................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 9.2.97
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The Labour Party says it's tough on crime. How tough? I'll be putting the Shadow Home Secretary Jack Straw to the toughness test. That's after the NEWS read by MOIRA STUART. NEWS HUMPHRYS: This week the Labour Party will have to decide where it stands on a couple of tough law and order bills brought in by the government. Jack Straw, the Shadow Home Secretary, has outraged liberal opinion over the past eighteen months or so with his tough talk - and created the impression that a Labour Government would be at least as uncompromising as the Tories. But would it? I'll be talking to Mr Straw after this report from Paul Wilenius. FILM (End of film)
PAUL WILENIUS
" So, if he changes direction Straw risks being accused of going soft. If he sticks with his hard line he may not be able to afford it, so is Jack boxed in?" HUMPHRYS: Well, are you, Mr Straw? You've been sounding tough but isn't it about votes? JACK STRAW MP: It's about dealing with the profound anxieties of voters. Let's go back twenty years ago. There was crime but it was not a major, political issue. Indeed, I - thirty years ago, Harold Wilson was Prime Minister. I looked, the other day, in his memoirs - a great, fat volume, over a thousand pages - looked in the Index - to find out how often he'd been concerned as a crime as a political issue, or Law and Order. Crime's not mentioned once; Law and Order is mentioned four times. So, it was there but it wasn't a political issue because crime happened, in those days, on the whole, to other people. Now, today, over - through a period (phon) virtually everybody in our society has been a victim of crime and those who are the poorest in our society are most likely, also, to be a victim. That has changed the politics of crime - of course, it has. And, it's why, four years ago, Tony Blair said that what we had to be was tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. And, what I've sought to do over the two and a half years that I've been Shadow Home Secretary is to provide the detail how that would operate. And, the profound difference between the Labour Party and the Conservatives is they have a single club approach: all concerned about sentencing. Whereas we're- HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but I'm dealing with one of your clubs, at the moment - this-the one where you say you're gonna be tough on crime. STRAW: Go on, then. HUMPHRYS: And, the question is: they say they're going to be tough on crime. And, they are naive - you may well say they're not tough on the causes of crime - that's another argument. But, they are tough on crime. The allegation against you by some people is that you are talking tough on crime but you don't actually mean it. STRAW: Well, that's patently untrue and it's proved by our record and, also, what we've said we're going to do and what what we will be judged on. I don't wanna get involved in an auction with the Conservatives but the simple fact of the matter is that despite their rhetoric - and some Acts of Parliament, which have gone through, which toughen up sentencing - over the last seventeen years, crime has doubled and the number of people convicted, or cautioned, for those crimes has gone down. And that is a clear record of failure and not its success. Now, I want to make sure is this: yes, when people are convicted in Court, they get a tough and appropriate punishment, but I also want to make sure that more offenders get to Court - that we don't have these ridiculous hurdles in the way. And, what I also, above all, am passionate about achieving is a change in the way in which we deal with young offenders because despite all this rhetoric from Conservatives nowhere has the failure of the Conservatives been greater than in respect of young offenders. HUMPHRYS: And we did touch on that in the film there. But, let's have a look at what you said about eighteen months ago, I think. You were going on about Zero Tolerance approach to crime, weren't you? Winos - you had a little list there - winos, beggars, drug addicts, squeegie merchants. Now, in terms of those people, and their activities - the sort of things we see all the time; beggars on the street and squeegie merchants at the traffic lights and all that - what does Zero Tolerance actually mean? What are you going to do about them? STRAW: Well, what I was saying, by the way - and, it's important to put it into context - was not that we should dismiss the predicament of people who are drug addicts- HUMPHRYS: No, no, I understand that. I understand that. STRAW: -and all the rest of it. But, that decent, compassionate people are put off from using public places by the predatory behaviour of people who are drug addicts or winos. You come out of a tube station in London and quite likely - as I do very frequently, by the way - quite likely you'll bump into someone who's carrying a can of Tennants strong lager and being abusive to people. HUMPHRYS: So, what you gonna do about it? STRAW: Well, what you gotta do is first of all ensure that there is provision for those people off the streets. HUMPHRYS: Yeah. And, there is, at the moment. Most people say they simply don't use them. STRAW: Well, that's true, in some areas. It's not true in other areas. HUMPHRYS: It is in London STRAW: Some-some areas have had success in getting them off the streets. Secondly, if you take, for example, drug addicts - who are a very, serious problem - what we've got to do - and we've already put forward proposals for this - is introduce much tougher treatment and testing programmes for them in the community. We put forward proposals in October, which have been very, very widely welcomed - I'm astonished that the Government hasn't welcomed them as well - under which a Court would, and could, order a drug treatment and testing programme for drug addicts. HUMPHRYS: Right. STRAW: They will be a subject of random testing to make sure they stayed on the programme. HUMPHRYS: What about these beggars - these aggressive beggars and the squeegie merchants? They are an existing problem; you go out there and you see them. You may very well see them today when you leave this studio. What are you gonna do about those? Are you actually going to tell the Police: drive them off the street. One way or the other, you physically- STRAW: No. HUMPHRYS: -physically get 'em off the streets. And, if not, Mr Straw, aren't you being tough? STRAW: Well, let me give you - You are tough if you are effective. What the public want is to see the people who are begging dealt with. If, for example, they are fradulent beggars - and there are fradulent beggars - they should be in Court. If there are people who are begging because they are mentally ill or they've totally lost self respect, then they need treatment. What you do is - is by a partnership. Now, I'm not talking about a future that we don't know whether works or not, John. I'm talking about already tried and succeeded - for example, in the King's Cross area, where the Local Authority - two Local Authorities, Camden and Islington - both Labour authorities - in co-operation with the Police said what's the problem here? We've got begging, we've got prostitution - all sorts of other problems. And, we've also got youngsters being attracted into the area. So they developed a mix of approach. First of all, ensuring there's hostel accommodation for people who were begging; secondly, getting youth service in to help get the youngsters off the streets; thirdly, going for tough enforcement. And, together, that has changed people's behaviour. HUMPHRYS: Tough enforcement? But are you actually telling me that - 'cos partnerships and things like that, depending on what kind of partnership you're talking about, new social arrangements, they do take time. You have an immediate problem here which you say you're going to be tough on, I keep coming back to this.. for obvious reasons. Are you going to get rid of- let's take the Squigee merchants for instance? STRAW: Well, I think, personally- HUMPHRYS: Are you going to get rid of them? Are you going to drive 'em off the streets? STRAW: I would like local authorities to be given a by-law so they, the local authorities, with the co-operation of the police in the local area, make that decision, but the reason why I talked about Squigee merchants is because they do intimidate people in my judgment. They
intimidate a lot of women. HUMPHRYS: So wotcha gonna do about about them? STRAW: So you make it an offence for people to be Squigee merchants. HUMPHRYS: Right. So you would introduce a law - you can always introduce it - it doesn't have to be a by-law - you can introduce a law. STRAW: You make it a by-law and the reason you do that, John, is because you have the responsibility for making a decision about whether this is such a serious problem that action ought to be taken to the local community and the local police. And, that is a very sensible way to proceed. HUMPHRYS: So, why haven't Labour-why haven't they all got by-laws to that effect? STRAW: You were about to ask me that. What local authorities have done is to make some dramatic improvements in terms of public order in their areas. And if you talk about Zero Tolerance: what it's about is getting away from the complacency, weakness which has characterised - paradoxically - law enforcement under the Conservatives, because their effort has gone into looking at serious crime and when a serious criminal is before the court, then hopefully they'll get a tough sentence. But the way the Government has operated in respect of the Crown Prosecution Service, and this is of huge importance, is continually to downgrade so-called less serious offences. That's why the number of cases going to Magistrates' Court has dropped despite the fact that crime has risen, continually downgrading these offences. Now what Labour local authorities have done for example, they've introduced town centre bans on street-. HUMPHRYS: Some - very few. STRAW: Quite a number and a lot more would like to do it. They want to see, they want to see- I mean, don't forget you can't introduce a by-law if the power does not exist without the approval of the Home Office. HUMPHRYS: Right. STRAW: And in a lot of these areas - a lot of these areas - the Home Office lag- are very reluctant to allow you the power. Let me give you another example: there's a huge problem in many areas of the country about criminal anti-social behaviour by bad neighbours in one area after another and not just Council estates. Now, two years ago we put forward proposals for what we called "Community Safety Orders" which would be tough powers available to the Police and local authority combined to ensure that where there was continuous anti-social behaviour like this, swift action could be taken. The Government dismissed that. They've refused to introduce legislation. One of the elements in the first Crime Bill tha we will be introducing will be to ensure that those powers are given jointly to the local authorities and the Police. So at long last, people living on estates where their lives are disrupted by bad neighbours, have a guarantee of a quiet life. HUMPHRYS: Right. STRAW: And, that will be tied in with our fast track proposals as well. HUMPHRYS: But, for the most part, it sounds as if what you're doing is saying:we will encourage this and we will encourage that,
and it may not sound very tough to people. So let me give you another test on this. STRAW: I think, it's very tough indeed and where it's been tried, it's been extremely tough. HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's- STRAW: And, we are working on the basis, if you take the criminal anti-social neighbours agenda, we're working on the basis of what many Labour authorities like Coventry, Manchester, Nottingham, have been able to achieve within existing legislation, that they are the first to say, as they do to me: if you want really effective action, taken to improve behaviour, the way people relate to each other and particularly that of youngsters, then you've got to have more legislation. HUMPHRYS: OK. STRAW: Our legislation on children and young people will very tough but it'll also be effective and it's going to ensure that we have a balanced package which deals with offending when it takes place, but also seeks to ensure a reduction in offending behaviour and the prevention of that as well. HUMPHRYS: Right. Let's move on to crime then - straightforward crime. It clearly is a part of this Government's policy, the Home Secretary believes that the more people you put in prison for longer periods of time, the less crime there's going to be. In other words, prison works. Now, you made the point earlier in this interview that you first of all gotta catch 'em and that's where, you say, they've been going wrong. So let's not deal with that. Do you believe in the broad principle that prison works, that putting more people in prison cuts crime? Do you broadly accept that? STRAW: I believe that you have to use prison where other sentences have failed. Prison can only work- prison works is a banal statement. And, Michael Howard knows that. HUMPHRYS: Well, an awful lot of people will say no it isn't, if only because when they're in prison, they can't commit another crime. STRAW: Well, of course, that's true. But Michael Howard knows that it's banal and the public also can see through the Conservative agenda. HUMPHRYS: Are you sure? STRAW: I'm absolutely sure. That is shown in all the opinion polls, it's illustrated by what David Mellor said last Summer, when he said that the Conservatives and I quote, had lost the plot on law and order. HUMPHRYS: Alright. So you don't believe prison works? STRAW: Now, hang on a second. I have to tell you you what I do believe. Prison works to the extent, first of all it plainly keeps those prisoners off the streets from committing crime at the time and then it will work if you ensure that the people that go into prison come out better and are less likely to offend at the end of that. And that's why you need a balanced overall approach and one of the worst things that the Government has done, because they've imposed indiscriminate cuts on the prison service, they're cutting back on things which are most likely to change offending behaviour, namely Education and Training programmes which are very important. Now, the other point I want to make is this: there are sixty thousand adult prisoners in our jails today. HUMPHRYS: And, rising. STRAW: And rising. Almost all of those began their offending when they were young and the failure of the Conservatives' agenda has been the greatest in respect of the young. You can have a situation, as you had in Mansfield Nottinghamshire, John, last year where six young offenders committed four hundred and forty-four offences, they were arrested four hundred and nineteen times before any action was taken which was effective. Now, that is an astonishing situation. HUMPHRYS: Right. STRAW: It's repeated across the country and it cannot go on. HUMPHRYS: Right. STRAW: And, unless we deter and punish effectively the young offenders and change their behaviour we will not have a chance of reducing the number of young adults who end up within the prison service. HUMPHRYS: Right, but let's deal with the situation as it is rather than as we would like it to be, and obviously the sort of things-. STRAW: Well, these things are dramatically important in terms of change and things. HUMPHRYS: Right. Nobody disputes that but let's deal with the situation that we have at the moment and at the moment we have the Home Secretary with a Bill before Parliament called the Crime Sentence Bill, which means that for some serious offences committed over and over again
people would go to jail for longer. Now, you did not vote against that when it was in the House of Commons, but now that it's in the House of Lords, you are trying to water it down. There are amendments which would weaken it, which would give Judges more discretion than they have at the moment - where mandatory sentences are concerned for instance. Now you're not actually terribly tough are you, because you're delivering two messages to the electorate? Here you want them to believe both things about you. STRAW: Well, it's Michael Howard by the way who's being shifting, havering and waivering his ground. HUMPHRYS: No, he's very clear on this. He said so again this morning. He said ...if it comes back to the Commons he will fight it all the way. STRAW: Well, I heard what he said this morning, John. About eighteen months ago, when he made his speech at Conservative Party Conference, he said if you don't want to the time, don't do the crime. He ....... of no exceptions at all. If someone has been convicted three times for repeat burglary or three times for repeat drug dealing, they would automatically get three or seven years, regardless of the circumstances. HUMPHRYS: Right. We now know what he wants. STRAW: Well, how could he? He doesn't know what he wants because-. HUMPHRYS: Are you going to report (phon) it, or not? Well, we know what the Bill says. STRAW: He then shifted his ground, he shifted his ground three times on the issue of exceptions. Now, let me tell you our position. We support the principle of minimum sentences, minimum indeterminate sentences for people like repeat rapists or those guilty of homicide, but not murder, and those people will receive a life sentence. I believe that with some minor changes, that part of the Bill, Section One of the Bill is in reasonable order. HUMPHRYS: What about burglaries? The repeat burglars and drug addicts? STRAW: We also support the principle, I have made it absolutely clear, all the way through, that for the typical career burglar, which is what Michael Howard was talking about this morning, that individual if convicted three times should receive a three year sentence, if he's a drug dealer - seven years sentence. But, this is the important point, if you just do that and do not allow any exceptions for circumstances which for example, you've not got a repeat career burglar, you've got some simpleton who's taken a milk bottle three times. HUMPHRYS: But you knew all that. That went before the House of Commons and you didn't vote against it then. STRAW: Hang on a second. No. HUMPHRYS: You didn't put down amendments then. STRAW: Oh, we did put down amendments. We did put down amendments in the House of Commons and we voted for them. HUMPHRYS: But you didn't oppose the Bill? STRAW: No, we didn't oppose the Bill and we're not opposing the Bill. HUMPHRYS: Ah, alright. So, when it got through the House of-we don't have very long, you see, therefore, and I'm trying to get this clear. STRAW: This is very, very important. We did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading in the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. What we're seeking to do now is to make more effective the exceptional circumstances provisions and the reasons we're doing that is because senior Government figures, like for example Sir Ivan Lawrence, who's Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, has said that as the Bill is drafted in terms of exceptional circumstances, this is bad law, it's got to be changed. Now, I'll just make- HUMPHRYS: So, in other word, you will vote against it, if it goes through the rest of these- STRAW: No, no. HUMPHRYS: If in the House of Lords, it is defeated, that's to say if those amendments, the Government amendments are carried - Opposition amendments are carried in the House of Lords - it then comes back to the House of Commons, Michael Howard made it quite clear this morning he would fight for his Bill. Will you then vote against the Bill, even if it means it falling? STRAW: No, the question of voting against the Bill does not arise. HUMPHRYS: So you will not vote against the Bill in any circumstances? STRAW: No. It's been and gone. The Bill has gone through the House of Commons. HUMPHRYS: Yeah, yeah. STRAW: And what will come back to the Commons, if there is time, is simply the Lords amendments which are subject to Commons considerations and Michael Howard is setting off a hare there which will not run. Now let me just make this point: also this morning on Breakfast With Frost, Michael Howard was unexpectedly but generously complementary about the constructive negotiations which he and I have had over the Police Bill which is about the bugging provisions and we have, I think, are going to achieve improvements to that Bill which will ensure a proper balance between civil liberties on the one hand and the need for Police flexibility in detecting serious crime on the other. Now I make this offer to Michael Howard: I'm happy to have the same constructive discussions that he and I have had over the Police Bill on the Crime Sentencing Bill. I want to see repeat career burglars get tougher sentences but I also want to ensure that those are introduced in a fair way because otherwise, what will happen is that there'll be more and more people pleading Not Guilty and jamming up the Court system and the guilty will be walking free. I don't think he wants that and the way forward is for there to be discussions on this. HUMPHRYS: If there are exceptions the danger obviously is that the judges would use them over and over again, the exception will become the rule and the whole thing will be weakened - that's the problem isn't it? That's what he is afraid of, that's why he says you in truth are soft on crime. STRAW: I know that's nonsense and I am not going to trade adjectives but look at their record, double crime, but that is why just taking that specific anxiety we have also tabled amendments which would give for the first time the Attorney General a right of appeal against a judge who reduced say the three year sentence for the burglars to two or one year. Now, even on Michael Howard's Bill is presently drafted, judges will, if they think there are exceptional circumstances, be able to reduce the sentence. Michael Howard has not made any proposal for the Attorney General to be given a right of appeal against those sentence, quite extraordinary, so we're putting forward a very very balanced package to achieve on the one hand minimum sentences for career burglars and drug dealers, but to do that in a just way and ensure there is control by the Attorney General. HUMPHRYS: Jack Straw, many thanks. And that's it for this week, a shorter programme this week - next week the full hour, for now, good afternoon. ...oooOOOooo...