................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 19.1.97
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Law and order will be one of the BIG issues in the General Election inevitably. I'll be asking the Home Secretary if what used to be one of the Conservatives' most reliable trump cards has turned out to be the joker in the pack. That's after the News read by MOIRA STUART. NEWS HUMPHRYS: Is the Conservative Party preparing plans to change the way it elects its leader? We've a report that says it is. But first - law and order. For the last four elections the Tories have been able to tell the voters: vote for us and you'll sleep safer in your beds at night. They're going to find it very difficult to say that again this time. The crime rate has more than doubled since the Conservatives came to power and two important laws to fight crime that the Home Secretary wants to bring in before the end of this Parliament are in trouble. The Home Secretary, Michael Howard, is with me. Good afternoon. MICHAEL HOWARD: Good afternoon. HUMPHRYS: Only a few months at best before the Election - could be only a few weeks - who knows? You're not going to be able to get your remaining measures into Law, are you? HOWARD: I very much hope we will. They are very important measures, they are going to help make this country a safer place to live in. And, contrary really to your introduction, I think there is every reason why people should vote for the Conservative Party on grounds of Law and Order. We have seen in the last three years the biggest fall in recorded crime since records were first kept in 1876. HUMPHRYS: According to some figures. HOWARD: Well, the figures. They were the figures which no one used to criticise when they were going up. Indeed, when I first became Home Secretary, I was challenged by Tony Blair to accept as the criterion of my success as Home Secretary those very crime figures which have come down by ten per cent in the last three years. It's the biggest fall over that period of the whole of the OECD. HUMPHRYS: But, most people accept that the biggest crime survey figures are more reliable and they show an increase. So- HOWARD: The latest British crime survey figures show the smallest increase they've ever recorded. HUMPHRYS: Still going up. HOWARD: So the trend is actually-Well, it's the smallest increase ever recorded and they showed a small in a number of very important crimes. So I think that we have a very, very, good message to get across on Law and Order and we can demonstrate very clearly and precisely the measures that we've been putting in place which have been opposed by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, which will help to make this country a safer place. Perhaps you will let me give you an example. One of the things that I've done is to change the arrangements surrounding the Right to Silence, bitterly opposed by the Labour Party when Tony Blair himself was Shadow Home Secretary. Now if suspects refuse to answer straightforward questions from the Police, that can be drawn to the attention of the Magistrates and the Jury when previously it was kept a secret from them. And since that has been introduced, that change has been introduced, the number of suspects refusing to answer questions has almost halved. Now, that is a change which which would not have happened if we hadn't had a Conservative Government and it's making a difference in bringing guilty men to justice and convicting them in the courts of this country all the time. HUMPHRYS: Right. You got that through when you hard a decent majority in the House of Commons. Things have changed now, you don't have a majority at all, and let's have a look at your Police Bill which is being fiercely opposed, not just by politicians, but by many other people as well. And, the problem is that what they don't like about it is that you're saying to Chief Constables:as part of this new Law, you may break into somebody's home or office, if you suspect a serious crime, and plant a bug, and you don't need approval from a judge or some such figure before you do it. Now, they say that is absolutely wrong, they are unalterably opposed to that. Bearing that in mind and bearing in mind your very small-your very serious problems in the House of Commons, are you prepared to say:O.K. We will listen to you. HOWARD: Well, we certainly listen to people -we have listened. I introduced, I put down in the House of Lords, some amendments on Friday which will modify our proposals to some extent. To meet - I think - all reasonable concerns- HUMPHRYS: Ah, well. HOWARD: -while maintaining the very important principle at the heart of the Bill. Now, most of the discussion - including,
if I may say so, your question - starts off from, really, a false premise. It starts off from the proposition that we are going to give the Police, for the first time- HUMPHRYS: No, no, no, I didn't suggest that. HOWARD: -these new powers. HUMPHRYS: You're institutionalising it, you're entrenching it in Law. HOWARD: That's what many people assume. The truth of the matter is- HUMPHRYS: Then, I'll accept that. HOWARD: These powers have been exercised by the Police for decades and they've only been subject to Home Office guidelines. I think Lord Callaghan is one of the people who is now expressing concerns about the Bill. When Lord Callaghan was Prime Minister, the only constraints on the way in which the Police exercised this power was a page and a half of guidance which was issued in 1977. HUMPHRYS: I accept all of that. HOWARD: Now, we've tightened that guidance in 1984 and now for the first time we've going to put the exercise of these powers on a proper statutory basis with a completely new safeguard. HUMPHRYS: Right. HOWARD: An independent Commissioner who is to be a serving or former High Court Judge, who will have the responsibility for reviewing and monitoring- HUMPHRYS: Reviewing - precisely. HOWARD: -the way in which the Police use these powers and quashing an authorisation if he thinks that it had been given improperly and outside the scope of the act. HUMPHRYS: Right. The essential word, the crucial word in that answer was REVIEWING. What many people say - High Court Judges and all the rest of them say - is they should have to get approval before they break into your home and plan to bug. That's the criticism. You're not going to give them that. HOWARD: There are two problems with that. But first of all, you're concentrating on entering people's homes. Most of the ways in which these powers- HUMPHRYS: Because a lot of people are concerned about it. HOWARD: Indeed, I understand that. But, most of the ways in which these powers are exercised are not to do with entering people's homes. HUMPHRYS: But let's deal with that because 'an Englishman's home is his castle' and all that sort of thing. HOWARD: Yeah, yeah - absolutely. But, let's remember what we're dealing with. Most-most of the powers are used to track people's property, to track vehicles. HUMPHRYS: I'm not talking about that. HOWARDS: But this is all part of it because they'd all be subject to these procedures that you are putting to me. HUMPHRYS: No. The entering the home thing. That's the important thing. HOWARD: I will. I'm coming to it, I promise you. And, they track people's vehicles, they record conversations in public places, they enter commercial premises. And, sometimes, occasionally, in a small proportion of the cases in which these powers are exercised, they do enter people's homes. HUMPHRYS: Thirteen hundred cases last year - that's not that small. HOWARD: They do so in pursuit of serious criminals in an attempt to prevent and detect serious crime. We are not talking about some abstract question here. We are talking about the ability of police to deal with terrorism - the Bill extends to Northern Ireland - kidnapping. HUMPHRYS: Of course, it does. Yes, indeed - yeah. HOWARD: Serious drug dealing. And when the Police tell you that if you made it necessary for them to go in advance to a Judge or to a Commissioner - in advance - and to get authorisation before they can exercise these powers, they will be seriously inhibited in their ability to fight serious crime. HUMPHRYS: Well, fine. HOWARD: You've got to take these doubts and reservations and concerns of the Police very seriously, if you're the Home Secretary. HUMPHRYS: And should we not take very seriously the doubts of very senior judges and indeed, in your own case, politically - and, let's look at the political implications of this - Conservative Peers. Let me quote you, if I may, Lord Alexander, Conservative Peer, a very distinguished, former Chairman of the Bar Council, and all the rest of it. This, he said and I quote:"..is one step down the slippery path to a Police state - blatant executive inroads into our freedoms". Now that is a very serious allegation. HOWARD: I think he is completely wrong. First of all, as I've said before, these powers have been exercised for decades. We're putting them on a statutory basis for the first time. We're introducing a new Commissioner to look at the way in which they're exercised. HUMPHRYS: One Commissioner? HOWARD: No, more than one Commissioner. HUMPHRYS: Maybe three Commissioners? HOWARD: That was one of the amendments that we put down on Friday. However many Commissioners are needed to do the job properly. HUMPHRYS: But you've already got hundreds and hundreds of judges who could do this job properly. HOWARD: Hang on. And a judge in a very recent case said it would be very difficult for judges to put themselves in the shoes of Police officers exercising these powers. Because in order to decide whether you need these powers- and let's remember they can only be used if you can't get the information in any other way - you need the training, the skill, the experience, the expertise of a Chief Constable. HUMPHRYS: Nobody's denying that. HOWARD: And it is the Chief Constable who should be able to decide and sometimes have to do so very quickly, that there's a narrow window of opportunity which will enable you possibly to release a hostage who's being kidnapped. HUMPHRYS: But, that's often not- Come on, we're talking about many other cases than that as well. You're taking an extreme example here. HOWARD: This is all about serious crime. It's about hostage taking, it's about terrorism, it's about serious drug dealing, it's not for run of the mill criminals. HUMPHRYS: You're not limiting it to those cases. We are in the business of serious crime. We are. HUMPHRYS: It's up to the Chief Constable to define a serious crime. HOWARD: Not at all. Serious crime is defined in the Statute and when the Commissioner comes to look at it. If it wasn't used in the course of serious crime, that's something that he can report. HUMPHRYS: OK. HOWARD: And his report is made public. And, if the Commissioner says, in his report, the Chief Constable of this force, or that force, used these powers unlawfully on a dozen occasions during the last year, there'll be questions to be asked about it. HUMPHRYS: So, what you're saying to me this morning- HOWARD: No Chief Constable would likely run the risk of a report like that. HUMPHRYS: What you're saying to me this morning then is: you would rather lose the Bill - which you might very well do, given the Parliamentary arithmetic - you would rather lose the Bill than change it to meet these objections. HOWARD: No, I'm not saying that at all. HUMPHRYS: So, are you saying, then, you're prepared to change that? HOWARD: No. What I've said is- HUMPHRYS: Well, it's one or the other, isn't it? HOWARD: No, it isn't. We've put forward certain changes. They were put down in the House of Lords on Friday. HUMPHRYS: And, they've been rejected by the opponents. HOWARD: I think, they meet reasonable concerns of those who were worried about some of the aspects of the Bill. Now, we will have to wait and see what happens in the House of Lords. There, they will have three different proposals in front of them. They will have the Liberal Democrat proposal - that in all cases - these operations are authorised by a Circuit Judge, severely inhibit the way in which the Police can tackle serious crime. HUMPHRYS: Alright. HOWARD: They would have a Labour Party proposal which is different, which provides for prior authorisation by the Commissioner would lead to considerable difficulties, I think. And, they would have our proposal, which preserves the principle that the Chief Constable is the person to authorise these operations. He's the chap who might have to answer in Court for them, does now, can be cross-examined for the way in which he authorises these powers. Subject to a review by an independent commissioner - Judicial Commissioner - which will be made public - so that the public- HUMPHRYS: Right, after the facts. Right, so- So, you're going to stick with that, you're not going to give any further ground, despite the political opposition.
You're going to stick with it. HOWARD: I've made my position plain. We've put down amendments to meet reasonable concerns. I hope that our proposals will be accepted by the House of Lords. HUMPHRYS: Right. And, if the Lords- If the House of Lords tried to amend it, you'll kick that out as well. You won't accept it. HOWARD: Well, I didn't say that. HUMPHRYS: Ah! HOWARD: We'll have to look-we'll have to wait and see what the House of Lords decide next week. HUMPHRYS: Alright. HOWARD: I hope they will accept that our proposals offer all the safeguards that are necessary, without inhibiting the ability of the Police to fight serious crime. HUMPHRYS: Right. Well, let's look at something else that the Lords are concerned about and, indeed, many, many other people and that's your other Bill, the Crime Sentences Bill, in which you would say to people:if you commit three serious offences in various categories, there is a a minimum sentence that the Courts must impose. Are you prepared to think again about that because, again, many, many people - Conservative peers, judges, the Lord Chief Justice, so on and so on - are saying we don't want that. HOWARD: Well, it's a very odd time for you to be asking me whether I would think again about that Bill when it got its second, third reading in the House of Commons last week by a majority of over two hundred. The House of Commons- HUMPHRYS: But, it's coming to the Lords now. HOWARD: The House of Commons has decided overwhelmingly that this Bill should proceed. The Labour Party still isn't prepared to tell us what it thinks about-about these minimum sentences. Its spokesman in the House of Lords has said he hopes that the Bill will never reach the Statute Books. HUMPHRYS: Well, there we are. HOWARD: But, if a Bill has been given such a resounding majority by the House of Commons - over two hundred - at a time when - as you were at pains to point out to meat the beginning of this interview - we don't any longer have an automatic majority in the House of Commons, then that is a remarkable vote of endorsement for the principles that you find there. HUMPHRYS: Yeah. Well, acceptance-Well, it would be ilf you had won the arguments with the judges in this particular case. Manifestly, you haven't. The former Lord Chief Justice hated it, the present Lord Chief Justice hates it. More importantly, perhaps, from your point of view, some of your own peers - Lord Carlisle, a former Tory Cabinet Minister, himself, will have nothing to do with it. He says it cannot go ahead. So, you are going to have problems in the Lords. Therefore, when it comes back, you don't know what the Labour party is going to do, you could lose it there. HOWARD: Look, this Bill raises very important questions. It does mark a departure from the way in which we've done things before. Not completely unprecedented, there are precedents. But, it does make a difference. I believe, it will make a significant difference in our ability to fight crime more effectively, to protect the public more effectively from serious persistent and dangerous criminals. Now, I understand that there are people who dislike it, who criticise it. You've mentioned some of its critics. We will have to debate some of the arguments in the House of Lords, as we have debated them extensively in the House of Commons. And, in the end - as I have always said - Parliament must decide. No one has a monopoly on deciding the fate of this Bill. The judges, whose views must be listened to with respect, don't have a monopoly- HUMPHRYS: No, no. But, I'll tell you what when you've got somebody like- HOWARD: It's Parliament. It's Parliament that must decide and I am very confident that, in the end, Parliament will decide if it's given the opportunity to do so and the Bill is constructive in the House of Lords. I am very confident that Parliament will reaffirm the view that was taken by the House of Commons last week by a majority of over two hundred that this is a measure which would increase the protection of the public, which would enable the Police to fight crime more effectively and which ought to pass onto the Statute Books. HUMPHRYS: I am surprised that you are so confident. Douglas Hurd, a former Conservative Home Secretary, was asked if he would vote for the Bill - as it stands - and he said: I don't know the answer to that. Now, that's hardly a- HOWARD: He voted for the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons and we'll have to see, won't we what Douglas and others decide. The President of the Police Superintendents' Association has said: it is in the national interest that this country- HUMPHRYS: We're not governed by the Police in this country yet, Home Secretary! HOWARD: We're not. Nor are we governed by the judges. And, the views of the Police are entitled to great respect. It's the Police whom we ask to fight these battles on our behalf day after day. It's the Police who we entrust with the task of protecting us about the activities of serious criminals. And, the Police say as all the Police Associations have said: this Bill will help us fight serious crime more effectively. When the President of the Police Superintendents' Association says it's in the national interest that this Bill should be on the Statute Book, those are views - which I would suggest - that are entitled to be taken very seriously. HUMPHRYS: So, you're not prepared to compromise on that either. That's where you stand? Whatever the Lords say, you will stick by this, even when it comes down to it - maybe Labour will vote against it - you are prepared to lose it. HOWARD: Parliament will decide. It's my job to put forward proposals to Parliament, which I believe will benefit the country, which will make this country a safer place in which to live. Protection of the public has been at the very top of my priorities since I came into this job. It will continue to be at the top of my priorities. I will continue to put forward measures that I believe will make this country a safer place to live in. Parliament, in the end, must decide. HUMPHRYS: Right. We don't know, therefore, how that is going to play with the Electorate, as we say. But, let's look at something briefly that may not be playing very well with the electorate - something that may be damaging the Conservatives' interest. And, that is that they see another battle going on in Conservative politics today, that is within the Conservative Party, various ministers jockeying for position, in the event that there is a vacancy at the top of the Party - the Leadership. It is said that you are one of those Ministers jockeying for position. Is that right? HOWARD: It's not right. Let me make it absolutely plain. There is only one campaign that I am fighting. There is only one campaign that I want to win and that is the campaign to win this General Election. If there were to be a Labour Government, that Government would do incalculable harm to the people of this country. We have economic prospects which are the envy of the rest of the world, we have the biggest fall in recorded crime of the OECD. I don't want those things to be put at risk by a Labour Government. I don't want a Labour Government which will, apart from anything else, take us down the path towards a Federal United States of Europe. HUMPHRYS: Right. So, your message to any MP, who might, possibly, be out there canvassing for you - to any Conservative MP, who might be running a little 'Let's get Michael Howard into the Leadership', what' your message to him? HOWARD: My message to every Conservative Member of Parliament is to devote all your efforts to winning this General Election. It is a critically important General Election. The people of this country would face great dangers, suffer great risks and would, actually suffer great harm, if there were to be a Labour Government. HUMPHRYS: Right, if they're doing that, you're telling them to stop, are you? HOWARD: Yeah. They're not doing that. There is no campaign. The only campaign I can tell you is the campaign to win the next General Election. HUMPHRYS: But, you're not telling me, as a senior politician- HOWARD: I'm spending all my time devoting all my efforts to waking up the people of this country to the dangers that they would face from a Labour Government. HUMPHRYS: But, you're not telling me, as a senior politician, that if the opportunity arose, you wouldn't like to lead your Party, are you? HOWARD: I haven't come here to talk about things like that. HUMPHRYS: I know. But, come on. Ken Clarke said he'd like to do it. Loads of other politicians said they'd like to do it. HOWARD: I'm only interested in talking about the issues relevant to the General Election. HUMPHRYS: Now, don't deny it. HOWARD: We have got to win this General Election and I hope that John Major remains Prime Minister for a very long time. He's negotiated this country through tremendously difficult circumstances in the last six years and we're now seeing the benefit of all his hard work. He deserves the support of all the people in this country. I'm confident that he'll get it at the General Election and that he'll stay Prime Minister for a very long time. HUMPHRYS: Home Secretary, thank you very much, indeed. HOWARD: Thank you.