Interview with Michael Howard




       
       
       
 
 
   
................................................................................
 
                                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...