|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Ann Widdecombe, your solution
to crime then - lock 'em up?
ANN WIDDECOMBE: Not entirely no, I think that's
rather a caricature of what we're saying but what we are saying is that
if you're going to seriously fight crime first of all you don't just go
on reducing the number of crime fighters and secondly that courts have
got to have adequate powers of sentencing. One of the, what you caricature
as 'lock 'em up' proposals for example is actually to deal with young menaces,
twelve to fifteen year olds who can make their neighbours' lives a complete
misery and who laugh at the courts because the courts don't have adequate
powers. Now what you caricature as 'lock 'em up' in which I'm saying 'take
them into secure training centres' but when we've got them there what I
then want to do is to have proper regimes of education, of training, of
addressing behavioural problems, proper incentives linked to early release
and then if they stay out of trouble, to wipe the record clean before they
actually enter into adulthood - that seems to me to be the right combination
of carrot and stick. It isn't all just mindlessly lock 'em up.
HUMPHRYS: But I'm not sure how
much of a caricature it is. If you look at the different measures people
are going to be locked up and they're going to be locked up for longer,
more mandatory sentences, more appeals against lenient sentences, having
to serve the full term, transparency in sentencing, remove double jeopardy
and now there's another I read about in the papers this morning, tougher
sentences for paedophiles and those who download child pornography, add
it all up and there's an awful lot of people going to be locked up for
longer - that's what it amounts to.
WIDDECOMBE: Quite undeniably we are proposing
to make sentences severer for things, as you've just mentioned such as
paedophilia, for such crimes as actually distributing paedophile material,
pornographic material involving the use of children. I think that those
who are watching this programme won't find that an unreasonable proposition
and I would also put this to you that when we last went in for a policy
of a greater degree of imprisonment it did coincide with the first sustained
fall in crime for many decades so I am convinced that it works but, and
this is a very important point and one that I'm making all the time, actually
putting people into prison is half the story, you protect the public whilst
you've got them there but the other half of the story is what you do with
them when they're in prison to make sure you protect the public once they
come out.
HUMPHRYS: We'll argue about all
of that......
WIDDECOMBE: You don't need to argue do
you.......
HUMPHRYS: Well let me suggest this
to you because I want to come on to the question of how effective these
proposals are likely to be based on experience and all the rest of it but
let me suggest to you that what it actually amounts to is a bit of a populist
stunt. Clearly you said yourself the child pornography thing was going
to be popular - of course it is, I mean you can always win a few votes
by saying 'we're going to lock 'em up and throw away the key', I mean that
is an easy way of doing it. But the question is whether it is going to
cut crime, that's what really matters and it does sound very much like
a bit of populism, aimed at getting votes, and it's been very effective
too.
WIDDECOMBE: Well if what you actually mean
is that we're addressing concerns which a large number of people have and
that we're addressing those concerns in a way which both we and they believe
will work then yes we are doing that but really you know, your profession
wants it both ways: If we didn't address those concerns you would say
we were dismissive, arrogant, out of touch and when we do address their
concerns you say, 'Ah, playing a popular card', come on.
HUMPHRYS: But you see what Mr Hague
says you're doing is you're following your instincts, I think that was
the word he used, your instincts, but that of course gets you into difficulties
then doesn't it. I mean the sort of approach that you took with the Norfolk
farmer. He gets a life sentence. You then adopt his case, effectively,
because that's what the public wanted you to do, at least that's what all
the opinion polls and everything else told us and here was a man who was
actually sentenced for murder so you can see the kind of problems this
can get you - a mandatory sentence no less.
WIDDECOMBE: May I invite you to rewind
the clock six months ago long before this man got a life sentence or was
convicted of murder and you will see me actually say in my party conference
speech that those who defend their person or property against criminal
invasion should be able to do so without fear of penalty at law providing
they do so within reasonable limits, so I'd already said that. That was
already party policy......
HUMPHRYS: ....within reasonable
limits.....
WIDDECOMBE: ....within reasonable limits
and we have been working on that. Now what the Tony Martin case did was
to do with that one sentence in a party conference speech didn't do which
was to bring out into the open the very widespread concerns that people
have, they don't want to be allowed to shoot people who come onto their
premises but they do want to be allowed to defend themselves and the fact
is that for every Tony Martin there are a huge number of lesser cases where
individuals have defended themselves, the burglar has had the gall to complain,
and they find themselves on the wrong end of a police investigation and
that's wrong.
HUMPHRYS: But that's the difference
isn't it....
WIDDECOMBE: No it's not a different matter
at all.....
HUMPHRYS: .... But you said 'reasonable
force' and that's the crucial point here and if somebody shoots somebody
that then becomes murder and that then qualifies for a mandatory sentence,
that's the contradiction in your position.
WIDDECOMBE: No there's no contradiction
in our position because both William and I have said two things: First
of all that we do not want to comment on the merits of that individual
case because that is better left to the courts but we're commenting on
the issue that it throws up. The second thing that I have said is that
where you end up with somebody dead or even somebody very seriously injured
or maimed then probably you do have to test that in the courts, so we're
not saying we should have just done nothing at all.
HUMPHRYS: Rhetoric, obviously,
is not expensive. Rhetoric is very cheap but the sorts of actions that
you're proposing are indeed very expensive.....
WIDDECOMBE: ...they're going to cost money.....
HUMPHRYS: They're going to cost
money - right. No I'd like to go through them if I may, the three key
areas as I've identified them and that's prisons. You've agreed that you're
going to send more people to jail. It's going to cost a lot of money,
three hundred and seventy million pounds a year to run the eighteen new
prisons that would be needed. Those are the figures from Paul Cavadino
of NACRO, you heard him in that film there. A lot of money.
WIDDECOMBE: Well they're the figures from
Paul Cavadino, of course they are not our figures.
HUMPHRYS: You're really disputing............
WIDDECOMBE: Yes, can I finish, you're asking
me a serious question and I think people listening want to hear me answer
not just be interrupted. Perhaps you get a bonus for interruptions I don't
know. But what we have costed our law and order programme at is about,
and it's not precise because you have to make assumptions about deterrents
and assumptions about the number of people who would be convicted. But
we have costed the law and order programme at about two hundred and sixty
million. Now, what we did when we introduced minimum mandatory sentences
for burglary and for pushing hard drugs was to phase it over time and we
got it exactly right because indeed although we had a change of government
it came in, in just one month later than that which we had predicted we
would be able to start to phase it in. So we will build the extra prisons
that are necessary but we will accept that there will be a period while
they are being built and all these things will be properly phased in and
there is no question whatever of just making wild statements and not sitting
down and doing the costings and working out the phasing and working out
what is demanded. But I do dispute that particular figure - you just can
take one..
HUMPHRYS: What is it then..
WIDDECOMBE: I've just given it to you..
HUMPHRYS: No, but I thought you
said that was a global figure, that's just the prisons is it?
WIDDECOMBE: That is our law and order programme,
that includes not just the prisons, it also includes - and I suspect Paul's
costings do as well - the secure training places for young people.
HUMPHRYS: Right, so four prisons,
we're talking about two hundred and sixty million as against his figure
- that is just prisons - as against his figure of three hundred and seventy
million?.
WIDDECOMBE: Yes. That also includes our
proposals on conditional discharge which I take it he has worked into his
prisons as well. When you come up with just a wide quote and a large number
of jails, that frankly doesn't ring true bearing in mind the new number
that we had to build just for minimum mandatory sentences so we have some
experience, we know what it's about, it doesn't ring true. I am not going
to play to a set of costings that I have not agreed to. I am telling you
what our costings are.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's look at
the cost of police because you want more police officers of course, you'll
know what the government's position was, that they were going to recruit
enough police officers to replace those who were leaving the force. Not
actually add to the total number of police officers. Now what are you saying,
that you are going to add to them?
WIDDECOMBE: Our pledge is very straightforward,
it is this. Whatever number of police we inherit from Labour when we return
to power if that number is lower as it is very likely to be, than the
one that we left behind we will make up the difference. So at the moment
we would be faced with making up two thousand three hundred. We will have
to see what we have to make up when we have got them out of office which
I hope will be in a year's time.
HUMPHRYS: So it might be two thousand
three hundred, it might be two thousand five hundred, but...
WIDDECOMBE: ... or it might be less but
there will be a cost..
HUMPHRYS: ..but there will certainly
be a cost. And that is a commitment, there's absolutely no question about
that, you will...
WIDDECOMBE: That's a commitment. To get
it back to the numbers that we left....well before you say it like that,
we were already affording those numbers and it's only three years ago.
It isn't as if we are saying look we're going to do something totally new
that no government's ever done before. We are going to go back to the numbers
that we were already affording.
HUMPHRYS: But it's going to be
a lot of money.
WIDDECOMBE: There is going to be a cost,
a cost that we were already meeting.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but we'll come
to that in a moment, but I'm just trying to itemise each of the bills as
it were and add them all up. We haven't actually got a figure for that
because we don't know precisely how much it's going to be because we don't
know precisely how many. But there is the other factor there on top of
that police pay. We've heard the government saying, I think they said it
just this morning that police officers in London particularly should earn
more money. Do you agree with that?
WIDDECOMBE: We haven't made pledges on
police pay and I'm certainly not going to make them on the hoof. What we
will do is we are going to have to look at the whole package at the moment
that goes with policing. We need to look not just at numbers which you
are focusing on but I would say at something vastly more important - let
me get there - which is police functions because you can have all the extra
policemen in the world but unless they are spending their time actually
fighting the criminal then it is a pointless exercise. So one of the things
that we are pledged to do is to have a complete review of police functions
with a view to taking away inessential tasks. So that is the first thing.
We will then have to look at how that plays into, and pay and moral and
everything else plays into recruitment. We will have to look at that but
I am not going to deliver you a pledge on pay this morning.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, but I've heard
Home Secretaries promising that for twenty to twenty-five years and...
WIDDECOMBE: You're now hearing me promising
it and I intend to deliver.
HUMPHRYS: Okay, alright. But you
are not going to get those extra police officers, it's difficult enough
to recruit police officers as it stands, especially in London, especially
the right sort of people without extra money, are you.
WIDDECOMBE: I am not going to just pledge
something on the hoof today. Of course pay will have to be taken into account.
HUMPHRYS: Okay. Asylum seekers,
we heard in the film there what you're going to do. You're going to lock
them up as well in secure institutions. That is going to cost more money.
At the end of it all you will have to put something like a hundred thousand
people in these secure institutions at the moment, there are only nine
hundred - by the end of that it will be two-thousand-five hundred, again
a lot more money.
WIDDECOMBE: No, we actually propose to
save money through our proposals. Well, let's look at what's happened
in the past. When we introduced our Asylum and Immigration Act which was
specifically designed to have a deterrent effect applications for asylum
actually fell by forty per cent immediately, four-o per cent. Now we think
that if the message which goes out is, look when you come to this country
you won't just be able to walk around and disappear, you won't be able
to work illegally, or you won't be able to spin our your case and then
avoid removal, which is what the vast majority do at the moment, they avoid
removal if their case fails. We will know where you are, we will be able
to return you. And I think if that deterrent message goes out, then a
lot of the magnet which this country has for asylum seeking will decline
as we were right with our previous Asylum and Immigration Act. We got
an immediate decline. Now, if we can do that again then far from increasing
the cost of asylum the cost of asylum seeking will decrease, and indeed
that is one of, though certainly not the total aims of what we're doing.
The more important aim is that we must get the asylum system back to what
it was intended to do, which is looking after people who are fleeing persecution,
death, torture, whatever it might be. They are the biggest losers at the
moment, they're clogged up with a hundred thousand - you've rightly said
with a hundred thousand other people - they're indistinguishable from them
and they're not getting a quick and settled haven to which I believe they're
morally as well as legally entitled.
HUMPHRYS: But you see when you
were running that particular department it was taking twenty-three months
to process asylum seekers.
WIDDECOMBE: Well, we had a backlog of fifty...
HUMPHRYS: That costs money.
WIDDECOMBE: We had a backlog of fifty thousand
which was too high. Now the backlog under this government is a hundred
thousand. Now, no matter how quickly you turn cases round, if they are
still coming at record rates it is going to be very hard to get on top
of the problem. I believe in tackling it at source. We have to deter
abusive applications at source.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Well, let's
add up the bills as we've been itemising it, and we've got the prisons
where you acknowledge there is clearly going to be more money. We've got
police where clearly there is going to be more money. People dispute your
assumptions about asylum seekers, they say it is actually going to cost
a great deal more money. Either way we are - you would be - a Conservative
government would be spending more money on law and order.
WIDDECOMBE: We will spend more money on
law and order.
HUMPHRYS: Absolutely clear. But
now you are also going to be spending more money on health. You're also
going to be spending more money on education and other things, and yet
you tell us, you guarantee us that we will be paying less tax at the end
of the Conservatives period in office, at the end of the first five years
of you in government than we are at the beginning. What an extraordinary
trick that's going to be.
WIDDECOMBE: No not really. You see I think
it really is a counsel of despair and defeatist to say if we spend more
money we've got to go and levy the populous. At the moment ... may I finish,
thank you, at the moment, you've just lost another bonus - at the moment
there are seven billion pounds about being wasted on Social Security fraud.
HUMPHRYS: That was ....
WIDDECOMBE: Hang on, let me finish, let
me finish. And there are two billion pounds more than when we were in
office being spent on spin doctors and bureaucracy and administration.
Now,...there are....
HUMPHRYS; I know I'm not meant
to interrupt you at all, but really that's a daft figure for spin doctors!
WIDDECOMBE: No, I didn't say just spin
doctors. If you listened to me, spin doctors and bureaucracy and administration,
in other words the cost of government are up by two billion. Now, what
we have said is that we will make savings both in Social Security, where
Ian Duncan Smith first, and then David Willets set out very clearly the
savings that could be made on fault, and we have said also that we will
cut the layers of spin and bureaucracy and all the rest of it. Now, that
will itself yield money, but before you say we're promising this and we're
promising that, we're promising the other thing, yes, we are promising
more money on law and order, but our promises on health and on education
and the other things are to honour existing promises of spending, so it's
not that extra.
HUMPHRYS; Alright, final thought
- this is part of the populist test here that I began, that was - with
which I began - Mike Tyson is going to be invited back into this country.
Now there is a populist view on this. What's yours?
WIDDECOMBE: I think the Home Secretary
had a massively difficult decision. I would have had a difficult decision
had I been in his place. I think I would have been swayed by the argument
however, that just because you're a celebrity doesn't mean that you can
evade laws which apply to everybody else. However my main wish with Tyson
now that the decision has been taken and is going to be implemented, my
main wish now is that we don't see what we saw last time which is an awful
lot of taxpayers money being poured into the policing of Tyson publicity
demonstrations.
HUMPHRYS: But you'd have kept him
out, given a choice, a clear choice, right at the start of this process
you'd have kept him out?
WIDDECOMBE: I think probably, marginally,
that is where the argument comes down, but I acknowledge Jack Straw had
a difficult decision. This isn't one where I'd have gone for easy politics
on it, it was a very difficult decision to make, but I think probably the
argument is against letting people off normal laws just because they are
celebrities.
HUMPHRYS: Ann Widdecombe, thank
you very much indeed.
|