Britain's drink problem

Tougher penalties, better enforced, will change behaviour - says the Justice Secretary.

Jack Straw MP

ANDREW MARR: Now then, MPs have been on a half-term holiday all week but it's back to business tomorrow, and tomorrow evening back bench Labour MPs meet for the first time since that by election humiliation.

Many are said to be in rebellious mood over government plans to raise motoring taxes, and the increase for a period of detention without trial, the 42 days row.

Now Justice Secretary Jack Straw is the only other survivor from Tony Blair's first cabinet so he knows a bit about the ups and downs of government, and he joins me now from Oxfordshire.

Mr. Straw, welcome.

JACK STRAW: Thank you.

ANDREW MARR: Can I begin on the 42 days issue? Lots of rumours of ever more complicated and intricate deals being done.

In your judgement is this a compromise that can, have you got a compromise in front of you now that will buy off enough rebels to get your legislation through?

JACK STRAW: Well, we'll see what the vote is when the vote happens. But what I'm clear about is that the overall majority of Labour Members of Parliament want to support the government on this, they've got anxieties which obviously everybody understands, about ensuring that there are sufficient protections in this measure which would only be used in exceptional circumstances.

And it's for that reason that Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has already indicated that she is thinking about tightening the criteria which would have to be followed before this power could be triggered, and also shortening the time which would be required after which the use of the power would have to be put before Parliament.

At the moment it's, on the Bill that's published at 30 days. That is what we can anticipate, that will be shortened very considerably.

ANDREW MARR: So that, to be clear, what rebels will be offered, everybody will be offered, at this meeting is more safeguards, parliament coming in to the action much more quickly, perhaps a week or whatever it is, and clearer safeguards as well about the circumstances in which this new power would be used. But the 42 days itself...

JACK STRAW: Yes.

ANDREW MARR: ...will remain?

JACK STRAW: 42 days will remain, I mean it won't necessarily be offered at this meeting because it's a normal business meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party although Jacqui Smith will be talking to it.

But can I just say that, you know, that why we are pursuing the proposal for 42 days to be available in exceptional circumstances, and that is because it's very important that we have on the statute book powers and facilities which are available to the police and the courts in exceptional circumstances of a grave terrorist emergency.

Now the interesting thing here is that almost every of our critics accept that such circumstances could exist, they say however use the Civil Contingencies Act, we say that is a blunderbuss and actually provides fewer real protections so, than those which are now in the Bill itself and has to be modified during the course of legislation in the next few weeks.

ANDREW MARR: So when Lord Goldsmith who you sat alongside in government for a long, long time, says that this is a fundamental attack on habeas corpus, what do you say to him?

JACK STRAW: Well I don't accept that, I mean Peter Goldsmith's a great friend of mine and I greatly respect his views. But on this particular issue I don't accept that. And allow me just to set the powers in context.

First of all the power would only be available to the Home Secretary to trigger if there was a joint request for that, both by the Chief Police Officer and by the Director of Public Prosecutions, then the Home Secretary has got to trigger the power and it would be subject to endorsement really very quickly by Parliament.

Then in an individual case of a terrorist suspect the application to extend beyond 28 days would have to go to a senior and very experienced judge who would only grant seven days if he or she granted any period at all, subject to a further seven days. So I really don't think that the criticism that Peter makes of it is justified given all these protections.

ANDREW MARR: It's becoming so complicated on both sides now.

JACK STRAW: I don't think it is complicated actually.

ANDREW MARR: Is this not become totemic? This is a sort of, it's become a symbolic battle on both sides that you must win for symbolic reasons, not really for practical ones?

JACK STRAW: Well no, there's a more practical purpose here. Inevitably, because people take sides on issues, and they are emotive as well, and I understand that. They also to some degree take on a life of their own.

And one of the things we are asking those who've got reservations about these proposals is to cut through the rhetoric which surrounds the opposition to the proposals, look for example at what is already in the Civil Contingencies Act which people say well we should go for that, and say well what is the precise difference between that accepted is a blunderbuss and this bespoke set of ratings for dealing with a grave terrorist emergency in certain circumstances, with lots and lots of protection.

ANDREW MARR: Let's turn to knife crime, a lot of talk about knife crime over the past week, and for very, very good reasons. First of all do you think that anybody caught with a knife should be prosecuted? And second, do you think that if they use a knife they should automatically be jailed?

JACK STRAW: So far as should they be prosecuted, there should certainly be a presumption to prosecute, there are certain circumstances where a caution or no prosecution is warranted, particular circumstances.

But overall, and this has really been indicated by Sir Igor Judge, who's Head of Criminal Justice in the Queen's Bench Division, president of that division, that there ought to be a presumption to prosecute. So far as should there be custody what we have done is increase the maximum sentence for knife possession...

ANDREW MARR: I understand that...but if I can just interject.

JACK STRAW: ...sorry allow me to just finish - for possession of a knife. I mean it's use is something very different, for possession alone of a knife from two years to four years, it's then up to the courts as to whether or not they should impose an immediate [talking over each other]

ANDREW MARR: It's almost never used. I mean in thousands and thousands and thousands of cases, a very tiny handful ever end up in jail. And that's the problem, it's the sentencing guidelines, is it not?

JACK STRAW: Well that's not the case as a matter of fact, and there's been a three-fold increase in the number of offenders for possession alone of a knife or bladed instrument who now go to jail, it was around 300 a year in 1997, it's well over 1,000 now, and it's rising quite considerably. We all want to see a real clampdown on the use and just the possession of knives.

Let me just say this, that if a knife is used in any kind of crime including a threat then a substantive offence relating for example to grievous bodily harm or a threat to cause grievous bodily harm, offences like that. And the offenders are almost always put into custody immediately. So we should not assume....

ANDREW MARR: OK. So how...

JACK STRAW: The totality of what the courts do about knife crime is simply the penalties for possession, far from it.

ANDREW MARR: But how many people have actually received the maximum prison sentence for carrying a knife?

JACK STRAW: Very few is the answer. I think it's about eight.

ANDREW MARR: That was my point.

JACK STRAW: But that's always the case with maximums, they're very rarely used. What we however have done is increase the maximum from two years to four years, so what we are already seeing and we will see even more, is that the actual average sentence length will increase, which is really important, and the possibility...

ANDREW MARR: OK.

JACK STRAW: ...or the prospect of custody, the rate of custody will also go up as well.

ANDREW MARR: When it comes to alcohol and the problem of young people and drinking. Do you really believe that the threat to, in the extreme imprison, prosecute parents of children caught binge-drinking is something that can be realistically followed through? Isn't it just flag-waving?

JACK STRAW: I don't think it is flag-waving, or it would only happen in certain extreme circumstances. I mean what we're dealing with here is a situation where actually the number of young people who are involved in drinking appears to have declined. But the rate of binge-drinking amongst those who do go in for it has gone up. So one thing's getting better the other thing's getting worse.

And obviously fundamentally the responsibility lies with those young children, or young people, who often seek responsibility in other areas, and their parents. But I've been reflecting on the way in which we've changed behaviour in other areas. I mean for example, football hooliganism which was a huge issue when, in those distant days when you and I were younger Andrew. But even ten years ago or so. By a variety of means, including toughening enforcement and toughening penalties we have transformed what happens in and around football games, and behaviour on the whole is infinitely better now.

ANDREW MARR: And you want something similar?

JACK STRAW: I think you can. I think you can by changing the law, by greatly improving enforcement, and also by making a kind of moral imperative towards parents as well as those young people, you can start to change behaviour.

And there's a big moral imperative in my view, on the supermarkets, on the corner shops and on the drink producers as well.

ANDREW MARR: Let's turn to the wider political picture. Would it be unconstitutional, you're Mr. Constitution, would it be unconstitutional for the Labour Party again to change leader without there being a General Election?

JACK STRAW: It wouldn't technically be unconstitutional, thank you for the...but it's not going to happen. Look, it's only 11 months...

ANDREW MARR: Would it be wrong? Since Gordon Brown.

JACK STRAW: Sorry.

ANDREW MARR: Would it be constitutionally wrong?

JACK STRAW: I mean refer to better constitutional theorists and historians than me for the answer to that what I'm going to tell you Andrew is this, it's 11 months since Gordon Brown was elected by aclamation leader of the Labour Party, and then became immediately Prime Minister.

He is the same man he was 11 months ago. He is a man who has sustained and improved Britain's economic prosperity over a ten-year period, and ensured that we moved up from being seventh out of seven in the international league table of major industrialised countries, to second out of seven.

And he is the man now to take us through without any question these very difficult economic circumstances which are worldwide to do with. The increase in food prices, the great increase in oil and energy prices, and the credit crunch. And I'm very clear about that and speculation about the leadership frankly is nonsense. We have a leader, he's the best leader we could possibly have and he will see us through these difficulties. Can I just say...

ANDREW MARR: Sorry, no matter what happens to your poll ratings, no matter what happens to the mood of Labour back benchers?

JACK STRAW: Yes, and I think our poll ratings and the mood will change. I just want to say this, and congratulate the winner of Crewe and Nantwich who was on your programme earlier. But a very interesting article by Vernon Bogdanor in the Financial Times earlier in the week, pointing out that of I think 106 by elections which took place between 1922 and 1997 the government of the day only won six.

Now we've been in a very unusual period from 1997 to 2005 where in fact we won every, or the Conservatives did not succeed in winning any by elections against us. We're now back in normal politics, but cripes I'm old enough to remember what happened in 1968 when we had terrible by election results.

We went into the 1970 General Election as odds-on favourite. I even remember Orpington, I was still at school, which the Liberal Democrats when they only had six seats in Parliament, won, with a swing which would have given the Conservatives just one seat in Parliament, Kensington and Chelsea, had there been a General Election...but two years later.

ANDREW MARR: So don't panic is the message.

JACK STRAW: The Conservatives again almost won that general election.

ANDREW MARR: OK, very unfair interviewing technique to begin an answer there was an interesting article by Vernon Bogdanor in the Financial Times, by the way may I say. Final question from me however, on the constitutional question. You've raised the possibility of voting reform for the House of Commons, the alternative vote. Is that a serious runner from your point of view?

JACK STRAW: Well I think it's something I've always personally been interested in. Let me say you cannot, and in my view could not, change the voting system for the House of Commons without first of all approval by Parliament, and then a referendum of the British people.

This cannot be a partisan plaything. I've always been on two minds, about the alternative votes versus first past the post. The thing I'm absolutely passionate about, absolutely passionate about, is about single member constituencies, where one member of parliament represents everybody within that constituency. I think it's absolutely fundamental to the health of our democracy, and when you have ...

ANDREW MARR: You can't have a more proportional system within that, could you?

JACK STRAW: Well, and that's the debate actually, and the alternative vote which they have in Australia for example, and they strongly support in Australia, sometimes, quite often does produce a more proportional situation.

It's value is that in three party politics which we now have, an individual member of parliament can only be elected if he or she has 50% plus one of the popular vote in his constituency. That's the value of it, but it also has downsides as well.

ANDREW MARR: An English rural setting behind you, an English voice coming out of your mouth, a lot of people say that you should be Gordon Brown's deputy?

JACK STRAW: Well that's a matter for Gordon Brown. But I'll also just say there are loads of English people , true born English men and women inside his Cabinet.

I'm an Essex boy who represents a Lancashire constituency and although they're quite far apart the both counties are profoundly patriotic in their support, not only for the United Kingdom but also for England. And it's great.

ANDREW MARR: All right, thank you very much indeed Mr. Straw.

INTERVIEW ENDS

Please note "The Andrew Marr Show" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

NB: This transcript was typed from a recording and not copied from an original script.

Because of the possibility of mis-hearing and the difficulty, in some cases, of identifying individual speakers, the BBC cannot vouch for its accuracy

Your comments

Disclaimer: The BBC may edit your comments and cannot guarantee that all emails will be published.

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version