

The Liberal Society

Public opinion and how people choose to live their lives are changing
and moving on in a way that has bypassed some of our political
opponents.

For much of the 20th Century, people in this country were characterised
as being =E2=80=98small c conservative=E2=80=99.

But in the 21st century, it is the characteristics of the =E2=80=98small l
liberal=E2=80=99 that are beginning to dominate.

Attitudes have changed. We are less deferential; more inclined to think
for ourselves; more open about sexuality and equality.

For example, how many people care these days whether their local MP is
gay or straight? What they ask is whether this person is effective.

Our national institutions are also changing.
We are no longer a nation of one church; we are a nation of many
churches.
We are no longer a nation with one family structure.
We are no longer a nation of one colour and, increasingly, we welcome
diversity.

As the fabric of our society changes, our political parties must
reflect what=E2=80=99s happening - framing policies to reflect the
aspirations of the public =E2=80=93 without of course losing sight of
founding, fundamental principles.

That=E2=80=99s the difference between a political approach based on a
philosophy and a political approach which leans too much on focus
groups.

Such corrosiveness is one among many factors as to why people are
increasingly unsure what politics and politicians have to offer them
and why therefore they are turning away from the mainstream political
parties.

A recent poll for the Electoral Commission showed that 70% no longer
trust their politicians.
And only half of eligible voters said they would be certain to vote at
the next General Election.

(Brent East =E2=80=93 to lead you first have to listen and be prepared to
learn)

Liberal Politics

For a decade, the Conservative party has been in open warfare as it
attempts to come to terms with the new liberalism.

The Labour Party, rooted in the state control of socialism, makes
appropriate noises, but can=E2=80=99t shrug off old habits.

The commentators, too, are more comfortable with tried and tested
political questions - is this party to the Left? is this party to the
Right? - but such thinking is out of date.
The volatility of contemporary politics requires broader thinking.

If you take, say, the council tax, the war on Iraq, the Euro - these
are issues which people are passionate about. But they don=E2=80=99t fit
neatly into the rigid delineations of the old left-right spectrum.

So, today, I offer a different formula. How about the question whether
a party is =E2=80=98liberal or illiberal?=E2=80=99

It prompts a different outlook. You might then ask - does a party
believe in a big or a small state? Does it truly believe in the
benefits of diversity? Does it trust the people, or seek to dictate to
them?

Through this prism of =E2=80=98liberal=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98illiberal=E2=80=
=99, you can start
to grasp the reality of the new politics. That, in turn, leads to a
clearer understanding of the challenge for those of us seeking to
reinvigorate the debate.

And for the Liberal Democrats, this also provides an opportunity: to
persuade this =E2=80=98small l liberal=E2=80=99 society, to become =E2=80=
=98large L
Liberal Democrat=E2=80=99 voters.

Tough Liberalism

One way is to break down preconceived notions about us =E2=80=93 based on
misunderstandings.

The law and order debate is a good starting point.

I suggest that the real liberal approach to law and order and civil
liberties, can be tough =E2=80=93 very tough =E2=80=93 without descending i=
nto
populist illiberalism.

There is a big difference between empowering the police to tackle crime
on the one hand and stripping society of its hard earned freedoms on
the other hand.

=E2=80=98Lock them up=E2=80=99; =E2=80=98prison works=E2=80=99, is one way =
of dealing with it.
That=E2=80=99s the so-called =E2=80=98tough=E2=80=99 response.

Of course society must be protected from violent criminals; those who
have committed a violent crime and are a threat should be in prison

But when our prisons are overflowing, does it really make sense that
the number of shoplifters in jail has increased 1000% in the last ten
years?

There has also been a 173% rise in the number of women in prison over
the same period. Very few women fall into the category of violent and
dangerous offenders and the possible impact of imprisonment on their
children is immense.

I agree with Cherie Blair when she said this weekend that prison should
be =E2=80=9Cthe absolute last resort for women=E2=80=BF.

Now, it=E2=80=99s true that locking up offenders - no matter how minor their
crime - may satisfy the instinct for revenge. But it does nothing to
prevent the crime from happening in the first place. Nor does it stop
people re-offending when they get out.

If you take one age-group - the 18 -21 year olds - 71% of them will
come out and commit a new crime.
In all - 59% of all prisoners re-offend.
And consider the cost; =C2=A337,000 per year per prisoner. And that
excludes all the policing costs, court costs plus repeat costs when
they re-offend.

The Liberal Democrat approach - to sentencing and to prison regimes -
is vigorous; and would be more effective.

Keeping non-violent offenders out of jail and forcing them to pay back
the communities they have abused - is tough.
Educating offenders, getting them out of the cell and into the
classroom, getting them trained and into productive jobs, helping them
to go straight, stopping them from re-offending - is tough.

It=E2=80=99s also likely to be more effective and better for society in the
long run.

Take one other example. Home Office studies show that the criminality
associated with the abuse of the worst illegal drugs costs us up to
=C2=A312bn a year - that=E2=80=99s around =C2=A335,000 for each hard core d=
rug user.

But when you get such addicts into rehabilitation and if you can get
them to stick with the programme - the arrest rate and the crimes and
costs associated, drops by 90%. Yes, 90%.

So for hard core drug users too, prison is an easy option which
doesn=E2=80=99t work. But the tough option - treatment and rehabilitation -
brings less crime and safer streets.

No-one, in my experience, understood and articulated this whole
approach better than the late and much lamented Judge Stephen Tumim.

As HH Inspector of Prisons he was fearless and formative. One Michael
Howard, then Home Secretary, considered him a pain in the side. He was
regarded as an establishment irritant =E2=80=93 =E2=80=9Cnot one of us=E2=
=80=BF (correct
actually, he wasn=E2=80=99t one of them).

His is sorely missed. I would regard Stephen as a =E2=80=98tough=E2=80=99 l=
iberal!

The Correct Balance between Protection and Liberty

So we are beginning to define =E2=80=98tough liberalism.=E2=80=99

It involves tough choices. But it=E2=80=99s also about hard-headed realism.
It=E2=80=99s about balancing the requirements of the safety, security and
health of our society - with the requirements of freedom and civil
liberty.

Faced with the threat from Al-Qaida, as a nation, we need to consider
what needs to be done to protect our society and how we need to do
things differently.

In framing that response, we Liberal Democrats would also say it is
essential it=E2=80=99s measured and thoughtful and rooted in observance of
our basic human rights. It must not result in panicky measures which
jettison the fundamentals of the rule of law.

The Americans responded to Al Quaida by setting up Guantanamo Bay -
which operates outside any recognised legal framework.

The Liberal Democrats have never argued for special treatment of these
men, but for fair treatment according to the law. They are entitled to
no less.

The confusion surrounding their legal status led the unedifying
spectacle of British officials arresting those detainees recently
returned to Britain, and then releasing them again almost immediately.

Here, David Blunkett set up a new regime in Belmarsh prison - where
foreign nationals are being detained indefinitely without trial. This
is being done within a legal framework, but one based on
=E2=80=98emergency=E2=80=99 provisions.

We don=E2=80=99t accept that either of these will solve what is likely to be
a long-term problem.

And the Home Secretary has some equally draconian follow-up thoughts -
including limiting the right to trial and appeal, limiting access to
evidence and the lowering of the burden of proof.

All of these threaten the long-established framework of our attitude to
human rights and civil liberties and our approach to the law.
And I hardly need remind you that, once fundamental liberties are
withdrawn to deal with one emergency, it is easy enough to find other
=E2=80=98emergencies=E2=80=99 to apply them to.

Salami-slicing of civil liberties is unacceptable.

Tough liberalism recognises that we do not live in an ideal world and
there are times when it is appropriate to strike a compromise between
safety and liberty; but with the utmost care.

So we don=E2=80=99t need Identity Cards to protect us from terrorists. They
would be ineffective, ill-judged, and unnecessary. ID cards did not
prevent the massacre of innocent civilians in Spain. Instead we should
spend the billions of pounds such a scheme would cost on expanding the
police, M15 and the intelligence services.

We don=E2=80=99t need to attack fundamental aspects of our legal system.
Instead, we should be working on greater co-operation with our European
partners to bring terrorists to justice.

We don=E2=80=99t need a police state. But we should accept marshals on our
transport system, more robust vetting procedures and stricter regimes
at our borders and points of entry.

Asylum and Immigration

On the face of it, one of the most difficult areas for the =E2=80=98liberal
versus illiberal=E2=80=99 debate concerns asylum and immigration.

There is nothing easy, in the current tabloid climate, about standing
up for asylum seekers.

Being in favour of an effective asylum system - one in which Britain,
together with our EU partners, is a safe haven for the persecuted and
the vulnerable - is not being a soft touch.

I don=E2=80=99t have a problem with the idea that failed applicants should
also be repatriated as soon as possible. It makes sense for assessment
procedures to be speeded up, so they are swift and accurate.

And if there is abuse of the asylum process, you remove the abuse. What
you don=E2=80=99t do is circumvent long-established and fundamental judicial
practices =E2=80=93 like the right to appeal.

People are entitled to expect consistency from the political parties on
these issues =E2=80=93 Why the did Michael Howard initially oppose the
withdrawal of benefit from failed asylum seekers but then led the
Conservatives to vote in support of the Government on precisely that
policy?

It is not only the UK=E2=80=99s Asylum system that is demonised; the attacks
are often widened to include our whole immigration system.

Let us be clear. Immigration enriches our society - culturally and
financially. Huguenots, Jews, East African Asians, Caribbeans,
Pakistanis, Indians, Africans - they have all been an asset to this
country.

Again the Home Office provides some evidence. The net contribution of
first generation immigrants is two and a half billion pounds - the
equivalent of almost one penny on the rate of income tax.

People who leave their own countries - by and large - are also people
of initiative and enterprise. They make significant contributions to
our prosperity and tend to work and pay taxes, rather than claim
benefit.

Their social contribution is immense and invaluable. Why do we rarely
hear this kind of rhetoric from the Home Secretary?

Conclusion

What I have tried to do tonight is to challenge those of us who care
about the political debate to find new ways of framing it.

My party, the Liberal Democrats, has plenty of history. We can allude
to Gladstone, Beveridge and Keynes. We are hardly Johnny Come
Lately=E2=80=99s to the House of Commons.

Yet we have little of the 20th century political baggage of the other
two parties to throw off.

We can genuinely set out a vision for Britain which has the merit of
consistency with our long-established principles, together with an
appeal to the small =E2=80=98l=E2=80=99 liberal spirit of the 21st century.

I believe it is a powerful message which is increasingly finding a
resonance.

ENDS



Return to March Articles & Speeches.

Return to Articles & Speeches. Home Contact LibDems Accessibility
=C2=A9 2005 Charles Kennedy | A Slightly Different solution



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/29/05 8:46:42 AM ---