|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: It used to be the Tories
who were tough on crime... or said they were. Then Labour said: we'll
be even tougher... tough on crime... tough on the CAUSES of crime. But
in the three years since it's been in power the government has grown increasingly
concerned it seems that it is seen by the public as soft rather than tough.
So it's trying to change that perception. No fewer than five different
measures were announced in the Queen's speech. Couldn't have anything
to do with an election coming up, could it? The two main ones are curfews
on young people (under the age of 16) and a crackdown on people drinking
in public. So what effect will all this have... or is it just a gimmick
to attract the headlines? The Home Secretary Jack Straw is with me.
And I suggest that Mr
Straw, that it is more about politics than a truly serious attempt at
tackling crime, partly because of what Tony Blair himself said in that
famous leaked memo back in April, you will remember it no doubt, we should
think of an initiative something tough with immediate bite which sends
a message through the system, and what I'm suggesting to you is that this
is designed to send that message.
JACK STRAW: No, it's part of a continuing
programme which we put in place since May nineteen-ninety-seven, to be
tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and contrary to your introductory
script it's not - we introduced these measures not because people are worried
about the fact we're going soft which is not the case, but because people
are pretty, I think, satisfied or the polls suggest more than they would
be with the Conservatives about the progress we've been making on crime,
but crime is still much too high and we've got to move forward, and we're
dealing with - we've dealt with a series of problems and now we're coming
to the issue of disorder, which partly because of the great increase in
drinking that is taking place, young people particularly becoming more
affluent, many more licensed premises opening, unfortunately more disorder
on the streets on Friday and Saturday nights. We're now dealing with that,
but if - I mean if I can just give you the figures, the British crime survey,
which is the most weighty independent study of all in terms of crime levels,
has shown that crime has gone down, that is overall crime with unrecorded
as well as recorded crime by ten per cent between nineteen-ninety-seven
and nineteen-ninety-nine.
We will be the
first new government for fifty years which sees at the end of our period
of office lower levels of crime then we had at the beginning, and the anxiety
about crime, well that's still too high is also going down. I've just
- I've brought with me because it's received very little publicity, quite
extraordinary results from the housing - Survey of English Housing which
is one of the most independent weighty studies of housing conditions which
includes say questions in Chart Nine, a household saying crime is a serious
problem by type of area, and you'll see that on the low income on council
estates it's gone down by about twenty per cent, in the more affluent areas
anxiety about crime - this is people saying crime is a serious problem
by type of area - ninety-ninety-four-five, nineteen-ninety-seven, eight,
two-thousand, in some areas it's actually halved. Now it's still much
too high but there's no question about the fact that the programme is working,
but it's one which has to continue.
HUMPHRYS: But the reason that I
draw this distinction between genuinely tough measures and appearing to
be tough and after all Mr Blair himself acknowledged in that memo that
you had to be seen to be tough, is let's take your curfew for instance,
now sounds tough, we're going to have a curfew, sweep the under sixteen
year-olds off the streets in certain areas and all that kind of thing.
But you've already done that, we've been there, we've had it before, it
was for under ten-year olds admittedly, but not one single curfew was imposed.
STRAW: There was a great debate
when we began this, excuse me while I clear my throat, this is the only
one of a very wide range of orders we put in place. This is the only one
where no orders have been issued, and I'll come on to the other ones which
have been remarkable successful, but there was a big debate about whether
we should establish the limit at ten in respect of those who could not
be subject to a criminal process or for those below sixteen. In the end
we went for caution. I mean looking back on it we should have arranged
for there to be an order making power so the age could have been increased.
HUMPHRYS: So that was a mistake
to have it as under ten.
STRAW: Yes it was.
HUMPHRYS: And you're sorry that
curfews were not imposed then.
STRAW: Yes, it was a mistake.
We also did not take full account of the conservatism with a small c, for
example the Social Service departments in not wishing to go ahead with
these for their own reasons. Anyway the result is - of this is that you
have to keep learning in government, so yes it was an error, it's certainly
an error not to have put it in as an order-making power, but interestingly
enough the Conservatives were amongst those people who were calling for
it to be sixteen. They're now saying on the same day as they reminded
people of this fact, that I've got the briefing here - that they wanted,
that they had asked for curfew orders to be set at sixteen, - this is the
Conservative briefing which they issued on the day of the Queen's speech,
their spokesman John Bercow was saying they would abandon these altogether,
which I think makes an interesting point about their lack of coherence,
but in the light of what's been going on in Scotland where they've had
curfews - different legal system - they've had curfews for under sixteen,
and they have worked.
HUMPHRYS: Where they a different
sort of thing. I mean you're talking about the Hamilton thing aren't you.
They didn't sweep the streets, that wasn't a curfew as such. Plus they
had all sorts of other things on which they spent a great deal of money.
STRAW: Well, of course, of course,
and this is a power to be given to local authorities and the police to
be used sensibly. You know if I can draw a parallel with something that
is working and very similar by the way, which is the truancy sweeps which
we've established with David Blunkett and the Department for Education
and Employment. David and I talked about this three-and-a-half years ago,
should there be greater powers given to the police to pick up people who
were truanting and hand them over to the local education authority and
the schools. A lot of criticism about this at the time, saying it wouldn't
work, this, that and the other. Anyway, the powers were put in place,
we've worked very co-operatively David and I together and so have local
education authorities and the police, and these powers are now working
to get the truants off the streets and into school. It helps their education,
it also of course means there's very much less crime, and that's the -
and again this is a power to be used locally. If I can just pick up the
point about the other orders there was criticism for example of the introduction
of the parenting order. People were saying this was being Big-brotherish.
In fact the parenting order which is an order which can attach to a parent
of a persistent of even less persistent young offender, those parenting
orders have actually worked extremely well. In the piloted areas scores
of these orders have been issues and far from them Big-brotherish the parents
themselves the valuation suggests have welcomed these orders because they
answer the question, what do you do next when you're faced with a teenager
who is a bit out of control and it's not only serious offender's parents
who were in that position.
HUMPHRYS: But what about this particular
curfew, this curfew for under sixteens. Now there is no reason, as far
as I can see, why you should have any more success with this than you had
with the last one and there are many reasons for that, one of them is that
the police themselves, the people who would have to enforce it, say and
they certainly tell us this, that what you've got to do and particularly
in these difficult areas, is that you've got to build trust with young
people. You have to establish a relationship and the why to do it, they
say, and they are the expects, is not to go around the streets seeing a
kid who is fifteen years old, or twelve or fourteen and saying you're off
home, come on, that's it. I mean what makes you think that people will
actually enforce these orders?
STRAW: (coughing) - I do excuse
myself - of course you have to do it by co-operation, I don't disagree
with the police in saying that. Many local authorities and police officers
told us they wanted the age range...
HUMPHRYS: ..but a curfew is a curfew...a
curfew is prohibitive...
STRAW: ..hang on a sec... but it's
also about, John, the process by which you achieve that and what we are
laying down is not that the Home Office says there will be a curfew in
these areas but that the local authority and the police agree it and what
will happen is that we will have an area where there's a problem of young
kids, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, racketing around very very late at night.
Now the question I put to my critics is what would you do about this,
it can be hugely disruptive for a neighbourhood - when I go to areas of...low
income areas, estates which are frankly often disfunctional..
HUMPHRYS: ...oh sure...we know
they exist..
STRAW: ...you say sure, they exist..
HUMPHRYS: ...they exist...
STRAW: ..this is a huge problem..
HUMPHRYS: ..I'm saying to you that
people will not enforce these curfews because history suggests and all
sorts of comments from the police suggest that we won't do it.
STRAW: We have had no history in
England and Wales. We have had history..
HUMPHRYS: ..we had a ten year one
in England..
STRAW: ..we've dealt with that.
We have had history in Scotland, we've also had history in other countries
where these have worked and what will happen is that there will be area
community meetings about whether the area, the community, should have one
of these in place. Now in many cases, the very process of the community
getting together to discuss this will be a process by which some of the
problems can themselves be resolved, just as the threat in many areas of
the implementation of an anti-social behaviour order, the threat of that
has been enough to deter people from going in for their anti-social behaviour.
And it's also led to a lot of other things, for example the establishment
by a number of local authorities of anti-social behaviour contracts with
people as a precursor, if they don't get the message to going to court.
So these measures can work and on the point about it's not enough just
to sweep kids off the street, of course it's not enough to do that but
if you are concerned about high levels of juvenile delinquency, if you
are also concerned about problems that may be going on inside families,
then leaving the kids on the streets to bring themselves up, ten, eleven,
twelve, one o'clock at night is the worst possible thing that you can do.
HUMPHRYS: I mean the initiative
sounds terribly forceful, terribly grand and all the rest of it. What I
am suggesting to you to...
STRAW: ..it's not grand, it's just
sensible.
HUMPHRYS: ..all right, come to
that. What I am suggesting to you is that it's part of a pattern, last
month you said that this tagging of young people was going to be extended
to youngsters across the country. But the pilots of that showed that the
take-up was relatively low, according to your Home Office research and
your own Home Office research shows that the reason that JPs didn't like
it and of course it was JPs who'd have to have don't that, magistrates
as opposed to councils, is that if you tagged children then it would have
a certain damaging effect on the neighbourhood. Councils will not impose
curfews I am suggesting to you, for the same reason that magistrates were
reluctant, according to your Home Office research, to impose those tagging
orders.
STRAW: My reading of that research
was very different from yours. The arrangements were piloted in Greater
Manchester and in Norfolk and again contrary to expectations the experience
of tagging as a disposal, a sentence of the juvenile courts was much more
successful than anybody had anticipated and there were...
HUMPHRYS: Relatively low says your
Home Office research..
STRAW: ..higher levels of take-up
than we anticipated and high levels of compliance..
HUMPHRYS: ..much that isn't what
your research says...
STRAW: ..I'm sorry I haven't got
the research in front of me...
HUMPHRYS: ..relatively low...
STRAW: ..I can promise you John
that we would not have gone down the road of extending them nationwide
- the whole point of evaluation of these things on a pilot basis is to
see whether they are going to work or not. Now, the disposal of the courts
and one of the points of having this disposal available is to see whether
we can keep these youngsters out of secure accommodation, out of prison.
There's a lot of anxiety about locking up youngsters when it's not necessary.
Now ninety-nine per cent of the youngsters who are locked up, are locked
up because the courts have reached the end of their tether. But is it also
the case that obviously if you can get a child to redemption as it were,
without taking them away from their community and their school and all
the rest of it and you can turn them away from crime, that is much better
and it's also much less expensive..
HUMPHRYS: Yeah..
STRAW: Well you yes with a suck
of the lips but...this is a way of dealing with these kids, of ensuring
that they are..I mean literally not pinned down in their houses but people
know where they are and there are some limits set to their behaviour within
the community and tagging generally has worked.
HUMPHRYS: But, and I quote again
from your own Home Office research, a stable home is a prerequisite and
you talk about the importance of a stable home, all of us recognise the
importance of a stable home for these youngsters. A stable home is a prerequisite
for a curfew. Now the precise problem in the sort of areas that you describe
is that there are not stable homes in many of these cases, particularly
with the sorts of youngsters that we are talking about. So you go around,
assuming that any of these orders are imposed, you go around sweeping these
kids off the street and taking them home to what? - maybe to a step-father
who beat him up them and told him to clear off out of the house in the
first place. You know this is the whole problem isn't it is.
STRAW: That's precisely the point.
If they are out...look time and time again, okay, you get examples of child
abuse, or of examples of the consequences of seriously dysfunctional families
where the evidence is not presented to the Social Services or the courts
until it is too late..
HUMPHRYS: Yeah but it's there and
that's why the councils will not impose these orders...
STRAW: ..hang on, the councils
ought to be doing it because - look, you and I, I don't think, brought
our kids up so that we just let them range around the streets aged ten
or eleven, not coming home until eleven, twelve o'clock at night, okay.
We've got kids in schools, in urban schools particularly who get into school
in the mornings dog tired because they've not slept, alright and yes they
may be living in a dysfunctional family. What is crucially important is
that if that is going on, that those in authority with the duty to deal
with this, including Social Services, find out about it at an earlier stage
so just as with the truancy...
HUMPHRYS: ..well council of perfection..
STRAW: ..no, but it's a council
that is doing something better than we are doing at the moment because
we spend a huge amount of money on these services but at the moment an
awful lot is spent on process rather than on outcome and I come back to
the arrangements that David Blunkett and I have agreed in respect of truancy.
People said take oh take a laissez-faire to truancy but in fact unless
you start with enforcement to find out why the kids are on the streets
and pick them out, then you will not be doing anything for their education
and you will not be doing anything in terms of crime and the same applies
to curfews. But I also say to you, John, and this is extremely important
because you've started off by saying, well has our programme worked, is
it all, to coin a phrase...all spin and not delivery - well the answer
is it is working. If you look across the board at what we have done on
youth justice, we have introduced dramatic reforms...
HUMPHRYS: ...stay with this question
because you've still not dealt with it, if I may say so, satisfactory.
Let me just quote you...
STRAW: ..I think I have...
HUMPHRYS: ..let me quote to you
Sir Jeremy Beecham, you know, Jeremy Beecham, of course you do, the Local
Government Authority Leader, he says that he would prefer a more individualised
approach with difficult children. Now, in other words, don't have curfews,
that is what many authorities say, but let me put this question to you,
if this is a sort of test if you like of your toughness, you say yes of
course these aren't just window dressing, this isn't spin, this is...we
are really being tough. If that is the case, why don't you say, alright,
if the councils won't impose these orders and the evidence suggests that
they won't and that the police are reluctant to do so and there are other
reasons I'll come to why the police are reluctant to do so, why don't you
Jack Straw say okay, then I will impose them, I will say this is what must
happen across the country...that would be tough..
STRAW: No, I'm not possessed of
the information that is needed to decide what should happen locally and
I'm forever aware of what Karl Popper
said in that famous tirade the poverty of a stoicism (sic) against centralisation
of power. You've got to have a proper balance between what you do nationally
and what you do locally.
HUMPHRYS: It becomes rhetoric in
the end though, doesn't it?
STRAW: No, it doesn't. It does
not become rhetoric. I'm sorry John. I want to go back to all the other
things we've been doing because this is one part of a wide range of proposals
and measures which we have already put in place to make this country safer.
And yes, crime and disorder are still too high, but for all of the knocking
that is sometimes occasioned by our policy, what we have done over the
past three and a half years is working....
HUMPHRYS: ...yes, but
STRAW: ...and yes, you know, if
I go back five years ago to a similar kind of programme, people saying
well, will your proposals in respect of youth justice work? The Conservatives
dismissed them altogether, saying they wouldn't work, but they....
HUMPHRYS: ...ah well, go back to
the ten year old curfew. You sat in this studio and I talked to you about
that and you it would work and it hasn't worked.
STRAW: ...they said that they would
work, but I'm talking about, sometimes, including a raft of measures, say
twenty, you may get one that is not working. I don't blame you for picking
on it, but what about the nineteen that are working, that are working very
successfully...
HUMPHRYS: ...I picked on it only
because you have now built on it, you have added in this very important
curfew thing, which, and I'm suggesting to you, it isn't going to happen
and if you wanted to make it happen, as with the drinking ban, drinking
in public, again why not make that nationwide. You know, why not say,
we will not have youngsters drinking on streets - full stop. Make it all...
STRAW: ...because it depends on
the circumstances and you have to be proportionate, but let me come on
to the drinking ban because it has a very, very interesting parallel.
What's happened there is that in some areas, Coventry, one or two other
areas, they've been using local bylaws in respect of on-street drinking.
Liverpool came to me about a year ago, to say they'd run into difficulties
with getting a bylaw out of the Home Office. I knew absolutely nothing
about it, I went into it in detail and finally agreed a bylaw that was
appropriate for parts of Liverpool, not the whole of Liverpool, but the
areas where the local people and the police thought there was a problem.
That bylaw has turned out to be very successful. We are now moving away
from a bylaw based approach, which is actually quite cumbersome in terms
of procedure, to the arrangement in the Bill. But this
is something which will help the local authorities, and we're not saying
what position am I in to tell the people and the police of Liverpool or
Manchester or Blackburn...
HUMPHRYS: ..oh well
STRAW: Well, I'm not...
HUMPHRYS: ...no, you're not, but
I'll tell you one reason why you're not in a position to tell the police
anything and that is because there aren't enough of them.
STRAW: ...let me just finish my
sentence. What position am I in to do that, the answer is that what we
need to be doing is setting up a national framework which is working as
I keep saying to you, and is no question about it, very, very significant
reductions in the overall level of crime and disorder and a reduction too
in anxiety about people who believe that serious crime is a problem in
their area, but we are providing people with powers. Now let me come on
to the issue of police numbers...
HUMPHRYS: ...let me just put the
thing in perspective first...
STRAW: ...since you raise it...
HUMPHRYS: ...well and it's hugely
important because obviously if local authorities are to do the kinds of
things that you want them to do, introduce these curfews, or bans on drinking,
whatever it happens to be, they're going to need more, not fewer policemen.
There is, in the words of Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
there is a crisis in London. There are three thousand police officers
short across the country, most of them in London. It isn't a matter of
our famous friend, resources, this one, it's a question of not being able
to recruit new police officers. It cannot work without more police officers
and you're not going to get them.
STRAW: We are and I'm pleased...
HUMPHRYS: ...where are they going
to come from?
STRAW: ...well, they're now coming
in John. Okay. We've had a period...
HUMPHRYS: ...and they're going
out.
STRAW: ...no sorry. We're now
recruiting more police
officers, I'm very happy to give you the figures, as ever, good news or
bad news, we're now recruiting more...
HUMPHRYS: ...last time it was bad
news, 'cos you said...
STRAW: ...yes it was...
HUMPHRYS: ...yes, they're coming
in but they're out at some speed...
STRAW: ...yes it was bad news the
last time, but time's moved on and there's now better news alright. We
are now recruiting more police officers than we are losing and the figures
which I think are going to come out later this week show that the net change
at September I think it was, was seven, and I can tell you the later figure...
HUMPHRYS: ...three thousand fewer
than when you came into power...
STRAW: ...let me just finish my..the
answer. There are three thousand fewer police officers than when we came
into power and I regret that. There are also two-thousand fewer between
1992/3 and the resources were cut by the Conservatives, we had tight budgets...
HUMPHRYS: ...come on, you've had
three-and-a-half years to...
STRAW: ...well, we had tight budgets
based on Conservative, we said, we told people what would happen, we had
tight budgets for the first two-and-a-half years because we wanted to get
the economy right, now...
HUMPHRYS: ...you made the decision...
STRAW: ...we made the decision...
HUMPHRYS: ...we're paying the price
now...
STRAW: ...we made the decisions
and the consequence of that decision is the economy is now in good order.
We built a platform for proper public spending, we are now turning the
numbers round. And the recruitment of police officers is running at the
full capacity of the training school.
HUMPHRYS: ...you've got to have
those police officers before you can bring in the schemes.
STRAW: ...no, I'm sorry, no, I
don't agree with that and let me tell you why.
HUMPHRYS: ..what!
STRAW: .. I don't agree with it
because, there are a-hundred-and-twenty-five-thousand police officers in
the country, there are sixty-thousand civilians, the change in the number
of police officers has been marginal. And if you look at those areas which
have done the best in terms of crime reduction and those areas which have
lost officers, there is no correlation whatever. Why not? Because everybody
knows that if you've got ninety-eight people in a room who are well-managed,
well-led and are properly motivated, they are better than a hundred who
are less well-managed, right, and less well-led, even though...
HUMPHRYS: ...alright..
STRAW: ...no don't say alright,
because...
HUMPHRYS: ...I was going to allow
you that point, I was going to make another point...
STRAW: ...this is really, really
important, so, what we've been doing is saying, yes, we've got to get the
police numbers up, but the idea that the hundred-and-twenty-five-thousand
police officers can't do anything at all when the marginal change has been
three-thousand is utter nonsense...
HUMPHRYS: ...can I just ask you
this about recruitment, it is quite an important question because I didn't
frankly know that it was happening, but I gather that you are considering
taking another look at the guidelines under which... the criteria under
which police officers are recruited and you may recruit them from European
Union countries. Is that the case? Are you actively looking at that?
STRAW: I'm not actively looking
at that. There have been discussions about it in the past and what we
have done, although it has been a matter for the Chief Officers, is that
for example John Stevens, has very sensibly changed some extraordinarily
antiquated conditions against for example having people recruited who have
tattoos. Apparently there was a ruling in the Metropolitan Police against
people who had too many crowns in their teeth. And I discussed this, well
no I'm serious, discussed this with Sir John Stevens the other day and
one of the problems the Metropolitan Police had faced was that they had
extraordinarily antiquated procedures which were leading to applicants
taking up to nine months to be processed, so one of the things we've done
alongside putting the extra money into the Metropolitan Police is flushed
out all these bureaucratic procedures that were putting people off. But
I've increased the money that police officers get in the Metropolitan Police
Service, so that a new recruit inside the Met now gets six-thousand pounds
more than those outside, twenty-two-and-a-half-thousand for a new recruit
compared with eighteen-and-a-half-thousand for somebody say, going into
teaching in London. And I just want to make this point too, we've been
leading this drive to increase the effectiveness of the Police, seven..
the equivalent of seven-hundred officers are back on the streets as a
direct result of our drive against unnecessary sickness. In London, thanks
to Sir John Stevens cutting out a tier of bureaucracy you've got eight-hundred
additional officers back, so it's not just about overall numbers, it's
about how they're used.
HUMPHRYS: Can I turn to another
area where I would again suggest as I have with some of these other things
that it's about politics as much as anything particularly when an election
is coming up. Now the Fox Hunting Bill. Published on Friday. No chance
of it becoming law, because there's going to be an almighty row with the
Lords. You'd be quite happy to have that almighty row with the Lords,
because you'd be able to look in the face of your grass-roots supporters,
say look at that, look, we're doing this for you. It's politics, this,
isn't it? It's not, it not...
STRAW: ...no, it's not, it's...
HUMPHRYS: ...do you want to see
a ban on fox hunting?
STRAW: No, it's not politics at
all. Indeed this is about a free vote so what we said in the manifesto
was that there would be free votes in respect of a bill on hunting...
HUMPHRYS: Doesn't stop it being
about politics, a free vote or not.
STRAW: Well that's what we said,
it is a matter for a free vote, the government doesn't have a particular
position on the issue of fox hunting. There is then, as you know, difficulties
about getting even a serious discussion to a conclusion inside the House
of Commons, still less the House of Lords. So what we have done, following
the report from Lord Burns is to say that as with a Shops bill measure
which the Conservatives introduced, I think in Nineteen ninety four, we
would lay on government time for this so that's what we are doing. I can't
predict when the general election is going to take place, neither can I
predict what the House of Lords would do about the measure. I mean in the
end, over the last session, the House of Lords, although they took us to
the wire and one understands why because we don't have a majority, we were
able to get all the bills we had delivered. I hope this is the case in
terms of whatever the Commons decides over hunting.
HUMPHRYS: Is it a good idea, do
you think, to encourage, to invite indeed a massive demonstration by the
Countryside Alliance and all their followers, just before an election.
STRAW: I make this clear, this
is a matter for free votes, the government does not have a position...
HUMPHRYS: How are you going to
vote then, because there's a bit of an irony here isn't there.
STRAW: I will make my position
clear to the House of Commons, it's not been an issue - I'm on the record
for saying this - it's not been an issue that I've felt particularly strongly
in the past and because it's been entirely a private members matter I don't
think in my twenty-one years in the House of Commons I've ever voted on
it.
HUMPHRYS: But you have now resolved
this now I understand and the irony is that you will not, yourself, be
voting for a ban.
STRAW: I will make this position
clear to the House of Commons, thank you for the invitation this afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: ...you wouldn't like
to clear it up this morning ....
STRAW: No, I feel I ought...since
I've not in the past dealt with it I feel I ought to make this clear to
the House of Commons.
HUMPHRYS: May I suggest that if
you were going to take, as it were, the party line, though it is...if you
were going to vote for a ban I suspect you'd sit here this morning and
say yes.
STRAW: And don't forget that my
opposite number on the other side, Ann Widdecombe..
HUMPHRYS: ..indeed..
STRAW: ..is famous for wishing
for a ban. That is her privilege and I respect her for that position.
HUMPHRYS: It will be...(both talking
at the same time)..a very quick question if I may, a very quick one about
Europe and what's happening over there in Nice. It seems that you are selling
out, at least to some degree, on the question on border controls. Where
it was supposed to be red lined and all that and you are making concessions.
STRAW: I don't think there's any
truth in that whatsoever. My understanding as you know, I was about to
say it's a fast moving scenario but it's a slow moving scenario out there,
but my understanding from an interview which Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary
gave this morning, I've got the transcript as they say, but Robin said
we've not - I quote - "We've not given anything away in respect of the
British immigration and we are not going to give away any majority voting
that could effect Britain's border controls." And don't forget that at
Amsterdam which was the negotiations, equivalent negotiations three and
a half years ago, the Prime Minister Tony Blair for the first time ever
got embedded into the Treaties, the legal protection for Britain to have
its own opt-out from any kind of immigration or border control arrangements
that we don't like.
HUMPHRYS: I wish I had time to
follow that up, but there we are, even after all this time we can't cover
everything. Jack Straw thank you very much indeed.
|