Interview with Michael Howard




       
       
       
 
 
................................................................................
 
                                 ON THE RECORD 
                                                         
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1                                 DATE:  16.6.96
................................................................................
 
JOHN HUMPHRYS:                         Good afternoon.  The bomb in Manchester 
yesterday blew apart the city centre but did it also blow apart the Northern 
Ireland peace process.  I'll be talking to the Home Secretary Michael Howard 
That's after the news read by HUW EDWARDS. 
 
NEWS 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              In today's programme we'll  be talking 
about crime and punishment.  The Home Secretary Michael Howard wants to get 
tougher on the criminals and MPs will be debating his new White Paper this 
week. Some even in his party say it WON'T be tougher at all.  
 
                                       Yesterday terrorism returned to the 
streets of Britain with that bomb in Manchester.  When I spoke to the Home 
Secretary at his house in his constituency I asked him first about that.  Are 
we now back in the bad-old-days before the IRA called their ceasefire nearly 
two years ago. 
 
MICHAEL HOWARD:                        Well, let's just spend a moment talking 
about this bomb, about this dreadful, dastardly attack in a crowded city centre 
on a Saturday morning, which could have killed hundreds of people.  We've 
condemned these things so often before that the words we use almost become 
cliches and don't really do justice to the event.  We mustn't forget the 
hundreds of people who've been injured - some of them seriously.  We mustn't 
forget the police officers, the other emergency services - the security 
services - who risk their lives to try and deal with outrages like this.  We 
mustn't forget all those things.  I spoke yesterday to the Deputy Chief 
Constable of Manchester, who's in charge of the operation, and I can assure 
you, and everyone, that we will spare no effort to bring those responsible for 
this outrage to justice.                                                 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              You're privy to all the intelligence, 
obviously.   Is it your belief that this was the start of a major bombing 
campaign? 
 
HOWARD:                                I can't really comment on that.  What 
we know is that this attack was preceded by a warning with the use of a 
codeword that is associated with the IRA.  Other than that, I can't comment to 
you. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Now, some people think that it might 
be exactly the opposite to that, of course; that it might be the prelude to 
another ceasefire - the IRA's way of saying: Look, we can do it.  Now, we'll 
stop so that we can get back into the talks.      
 
HOWARD:                                But, any ceasefire has to be a genuine 
and permanent ceasefire.  No one is going to be taken in.  You can't have a 
situation in which there's a bomb in Manchester on Saturday and the 
announcement of a ceasefire on Monday and people allowed back into talks on 
Tuesday.  The real world isn't like that.  We've constantly said throughout 
that any ceasefire has to be genuine and permanent.  Why won't - for example - 
Mr Adams and Sinn Fein condemn what happened yesterday and condemn all 
violence, condemn all these outrages? 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              What would persuade you?  You say it has 
to be - any ceasefire has to be - a permanent end to violent action.  What 
would persuade you that it was just that?  
 
HOWARD:                                I don't think it's at all easy to answer 
that question and that is one of the consequences of what happened yesterday.  
Any offer of a ceasefire that happened now, that was made now, would have to be 
scrutinised with the most intense care for all the circumstances surrounding 
it.  I don't think it's at all easy to see how we can now have a ceasefire that 
can be regarded as genuine and permanent. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              I spoke to Dick Spring, the Irish 
Foreign Minister, last week and he said that if the IRA called a ceasefire at 
five to midnight, as it were, they should be allowed in to the talks.  Has that 
situation now changed, as far as you're concerned? 
 
HOWARD:                                Well, he said that before what happened 
in Manchester yesterday.  And, obviously, the situation has now changed 
because, as I say, you can't have a bomb outrage like that on Saturday and a 
ceasefire announcement on Monday and people allowed into talks on Tuesday.  
And, it's not just the two Governments that have to be satisfied about the 
genuineness of the ceasefire because the talks are now underway and the other 
Parties will have a say about what happens.  It is a dreadful event.  It is a 
dreadful development but what it will not do is deflect the determination of 
those who are involved in the peace process, to continue with those talks, to 
continue with the work that is underway.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But, the message from the British 
Government to Sinn Fein now is there must be more than just another 
announcement of a ceasefire? 
 
HOWARD:                                The message is that it's going to be 
much more difficult to satisfy everyone concerned, all the Parties concerned, 
that a ceasefire is genuine and permanent.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                               But, if you, the Home Secretary can't 
tell me what they have to do it's a bit of a muddle now, isn't it?  Where do we 
go from here? 
 
HOWARD:                                 Not at all!  We've been consistent 
throughout.  We've said throughout any ceasefire has to be genuine and 
permanent. In order to test that you have to look at all the circumstances.  
And, one of the circumstances which you now have to look at and take into 
account is yesterday's dreadful attack in Manchester.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              The problem is that, originally, when 
the IRA offered their first ceasefire you, the British Government, insisted 
that the word 'permanent' be applied to it for it to be taken seriously.  It 
wasn't but nonetheless you said we accept the ceasefire.  In essence, we will 
go along with that.  Are you now saying that even if they say the next 
ceasefire is permanent, for instance, that isn't going to be enough? 
 
HOWARD:                                What I'm saying is that we will have to 
look at anything they say in the light of the surrounding circumstances.  One 
of those circumstances now is what happened in Manchester yesterday and that is 
going to make it more difficult to accept that any ceasefire announcement is to 
be regarded as permanent and genuine.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              This is, effectively, then, the end of 
the peace process, isn't it? 
 
HOWARD:                                No.  I don't think that, at all, because 
I think that those who are committed to this process will continue with their 
work.  The talks are underway, the talks will continue and I very much hope 
that the talks will continue until they reach a solution which is acceptable to 
all the people of Ireland because it is the people of Ireland who, in the end, 
are going to decide on this.  Not a few extremists who are prepared to bomb and 
shoot to get their way.  If a solution can be achieved in the course of these
talks, which the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland in all 
communities say: Yes, this is the right way forward, this is a sensible way 
forward, this is a way forward which we can all accept and live with in peace - 
that's what we're working towards.  And, that will, effectively, exclude and 
isolate the few extremists who continue to be prepared to use violence to get 
their way.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But effectively what those talks are 
about now is local government in Northern Ireland.  That's essentially it isn't 
it because there can't be peace talks if those who are waging war, terrorism, 
are not involved.  The word peace doesn't apply any longer. We're seeing 
policemen being shot, we're seeing bombs going off in Manchester.  This isn't 
peace. 
 
HOWARD:                                They're about much more than that.  They 
are about the whole series of relationships in Ireland, north and south.  
They're about a whole range of very important and fundamental issues and it is 
the outcome of those discussions which will set the way forward for the future 
course of Ireland, north and south, and if we can arrive at a satisfactory 
conclusion to those talks that is the way in which we can still obtain peace, 
because the effect of that will be so to isolate and exclude and marginalise 
those who continue to be prepared to threaten and to use violence to achieve 
their ends that they will ultimately be of no account. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But a lot of people are now saying, not 
just the Unionists, there must be more than isolated and marginalised.  You 
must do more to stop it.  They're talking about the return of internment for 
instance.   Is that something you would consider under these circumstances? 
 
HOWARD:                                Well we've never ruled internment out 
and we are prepared to do whatever we think will be effective in combating 
violence. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Including internment? 
 
HOWARD:                                Only ten days ago the security services 
mounted the most ambitious exercise in South Armagh.  That was just a few days 
before the talks began, there was no question of anyone saying: oh well we'd
better not do this because it might imperil the talks of anything of that 
kind.  We continue to do everything we can, everything in our power to bring 
those who are responsible for the violence to justice and we will do everything 
we can to bring those who are responsible for the outrage in Manchester 
yesterday to justice.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But some people might think that until 
now, while the ceasefire, alleged ceasefire, has been going on, defacto 
ceasefire (call it what you will), the gloves have been on as it were.  You've 
been slightly generous because you don't want to upset the apple cart.  Now 
this has happened the gloves are coming off.   
 
HOWARD:                                But there's no truth in that at all. 
We've never been pulling our punches, we've never had the gloves on as you put 
it.  As I say, just ten days ago, three or four days before the talks were due 
to start the most ambitious exercise was mounted in South Armagh and there has 
now been someone charged for responsibility for the Southkey (phon) bombing so 
we've never pulled our punches and we remain determined to do everything in our 
power to bring those responsible for violence to justice.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But isn't the truth that this IRA tactic 
of having the so called 'sleeper' units operating in Britain, there may be two, 
there may be ten people for all we know.  You will know more persumably as the 
Home Secretary, but nonetheless there's nothing you can do about them is there 
until they strike and then it's too late. 
 
HOWARD:                                Well what we can't do is offer any 
guarantee that there will not be another attack.  Open, free, democratic 
societies are always vulnerable to those terrorists who are prepared to use 
force to achieve their ends and nobody can ever offer a guarantee  that we 
won't have such an attack in the future, that we can prevent every such attack. 
What I can say is that we are vigilant in the extreme.  We are prepared to take 
any action that we regard as likely to be effective to combat this menace and 
that we pull no punches, we do everything in our power to bring those 
responsible to justice.  



 
************

 
 
                                       Well Northern Ireland apart, the Home 
Secretary has other problems on his mind.  On Wednesday Parliament will debate 
his White Paper on tougher sentencing for offenders.  His proposals have come 
under fire from many sides, Law Lords, penal groups and even senior members of 
his own Party say his ideas just won't work.  This report from Aminatta Forna. 
 
*****

HUMPHRYS:                              Mr Howard, it's two months since we last 
spoke about the bill.  It wasn't even a White Paper at that stage, but 
nonetheless two months in which people have talked about it.  More opposition 
now apparently rather than less, and there seems even the possibility it won't 
get through. 
 
MICHAEL HOWARD:                        Well, I think there's been some 
opposition expressed.  There's also been a great deal of continuing support.  
Whether it gets through will depend on parliament.  What I have always said is 
that I will bring measures forward in the next session, and depending on when 
the date of the election is I will hope to get them through parliament.  That 
is still my hope, it is still my objective, it is still possible, but clearly 
there are those in parliament in the opposition parties and elsewhere who have 
power to obstruct the passage of the bill if they choose so to do. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And in you own party of course, not just 
in the opposition. 
 
HOWARD:                                Well, there has been some opposition 
expressed from members of my own party in the House of Lords.  By and large in 
the House of Commons I think support for my measures is pretty solid. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Are you open to amendments? 
 
HOWARD:                                Well, I think when you take legislation 
through parliament it's always been my view that you have to be prepared to 
listen to what people say, and if without affecting the main thrust of your 
proposals, people come forward with a suggestion which will improve the 
legislation in one respect or other, saying you can achieve this in a better 
way through accepting this amendment, you've always got to be prepared to look 
at that, and of course I'll be prepared to look at that.  But nothing I have so 
far heard has affected my belief that these proposals represent a measured 
response to a clearly identified weakness that exists in our Criminal Justice 
System at the moment which these proposals will do much to remedy. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Alright, we'll come back to that in a 
moment if we may, but what about additions, possible additions to the bill, for 
instance suggestions that you want to add to the measures a period of house 
arrest for serious sex offenders after they've left prison.  Is that something 
you'd consider? 
 
HOWARD:                                Well, that's a rather dramatic way of 
putting the matter.  What my proposals envisage is a period of supervision for 
those who are released from prison. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Might you go further than that? 
HOWARD:                                And there's a strong case for saying 
that there ought to be extended supervision for sex offenders, and that is 
something which I shall be bringing proposals forward on quite soon. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So house arrest may be a dramatic 
expression, but it's not all that wrong is it? 
 
HOWARD:                                Well, it's a very dramatic expression, 
but there are conditions which you could attach to supervision.  You could for 
example, you could attach a supervision that a sex offender should not go 
anywhere near a school at the time the children were coming out, should not 
perhaps go anywhere near a public swimming baths or something like that.  These 
are all matters which I think justify serious consideration, and we're giving 
them serious consideration. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Right.  You're open to all of those 
thoughts? 
 
HOWARD:                                Yes. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              What about this register for 
paedophiles.  Now, not just those paedophiles who have been convicted, but one 
thinks obviously of the case of Thomas Hamilton.  We learned that there was 
great concern about his activities before he committed that dreadful crime in 
Dunblane.   Is there any way you can have people like that on some sort of 
register.  Is that even thinkable? 
 
HOWARD:                                Well the proposals that have been 
brought forward for a register of paedophiles, and it was really the 
Superintendents Association who brought forward a very specific proposal, and I 
listened particularly carefully to what they say, that really deals with people 
who have been convicted of a sexual offence, and that is something that I am 
looking at very carefully indeed, and I've said from the outset that I'm 
extremely sympathetic to.   It's obviously very difficult indeed to extend that 
to people who haven't actually been convicted of any criminal offence, and that 
is something which raises very very difficult questions, and I'm not sure that 
anyone has quite identified a way forward on that. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But are you looking for a way forward on 
that? 
 
HOWARD:                                Well, I think it's extremely difficult 
to do anything like that in relation to people who have not been convicted of 
criminal offences.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              I take that point, that it is clearly 
extremely difficult, raising all the questions of civil liberties and so on, 
but nonetheless is it something that you have abandoned or you're still open to 
it? 
 
HOWARD:                                Well, I am concentrating on taking 
forward in a sensible way, the proposals that were put forward by the 
Superintendents Association with which I have a great deal of sympathy. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              What about the suggestion that people do 
community service instead of going to jail for instance, should wear some 
sort of uniform to identify them, add to shame of it or whatever? 
 
HOWARD:                               Well, that's something too, which I know 
a lot of people favour.  I think there's something to be said for it.  There is 
something to be said against it.  They're going to have trials in Scotland on 
that, and I think I want to wait and see what happens in Scotland and learn 
from the Scottish experience before I decide whether we are to follow that 
path. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But again you're open to that? 
 
HOWARD:                                I am open to any suggestion that is 
going to improve our Criminal Justice System.  I want to put in place in this 
country the most effective Criminal Justice System in the world, one which 
gives the public the protection they deserve, the protection they need.   And,
I've made it clear from the start that I'm prepared to look at any idea which 
will achieve that objective.   Looking at ideas doesn't necessarily mean 
accepting them, and it certainly doesn't mean accepting them without thinking 
them through carefully and trying to make sure that they would work, and that 
they would contribute towards the achievement of that objective.  But, I'm 
prepared to look at anything which will give us the best Criminal Justice 
System in the world. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              There's also the question of course of 
protecting youngsters from themselves and society from bad yougsters I 
suppose.  The Labour Party seems sympathetic.  Jack Straw seems to be 
sympathetic to the idea of some sort of curfew for youngsters after a certain 
time of night - ten o'clock at night or whatever.  Are you open to that? 
 
HOWARD:                                Well they've got into a complete mess, a 
muddle over that.  They started off by saying that they wanted to have a curfew 
for under sixteen year olds, to help fight crime, and they ended up by saying 
they wanted a curfew for under ten year olds to protect the under ten year 
olds.  Now, the truth is that so far as protection of children is concerned the 
police already have powers if they come across anyone on the streets, in fact 
anyone under seventeen who is in need of protection, who is in need of care, 
the police already have the powers to take that youngster to a safe place.  If 
it's fighting crime that you're concerned about then the way to do that is to 
target any curfew measures on those who have committed crimes, or are accused 
of committing crimes and again as a result of powers we've recently introduced, 
not least in the Criminal Justice Act which the Labour Party was not prepared 
to support, the police have those powers, they have powers now to impose 
conditions on the grant of police bail and those powers can include and 
frequently do include the imposition of a curfew.  They frequently say you can 
have bail but it would be a condition of your bail that you stay at home 
between ten at night and seven in the morning. And of course the courts, when 
they grant bail can impose similar conditions.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So you think all of that goes far enough 
do you? 
 
HOWARD:                                If you're talking about fighting crime 
the powers are already there, targeted on those who have committed crimes or 
are accused of committing crimes.   If you are talking about protecting 
children those powers are there too, different powers, the police already have 
them.  What I am not prepared to do is to base my policy on stolen soundbites 
from Bill Clinton's speeches. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So, you're not prepared in short to go 
any further than you have already gone? 
 
HOWARD:                                I think we have in place the measures 
which we need to deal with that particular problem. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Alright let's look at the White Paper 
now and why some people are opposed to it because they say they're not 
convinced that it's going to work.  Now you said tougher sentences would act as 
a deterrent but you heard one of the experts that we talked to in that film say 
there is no evidence for that, indeed he said that you'd got that wrong. 
 
HOWARD:                                No, but he didn't deal with the 
particular point which I was making on the basis of the research during our 
last discussion and the point that I was making, very specifically was to do 
with certainty as well as severity of sentence.  And what I think the research 
does indicate is that if people are convinced that there is a certainty as 
well as a severity in the sentence that they are likely to serve that will 
have an effect on their conduct.   So that if a persistent, prolific burglar 
knows that if he is convicted for a third offence of burglary he is going to 
serve a minimum sentence of three years in prison, that is likely to have an 
effect on his conduct. And there is some other research for example which shows 
that many criminals do carry out a kind of cost benefit analysis of their 
activities and they're prepared to accept a small prison sentence, a short 
prison sentence as a kind of occupational hazard and they'll say: well you 
know, I'm carrying out lots of burglaries and benefiting from that, I'm getting 
a lot of money from that,  if I'm sent to prison for the odd twelve months, 
that's something I shall have to put up with.   But if they knew that for a 
third conviction there would be a minimum sentence for three years I think that 
would change the whole terms of trade as far as they are concerned, and that's 
what I want to do to give the public greater protection. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But the tenor of what you are saying now 
is very different from that which you said a couple of months ago.  You're 
talking now about the certainty, the certainty of conviction. You've got to be 
caught before you can be convicted, not the threat.  What you seemed to be 
saying earlier was that it was the threat that was the great deterrent.  The 
threat that they might have to go to jail for a long time.  You're now saying 
there must be certainty involved, they must be certain that they are going to 
be caught in the first place which is a very different matter.  
 
HOWARD:                                I've looked up what I said two months 
ago John... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So have I. 
 
HOWARD:                                What I said two months ago is exactly 
what I'm saying now.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well Beyleveld...Mr Beyleveld says you 
got it wrong, you mis-interpreted what he said.   
 
HOWARD:                                Mr Beyleveld didn't actually quote with 
any accuracy what I said on the programme two months ago.  He was dealing with 
the point, which was a different point from the one I've made, which was simply 
to do with length of sentence and crime.  What I was...the point I was making 
was that you need both things - certainty of sentence as well as stiffness of 
sentence and if you have a combination of those two things there is evidence 
which suggests that it will have an impact on the offender.
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But certainly the sentence must mean 
certainty of conviction and we all know that there's a one in fifty chance that 
the burglar is going to get caught and sent to jail. 
 
HOWARD:                                No you have to look at that with some 
care too because we also know that prolific burglars commit many offences. 
Probably most of the people we're talking about commit fifty offences, so even 
if there's only a one in fifty offence of being caught and I'm not sure that's 
an entirely accurate figure the chances are that the prolific burglars are 
going to get caught.  And remember this too, what we started off our discussion 
last time which is the essential part of my proposal on both automatic life 
sentences and the minimum mandatory sentences for burglars and for persistent 
traffickers in hard drugs is this: it is that while these people are in prison 
they simply cannot continue to commit their burglaries.....
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Yes, but they're going to come out in 
the end aren't they? 
 
HOWARD:                                They cannot continue to traffic and sell 
hard drugs and the public is protected for the period while they are in prison. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Right, but they've got to be put in 
prison first.  I mean that's the absolute basis of this whole thing and the 
point that Mary Tuck was making, let's move away from Mr Beyleveld and look at 
what Mary Tuck was making, the point she was making.  You would have to 
increase the prison population by twenty-five per cent, massive increase, to 
get a one per cent drop in the crime rate.  
 
HOWARD:                                I don't think that's true and I think if 
you analyse that.... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              She is a very distinguished researcher, 
she was head of research at the Home Office. 
 
HOWARD:                                If you analyse that statistic I think 
that you'll find that, you know, it brings into the reckoning all offences, 
including the vast majority of offences which don't merit imprisonment and 
which people are never going to be sent to prison for. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              You can't just dismiss the research 
that's been carried out by your own researcher. 
 
HOWARD:                                We have actually had a twenty-five per 
cent increase in imprisonment over the last two or three years and crime has 
fallen by eight per cent over that period.
 
HUMPHRYS:                              HAD - it's beginning to go up again 
then.
 
HOWARD:                                It's fallen by eight per cent in that 
period, the biggest fall since records were ever kept and imprisonment 
..I don't suggest that imprisonment is the only thing which is 
responsible for that fall in crime but I think it has played a part. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But it is starting to move back up 
again. 
 
HOWARD:                                We'll have to wait and see. I've always 
said that I couldn't guarantee that every single set of crime figures is going 
to go down in the direction in which I want to see them going down, we'll have 
to wait and see. But ...
 
HUMPHRYS:                              The first two months of this year 
were worse that the first two months of last year. We know that don't we? 
 
HOWARD:                                Well, we'll have to wait and see. We 
publish the figures every six months, we'll be publishing them in due course, 
we'll have to see what they say.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Let's not look at the research in that 
kind of detail then, let's just look at human nature and what happened in the 
last century when we were hanging people on Tyburn, and pick-pockets knew 
that if they got caught they'd end up on the gallows as well. They used to go 
along to Tyburn and pick the pockets of people who were watching the hangings. 
Deterrent? 
 
HOWARD:                                I don't think if you're trying to test 
the proposals that I'm making, going back to the last century in that way is 
likely to .....
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Human nature doesn't change.
 
HOWARD:                                ..be the most fruitful exercise.  Now 
look. What I am doing is proposing a series of carefully focused, carefully 
targeted measures designed to concentrate on those offenders who put the public 
at greatest risk and from whom it's possible to give the public greater 
protection, by automatic life sentences, are designed to ensure that someone 
who has committed two serious sexual or violent offences will not be released 
to commit a third unless and until there has been an assessment of risk, of 
whether they still pose a danger to the public.  At the moment, as we know, as 
the figures demonstrate, the vast majority of offenders in that category are 
released at the appropriate time with the law as it stands of their sentence 
without any assessment of risk even if everybody knows someone's raped twice 
before and is likely to do it a third time.  So that's that's set of proposals. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Alright, let me move on to another set 
of your proposals then if I may. 
 
HOWARD:                                Right.  Fine.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              And that's honesty in sentencing.  You 
stood up there in Blackpool, spoke to the Conservative Party Conference and 
said: No half term prison sentences for full time crime.  Now, everybody 
assumed from that that it meant they would be going to jail for longer.  The 
reality is - the White Paper makes it perfectly clear - they will not.  You
misled people didn't you? 
 
HOWARD:                                Not at all.  What I've always made clear 
and said about that particular proposal is that it was designed to stop the 
public being misled, to stop the public being cheated as they frequently feel 
cheated now by seeing someone sentenced to prison for ten years, walking out in 
four or five. By seeing someone, as we saw the other day, sentenced to prison 
for seven days, walking out after one night.  Not the fault of the judges - let 
me hasten to add - because the judges are faithfully carrying out what 
Parliament asked them to carry out.  But, that is something which brings our 
system of criminal justice into disrepute.  So what I.... the purpose of that 
proposal, as I've always made clear, is to have transparency in the system, 
honesty in the system, so that if someone is sentenced to two years, he will 
serve two years, subject to being able to earn a short period of remission 
through good behaviour. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But, you know what your audience was 
concerned about - those ladies in that Tory Party Conference.  They were 
concerned that the criminals weren't going down for long enough.  And let me 
quote you what Lord Carlisle - former Conservative Home Office Minister said - 
remind you from the film.  The implication was that sentences passed would be 
the same length but the individual would serve the whole of it in prison.  So, 
in other words, the Judge says you're going down for six years they thought you 
meant - and that was the clear inmplication - you are going to go down for six 
years doesn't mean that at all. 
 
HOWARD:                                If the Judge says six years, if the 
Judge passes a sentence of six years, under my proposals, then, the person 
concerned will serve six years, subject to- 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Ah, but the Judge won't.  That's the 
whole point now.  
 
HOWARD:                                No, no, no, no.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Because the judges themselves have told 
us they will say three years, instead of six years. 
 
HOWARD:                                And, that will mean that people will no 
longer be deceived, they will no longer be misled, they will no longer be 
outraged by seeing someone sentenced to ten years walking out after four or 
five.   Everybody will know when I say.....Lord Taylor.. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But you're not going to stand at the 
next Conference and say... 
 
HOWARD:                                Lord Taylor, the retiring Lord Chief 
Justice has himself said that the present arrangements are a charade with 
everyone in court trying to work out how much less than the sentence passed 
will actually be served.  Now I do not want a criminal justice system composed 
of charades.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Yeah.  But he went further than that.  
 
HOWARD:                                I want a straightforward, honest system, 
in which people will know that the sentence passed is the sentence served, 
subject to a small amount of remission, earned by good behaviour. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But Lord Taylor - Lord Chief Justice 
Taylor - went further - former Lord Chief Justice - He went further than that 
and so did many other judges and he said: Look, in the old days they got six 
years, they actually served three, or whatever it may be.  In future, judges 
aren't going to be prepared to say for that terrible rape, or whatever it 
happens to be: You will now only get three years because the Daily Mail will be 
after them.  So, they will still give them six years.  The difference is now 
they will have to serve six years and that would have devastating implications 
for the prison population.  You couldn't cope with that. 
 
HOWARD:                                No.  For the terrible rape that you've 
just described.. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Or any other serious crime.  No matter 
what the crime is.  
 
HOWARD:                               It may well be that six years would be 
the right thing.  Let's not take that particular example.  When it comes to 
increasing sentencing and my proposals do lead to increased sentences in some 
areas.   And.. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But the White Paper says exactly the 
opposite.   
 
HOWARD:                                Hang on.  No, hang on, hang on.  No, no, 
no.   
 
HUMPHRYS.                              "It is not intended there should be a 
general increase in sentences served."  
 
HOWARD:                                No, let me finish my point.  My 
proposals do lead to increased sentences in some areas.  They lead to increased 
sentences for persistent burglars.  They lead to increased sentences for those 
who persistently sell hard drugs, to victims of drugs.  But, they don't lead 
and they're not intended to lead and I've never suggested that they would lead 
to an indiscriminate increase in the prison population.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Well, you put the word 'indiscriminate' 
there. 
 
HOWARD:                                I want to target the longer sentences on 
those areas where they will do most good in terms of protecting the public but 
I also want to have an honest and straightforward system in which people aren't 
misled, aren't fooled, don't feel cheated, can see what is happening, know that 
the sentence passed is the sentence served.   
 
HUMPHRYS:                              But what I'm suggesting to you is that 
your audience, your supporters, have been misled because of that phrase that 
you use about half time and full time.  They were clearly led to believe they 
were going to serve longer.  They're not going to serve longer.  At least that 
is not the intention because if they did serve longer the prison service simply 
could not cope with it. 
 
HOWARD:                                It is not the intention that the 
generality of sentences outside those particular categories that I've 
identified, that the generality of sentences should be longer, as I have made 
clear, time after time, in interviews with you and with other people. 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Right so it'll be a different tone in 
your next speech to the Conservative Party Conference... 
 
HOWARD:                                And in speeches that I've made... 
 
HUMPHRYS:                              So it'll be a different tone? 
 
HOWARD:                                I haven't decided yet what I'm going to 
say in the next Party Conference.  
 
HUMPHRYS:                              Home Secetary, thank you very much 
indeed.  
 
HOWARD:                                Thank you. 
 
. 
 
 
                                 ...oooOooo...