................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE 30.1.94 ................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon and welcome to On the Record. The Conservatives are worried abut crime, aren't we all. Now they've decided something must be done. ACTUALITY HUMPHRYS: Michael Howard, the Home Secretary has ordered a get-tough policy and he is here to defend it against his critics - there are plenty of them. The Government's Bill to reform the Students Union comes under attack from - where else these days? - the Conservatives. ROBERT JACKSON MP: I think it's grossly intrusive into the internal affairs of universities and it expresses a centralising trend, an impulse to take power to ministers, which I think is unacceptable. HUMPHRYS: With the Conservatives providing their own opposition John Cole wonders what's left for the Labour Party. He finds them haunted by an ancient spectre, but determined to exercise it. First however the spectre haunting the Conservative Party, if we're to believe half of what we read in the papers today John Major's leadership is in deep trouble. Yes, we've heard all that before and he's ridden out the storms but can any leader withstand indefinitely the sort of battering that he has been getting. Michael Howard, how much longer can this go on? MICHAEL HOWARD MP: Oh, I think you've got to try and understand what's happening. What's happening at the moment is that the Labour
Party have realised that we as a Government are probably at our low point for this Parliament. Things are getting better, all the economic indicators are pointing the right way. Economic recovery is gathering momentum, political recovery will follow and, so, we are seeing a desperate attempt by the Labour Party, realising that this is their best. Perhaps, their last chance of inflicting damage upon us to destabilise the Government and destabilise the Prime Minister. HUMPHRYS: But, if- HOWARD: They are whistling in the wind. HUMPHRYS: But, it's not the Labour Party writing these stories in the newspapers this morning. The Sunday Times, the Telegraph. It wasn't the Labour Party who wrote Norman Lamont's interview for him. HOWARD: The Labour Party have been launching their campaign and it's made an impact in some of the more impressionable quarters of the press. HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but what they're talking about- HOWARD: But, it is- it is- HUMPHRYS: -is the differences within the Tory Party and those elements attacking the Prime Minister. That's what the stories are about. HOWARD: As I said, we are at the point where things are going to get very, very much better- HUMPHRYS: So, you're still hopeful (sic) are you? HOWARD: - for the Party, for the Government, for the Prime Minister. And, those who are opposed to us - the Labour Party, in particular, are engaged in a desperate attempt to try and destabilise the Government because they see that it's probably their last chance of doing so. HUMPHRYS: But, they must be being terribly effective, mustn't they, because Conservative MPs are clearly worried about John Major's leadership? HOWARD: Well, what we need to do is to keep cool heads, calm nerves, a sense of perspective and we will see that things are coming our way. HUMPHRYS: But, how can you be sure about that? HOWARD: You must look and see what the figures say. We had last year twelve months of inflation below two per cent. That hasn't happened since 1946. HUMPHRYS: But it's not doing it for you, is it? HOWARD: Chancellors of the Exchequer in the years that we have been in government would have given their eye teeth for a record like that. HUMPHRYS: So, why isn't it working for you? HOWARD: Because- HUMPHRYS: Why isn't John Major's leadership stamping its authority on the Party with all this good news? HOWARD: Because it takes time for these things to work their way through. People are still resentful in the aftermath of the recession. There is a time lag before economic recovery is converted into political recovery. HUMPHRYS: But your MPs ought to be able to recognise that? HOWARD: Political- political recovery is on its way and the Government, the Party and the Prime Minister will all benefit from that. HUMPHRYS: So, what ought he to be saying, then, to these MPs, these Conservative MPs. Forget about the Labour Party, who don't seem able to recognise the good things that are happening under his leadership. What should he do, what should Mr Major do? HOWARD: Well, we've got to say to those of our colleagues who are impressed by some of these stories is: keep calm, keep your nerve, keep your sense of perspective. We've been in difficulties before, we've come out of those difficulties and won election after election. That's exactly what we can do again. HUMPHRYS: And, shouldn't Mr Major exert his authority a bit more firmly? HOWARD: No, no. I don't think there's any question about that, or any need for that. All we need is to do as I've said and, I think, we will see signs of recovery gathering momentum and that's something which we can all look forward to. HUMPHRYS: Michael Howard, for the moment, thank you. And let us turn now from the fight to save John Major, if that's what it is, to the fight against crime. The Criminal Justice Bill is now making its controversial way through Parliament, for all its many complex clauses the basic aim is simple - to ensure that more law breakers end up in jail. But will it work? More to the point, will it make Britain a safer society? David Walter considers the case for the prosecution. ******report******** HUMPHRYS: Michael Howard, one of the points you made, at that Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool, was that there was a rising tide of concern about crime. Are you convinced that there really is a rising tide of concern? Is that concern justified? MICHAEL HOWARD MP: I don't think there's any doubt at all about the rising tide of concern. Anybody who is remotely in- in touch with people in this country knows that's that the case. HUMPHRYS: And, is it justified? HOWARD: Members of Parliament have surgeries, at which people can walk in off the streets and tell them about their concerns. And, we know what people are worried about, what they're concerned about. HUMPHRYS: And they are right to be worried, are they? HOWARD: There is absolutely no doubt that there's a rising tide of concern and, yes, of course, people are right to be worried and they're right to demand action. HUMPHRYS: Should you not be trying to allay that concern rather than, as it were, stoking the fires? HOWARD: Well, I don't think there's any point in pretending to people that everything in the garden is rosy. If we know that crimes are being committed, that homes are being burgled, that violent crimes are being committed, people want to know what things are like. They know for themselves, from their own experience, what things are like and they don't want anybody turning up and saying: Don't worry, things aren't really as bad as you think they are, or as they might be. They want a response to their concern and they want action to be taken. HUMPHRYS: But, should you not be pointing out, putting a little bit of emphasis on some other facts than those? Of course,
people are concerned. Everybody knows that. But, for instance, the rise, the increase in crime, is actually slowing down. It was fourteen per cent, it's down to four per cent. Juvenile crime may actually be falling. You don't seem to talk about that very much. HOWARD: Well, of course, I welcome the fact that-that crime isn't rising as fast as it was doing. But, that's of no consolation to people who are the victims of crime. They want action taken to protect the public. And, the fact of the matter is that crime in this country is at too high a level. I want to do everything I can to protect the public, to make sure that we have the most effective system in place, to catch criminals, to convict them, if they're guilty, to deal with them properly when they're convicted. That's what the public has a right to expect. HUMPHRYS: But given those statistics, given the fact that, for instance, juvenile crime may very well actually be falling and not just because of demographic changes, changes in the population, but absolutely, shouldn't you placing a little bit of emphasis on that, because otherwise people are going to be more scared, perhaps, than they need to be. HOWARD: That doesn't help deal with a real problem. If you go up and down this country and you talk to Chief Police Officers, they will tell you that there is, in almost every city in this country, a small group - perhaps, sometimes, just one or two young offenders who are responsible for an astonishingly large number of offences, a quite disproportionate number of offences - and, unless we have in force measures which can actually deal effectively with those persistent young offenders, they are going to get into the habit of cocking a snook at the Law; they're going to get into the habit of thinking they can get away with anything. And, that is extremely damaging for them, for our society and for our future. HUMPHRYS: And the way to deal with them is to lock 'em up? HOWARD: The way to deal with some of them, when everything else has been tried, is to detain them in secure accommodation, to provide them with high class education and training, so as to maximise the chances that when they emerge they will actually lead law-abiding lives, but not to allow them to continue to terrorise the public. After all, the secure training orders that are being made available in the Bill that's currently
before Parliament will be restricted to young offenders, who've offended on three previous occasions and who've been in breach of a Supervision Order. So,
these other methods will have been tried and it's very remarkable and interesting that as we try and take this legislation through Parliament, the Opposition is trying to restrict the circumstances in which it will be made available and, indeed, to deny that secure training units should be made available at all. HUMPHRYS: Well, you see, perhaps, the Opposition view is that those three cases, if you like - those three times they've offended - may be relatively- relatively trivial. HOWARD: Well, if they are the Courts will take that into account. They're not obliged to pass this sentence. It's not going to be an indiscriminate sentence on everyone who has committed three times, but there will be many young offenders in that category who will have offended three times and who will have breached a supervision order, who merit that kind of sentence. HUMPHRYS: And the way to deal with persisent adult offenders is also to lock 'em up? HOWARD: Well, it's the Courts who decide in each case what the appropriate punishment must be. HUMPHRYS: To a very large extent they take their guidance from you though, don't they, from what the Home Secretary says? HOWARD: Well, the judges are independent. They make up their own minds. HUMPHRYS: But, they're influenced by them. You wouldn't deny that. There are a number of respects in which prison has an important part to play within the overall context of our system. Of course, you need a lot of other things as well. Of course, you need effective punishment in the community and we're looking at that, and we're trying to improve that and toughen that up and make it more meaningful. So, I'm not suggesting that everybody who commits a criminal offence should be sent to prison, but I do believe that prison has a part to play in keeping people out of the community so that the public are protected and in deterring some people from committing crime. HUMPHRYS: And, you do believe that we should not judge the success of our system of justice by a fall in the prison population? HOWARD: I do believe that that should not be our overriding criterion for this reason. The whole purpose of the measures that I'm trying to put in place are to ensure that more of the guilty are caught and convicted than are-today, than is the case today. And, if that happens - if all my measures to strengthen the ability of the police to detect people and of the Courts to convict them - if that actually happens, then, it follows, doesn't it, that the Courts will want to send some of those people to prison? HUMPHRYS: And, you want them to do that, not withstanding that all the evidence suggests it doesn't work. Prison does not actually work, any more than locking young offenders up actually does. HOWARD: Now, what evidence, John, do you want because I- HUMPHYRS: Well, do you want me to give you some statistics. I'm more than happy to do that. HOWARD: I don't accept that at all. HUMPHRYS: What? Notwithstanding the statistics. HOWARD: What-what-what statistic do you have? HUMPHRYS: Well, alright, let me give you just a few then - and, there are thousands and thousands of them, as you know, because this is a complex area. Fifty per cent of prisoners re-offend as against fifty-five per cent of those who do community service, as against fifty-three per cent who, for one reason or another are given Probation. In the case of young offenders- HOWARD: Yeah. Well. What is- Let's look. Let's examine. Let's pause and examine those figures. They're not quite right, as you put them but they're almost right. Fifty per cent of those who are released from prison do, indeed, reoffend within in two years. Fifty-five per cent of those who've had a community sentence order made upon them reoffend within two years, and fifty-three per cent of those who've been placed on probation. HUMPHRYS: So, what that equals? HOWARD: So, what does that demonstrate? That demonstrates that there's no significant difference. If you look at those figures in the effect of prison- HUMPHRYS: Quite so. HOWARD: -compared with the effect of others. HUMPHRYS: So, what's the point of locking them up? HOWARD: Well, first of all, those figures leave entirely out of account the deterrent effect of prison on those who are not sentenced to imprisonment. Every- HUMPHRYS: An unprovable - an unprovable. HOWARD: Well, look. Every day, if you went into a court in this country, a Magistrates' Court or a Crown Court, you would hear judges and magistrates saying to people, who've been convicted before them: I'm not going to send you to prison on this occasion but if you offend again,
you must realise that a prison sentence is very likely. These are people who are in touch with our criminal justice system day after day. HUMPHRYS: And, if we want to- HOWARD: They know something about it. They wouldn't say that to people who appear before them, unless they thought it would have some effect and some impact. HUMPHRYS: Well, if you're taking your guidance from people who know something about it, why don't you listen to Lord Woolfe (phon), who also knows something about it. A very experienced judge,
indeed. All the experience shows that imprisonment is not a cure and you heard him. You know very well what he said. HOWARD: Of course, I've heard Lord Woolfe's (phon) views. HUMPHRYS: You heard the judge we had in that film. HOWARD: I've heard-and, I've heard the former judge that you had in that film. The judges are not unanimous on these matters. There are other judges who think differently. And, in the end, on matters, such as the general approach, I am the person who has to bear the responsiblity and make the decisions. HUMPHRYS: And- HOWARD: But, on the particular point, which we were discussing, which was the extent to which prison is a deterrent - can be a deterrent to people - you cannot exclude the evidence of what happens in the court every day of the year in this country. HUMPRYS: Now, why, then- you've looked at the evidence, you say. You've talked to people who know about these things. Why have you come to such a different conclusion than that to which your predecessors came? You saw them again in that film, you heard from Waddington and Whitelaw, Hurd. HOWARD: Those-those quotations were, for the msot part, taken entirely out of context. Let's deal with Lord Waddington's remark, which you quoted, with the last one you quoted. If you looked at the sentence which came before that because this a remark that's often quoted - so,
I've brought that sentence along here today. What he said was: For most offenders, imprisonment has to be justified, in terms of public protection, denunciation and retribution. Otherwise, it's an expensive way of making bad people worse. Now, if you look at that context, it conveys an entirely different impression, if I may say so, from the way in which you used it on screen and in the lead up to this interview. HUMPHRYS: And, what about his other quotation,
then, that prisons were a university of crime? HOARD: So are the streets. If you look at what happens to young offenders, in particular. Unfortunately, they learn their criminal education on the streets when they offend. HUMPHRYS: But, it doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to keep them on the streets that it does to keep them in prison. HOWARD: But it does. It costs the community hundress of thousands of pounds a year in the damage that they do. The Chief Constable of Northumbria carried out a study and delivered a paper on this very topic in October of last year, and he came to the conclusion that expensive though the cost of detaining young offenders undoubtedly is, if you, actually,
count up the cost of the damage they do, the cost of the crimes they commit, you find that those costs are much higher. Let me give you- HUMPHRYS: What about the damage they do in prisons? HOWARD: Listen. HUMPHRYS: Nine- If I just give you one other- a sort of trade in statistics, a little bit and, then, we'll stop. Sixty- Ninety-six million pounds to rebuild Strangeways. Then, another sixty million pounds to keep them in jail - in prison cells after that, Police cells after that. Huge amounts of money. HOWARD: Yes. HUMPHRYS: They don't stop committing crime when they're in prison. HOWARD: Well, they can't terrorise the public when they're in prison, and do you- HUMPHRYS: They terrorise prison officers. HOWARD: Well, do you think that the people of this country expect to have a government that comes to them and says: We know there are people who are committing serious crimes in this country. We know they've been convicted by the Courts and the judges thought it was appropriate to send them to prison but, unfortunately, we don't have the prison accommodation available for them. HUMPHRYS: No, no, no, no. HOWARD: Awfully sorry. But, there's no room in prison, so we can't allow the judges to pass sentences of imprisonment when they think it's appropriate to do so. HUMPHRYS: No-no and that- HOWARD: That would be an intolerable situation. HUMPHRYS: And, of course, nobody is suggesting that and nobody is - well, let me finish the point I'm making. Nobody is suggesting that dangerous people ought not to be sent to prison. Everybody with any sense accepts that, of course. We don't want rapists and muggers and vicious criminals on the streets. Of course, we don't but you're talking about
sending a much wider group of people to prison than those you talk about - persistent offenders, in what many see as a rather loose way. HOWARD: Well, are you talking about young persistent offenders? A secure training unit? Or, are you talking about others? HUMPHRYS: Both. HOWARD: Well, I think, that there comes a point. Let's take one of the crimes that you didn't mention. Let's take burglary. It is one of the crimes which is of most concern to ordinary people in this country, people in all walks of life. Indeed, it's often those who live in the Council Estates, in the accommodation that leaves most to be desired in our country, that have most to fear from burglary. I think, that in many ways burglary is a crime of violence. It involves an invasion of people's privacy. It's a desperately distressing crime. Are you suggesting that if someone commits burglary, after burglary, after burglary, in no circumstances should he be sent to prison, because that seems to be the implication of the point that you're putting to me. And, it's one I emphatically reject. HUMPHRYS: I would want them to go to prison, no doubt. I've been burgled and I would want them to go to prison if I thought that was going to stop burglary. But, it doesn't. It may stop it for the relatively brief period that they're in there - and, it's usually a relatively brief period by the time they've had time off for good behaviour and all the rest of it - but, the fact is, that it doesn't. The experience of the United States proves that. HOWARD: I don't agree with your point, at all. It does prevent those burglars from committing burglary when.. HUMPHRYS: For a relatively brief period. HOWARD: Well, that depends. Let me put some other statistics to you. We carried out... HUMPHRYS: No. HOWARD: No, this is precisely on this point, precisely on this point, precisely on this point. We carried out a study of a sample of offenders who'd been convicted of burglary in 1989, I think it was. And, they hadn't been sent to prison and we looked what happened to them in the year after they'd had their sentence in the community, or their Probation Order passed upon them and we discovered that if they had been in prison for that year between three and thirteen burglaries per offender would have been prevented. HUMPHRYS: Yes, but what that study- HOWARD: That is an important fact. That is three and thir-between three and thirteen fewer victims for each of those burglars. Now, I care about these victims. I'm concerned HUMPHRYS: You'd be the first to say that's a pretty small ... HOWARD: It was an entirely representative sample and I am concerned to do something to protect the public. HUMPHRYS: But- HOWARD: To diminish the number of victims and to deal with- HUMPHRYS: A hundred and ninety-seven out of how many hundreds of thousands of are we talking about? HOWARD: But a representative sample, in order to test the extent to which we could make an impact on burglary, by sending people to prison, rather than by treating them in any other way. HUMPHRYS: But, if you're prepared to pay so much heed to a small survey - a very, very small sample like that - why aren't you prepared to listen to people like the Association of Probation Officers who deal with hundreds of thousands of people every year, know intimately what's going on in their brains, and they tell us that they go into prison and they come out better equipped to do exactly the kinds of things that you're talking about now? HOWARD: I would love everyone to come out of prison and never offend again. And, we are seriously attempting in prison to put in place rehabilitation programmes which will try to ensure that people do lead law-abiding lives when they-when any- HUMPHRYS: But difficult because the prisons are so crowded. HOWARD: Overcrowding has fallen by about fifty per cent in the last four years. There is far less overcrowding in our prisons now than used to be the case and we're doing our best to rehabilitate them. But, of course, you're right to say that no one has a complete answer of how to stop people reoffending when they leave prison. But, the figures show, as I demonstrated earlier, that those who reoffend when they leave prison are no greater proportionately than those who reoffend- HUMPHRYS: But, that's hardly a ringing endorsement for your .. HOWARD: But, wait a minute. But it - wait a minute! HUMPHRYS: No greater than. HOWARD: It's no greater than- HUMPHRYS: If you had been able to say it's much less than - fine. HOWARD: Now, please. HUMPHRYS: Please, the floor is yours, Sir. HOWARD: Right, thank you. The proportion who re-offend is no greater than those who are not sent to prison. And, while they are in prison, the public are protected from their criminal activities. I regard that as important. I think, it's a good thing to protect (GAP) who would otherwise be terrorised by the people who are detained in prison and that is one of the ways in which, I think, we can effectively - only one of the ways but an important way - in which we can effectively deal with crime and protect the public. HUMPHRYS: Do you know what one of the largest increases in the sorts of people who've been going to prison in the last few years has been? It's been that of women. Now, these aren't - by and large - burglars, these aren't violent criminals. These, often, typically, are prostitutes who haven't paid their fines and who are being sent to prison. HOWARD: No. The largest category - I think - you'll find of women who've been sent to prison in recent years- HUMPHRYS: Shoplifters, as well, of course. HOWARD: no - are women who've been involved in quite large scale drug smuggling. And, I'm afraid it's a very distressing feature. Many of them are not, actually, natives of this country but of other countries and they are used as couriers, to an increasing extent. HUMPHRYS: Yes, but you're not telling me that the jails are full of foreign drugs smugglers. HOWARD: There are a surprisingly large number of them, I'm afraid. And, if you go to our prisons, you will find that the numbers are, indeed, large. HUMPHRYS: But, there are a huge number - far, far, far more - of fine defaulters, for instance. Whether they're prostitutes, or whether they may be not, does it make sense to send those people to prison? HOWARD: There are- there are not a large number of fine defaulters in prison in this country. There are some, there are not a large number. Most people who are brought before the Courts for defaulting on their fines - and, no one is sent to prison unless he refuses to pay, won't pay, not simply can't pay. There are a very large number of fine defaulters who pay at the point when they know if they didn't pay they would otherwise go to prison. And, if you remove prison altogether as a sanction for fine defaulters, you would find that the number of fine defaulters would increase hugely as a direct consequence of that action. HUMPHRYS: Well, you don't know that. You, simply, don't know it. There are other measures to take. You can put a lean on their incomes and all that sort of thing. There are other ways of dealing with them. HOWARD: But, those are all available now but they don't always work and you need the ultimate sanction. I don't want to see fine defaulters in prison but it's quite wrong to suggest that the number is large or that they play a significant part in the prison population. HUMPHRYS: You say you don't want to see fine defaulters in prison. What sort of people - and, let's accept that we both agree you said, vicious criminals ought, of course, to be in prison. No one would have doubts about that - but what sort of other people? Let's take the youngster who steals cars and who keeps stealing cars. Ought he to go to prison? HOWARD: If other methods of dealing with that youngster have been tried and have failed and he continues to break the Law with impunity, society has to deal with him, society can't allow that youngster to continue to cock a snook at the Law. HUMPHRYS: So, it's retribution then, is it? HOWARD: And, society has to be protected from his activities and that is why it may well be necessary to detain him. Let me give you- let me give you a specific example. HUMPHRYS: But, is it- HOWARD: I - on Friday - I went and spent several hours with the young offender team in Kent and I met two young offenders and I talked to them about the number of times they'd been cautioned. They were both under supervision. Neither of them had been detained. One of them had been cautioned five times before ever being brought before the Court. The other had been cautioned four times and the third and fourth offences for which he'd been cautioned were arson. And, then, he'd had a Supervision Order made. Now, I think, that that attenuation of the chain of consequences between wrongdoing and punishment as a consequence of wrongdoing is doing desperate harm and damage to our society. We've got to bring the consequences of criminal action much closer to the criminal action itself. HUMPHRYS: So, no backing off. Send more people to prison. HOWARD: No backing off. Prison has a part to play. There are many other things which we must and will do as well, in terms of preventing crime, in terms of sentencing in the community but prison has a part to play in protecting the public of this country. HUMPHRYS: Michael Howard, thank you very much. Thank you very much, indeed. HOWARD: Thank you. ...oooOOOooo...