'THE FIRST DUTY OF GOVERNMENT IS TO MAINTAIN LAW AND ORDER'
In the following, we publish extracts from a speech by the British Home Secretary (Interior Minister), Michael Howard, held at the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool on 8 October. Both the Home Secretary's policy proposals on cNme and the Conservatives' campaign tactics of accusing Labour and the Uberals of being soft on cNme reveal stNklng parallels with the current debate in Germany.
By way of introduction, the Home secretary declares that "the first duty of Govemment is to maintain law and order...
"You can argue forever about the causes of crime", he continues, but "criminals - and no one else - must be held responsible for their actions".
"I am going to take action. Tough action. I shall spell out that action here today...
"At the last election, the Prime Minister gave voice to the concerns of millions of people up and down this country. That is why we won. His decision to put law and order at the top of our agenda shows that he understands their concerns now, just as he did then. And that is why he will lead us to victory at the next election as well...
"In the last decade we have massively increased the number of police officers. We have doubled their funding and given them new powers. We have increased sentences right across the board... But it isn't enough. We have more. much more to do...
"First, preventing crime. We can't leave it all to the Police. We must build a new partnership between the Police and the public...
"In the past, not enough attention has been paid to rural crime... In July I asked parish councils to give me their ideas for Parish Constables - a responsible person in our villages, acting as a link with the police. The response was remarkable...
"The countryside must be made safer.
We have already announced tough proposals to deal with New Age travellers and Ravers...
We have also said we will toughen up the law on squatters. When people have their houses taken over by squatters, they don't want lengthy court cases and huge costs. They want them out, fast. And that is exactly what our new law will achieve...
'The inner city has different problems. Most pressing of all are drugs and drug related crime... I don't just want drug pushers put away for the harm they have done. I want to see them hit where it hurts. That is why we have passed a new law to confiscate the cash they make...
"I will never do anything to undermine the police. My only purpose is to make them more effective in their fight against crime... I want to tackle the mountain of paperwork they have to cope with... Men and women don't join the police to fill in forms. They join the police to fight crime...
"The biggest threat we face is from terrorists... Every year Parliament has to vote to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act [PTA: see CL No.7, p.9] . .
. Yet every year... Labour [has] voted against it. Labour puts the civil rights of the terrorists before the lives of the British people...
"I will create to new offences. It will be a crime to possess anything which creates reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism. And it will be a crime to gather information for terrorist purposes.
"One of the most powerful new forensic techniques is the ability to take DNA samples... DNA will help convict the criminal who committed the crime... So we will sweep meany of the complex legal restraints on DNA [DNA: see FECL No.4, p.5)...
"We need to help witnesses too. Far too many witnesses have been intimidated. Far too few of those who intimidate them are caught. So I shall introduce a new criminal offence to make it much easier to bring these people to justice.
"Getting evidence isn't the only problem the police face. Far too often when the evidence is there the criminal isn't prosecuted, he's cautioned... ( think repeated cautioning and cautioning for serious offences are completely unacceptable... They should become a thing of the past...
"One estimate is that 50,000 people oifend while on bail every year... The current Iaw contains a presumption in favour of granting bail - even for them . . . I propose to scrap it... I shall let the courts take away bail if new information comes to light...
"When a criminal is convicted we must make sure that the courts have the powers they need to punish him... But sometimes the courts don't make full use of the powers they have...
"In 1988 we introduced a new law which made it possible for the Attomey General to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal to see whether they should be increased. Labour opposed us. So did the Liberals. What a surpNse. But ever since. soft sentences have been toughened up...
"I shall now extend that power to refer sentences... 'This may mean that more people will go to prison. 1 do not flinch from that. We shall no longer judge the success of our system of justice by a fall in our prison population . . .
"We shall build sot new prisons. They will be built and managed by the private sector...
"I have been reviewing too the powers we need to deal with persistent young offenders . .Since last month, 15 year old persistent offenders can be locked up in Young offender Institutions. But only for a year. I shall double that maximum sentence. We will also set up separate secure centres for 12 to 14 year olds, who, at the moment, can't be locked up at sit.
"We must get on, pass the legislation, build these centres and take these thugs off the streets... "[There) is one part of our law in particularthat makes
[peoples'] blood boil... It's the so-called right to silence. That is of course a complete msnomer. What is at stake is not the right to refuse to answer questions. But 'rf a suspect does remain silent should
the prosecution and the judge or magistrate be allowed to comment on it? Should they have the right to take it into account in deciding guift or innocence?...
The so-called right to silence will be abolished.
''The innocent have nothing to hide. And that is exactly the point the prosecution will be able to make in future..."
The "Notes for the Editors" annexed to the Home Secretary's speech, some additional explanations are give, i.e. on DNA samples, witness intimidation, juvenile offenders, and anti-terrorist provisions:
DNA samples
The new proposal is that in all recordable offences, the police will be able to take non-intimate DNA samples (including saliva) without consent. This brings the law on DNA into line with the rules on fingerprinting. Consent would continue to be required for intimate samples (e.g. blood, semen). We are proposing to go iurther than the Royal Commission suggested. Their proposals would extend DNA only to burglary and assauft (approx 180,000 cases); the new proposal would cover the majority of criminal conduct (approx. 500,000). The purpose would be to build up over time a database of the DNA if convicted criminals to match against DNA stains left at scenes of crimes.
Witness intimidation
The new offence of witness intimidation will cover intimidation both before and during the trial and retribution after trial. It will be for the defendant to show that his actions were not intended to intimidate or exact retribution (within a time limit of 12 months).
Juvenile offenders
The provisions in the Criminal Justice Act (1993) to take previous convictions into account means that courts would have had the choice between sentencing 15 year olds to new secure units or to existing young offender institutions (Y01). It has been decided that it would be more sensible to send them only to YOIs, leaving the new units for 12-14 year olds. The maximum sentence for YOIs will be doubled to two years. in line with the plans for the new secure units.
Anti-terrorist provisions
The new 'stop and search' procedures will make it easier to make vehicle checks where necessary. Authorization in any given area will be given by a very senior police officer. The Association of Chief Poiice Officers have asked for this power.
Two further powers will be introduce. There will be a new offence of gathering information for terrorist purposes. It will also be an offence to possess anything which gives rise to reasonable suspicion that it is used for the purposes of terrorism. This wifl help in case where someone is clearly incriminated but w'tth evidence that falls short of a conspiracy charge. Both these are already offences in Northem Ireland an they have proved useful in combatting terrorism.
Source: Conservative Party News, Extract from a speech by the Rt Hon Michael Howard QC MP (Folkstone 8, Hythe), the Home Secretary, speaking to the 1l0the Conservative Party Conference, Blackpool, 6.10.93Comment
It is traditional for Conservative Home Secretaries to make populist speeches at the annual conference - the delegates will accept nothing less. However, Michael Howard's speech marks a new departure, in that he evidently believes what he says and proposes to put it into action. Previous Home Secretaries in recent years have been influenced, to some extent, by the technocratic ethos of the Home Office, which carries out major programmes of criminological research each year, aimed at producing rational policies. Michael Howard has made it plain that he disdains such research; on occasion he has deliberately distorted his own department's findings in an attempt to bolster his own ideological position. It is, however, unclearwhether he genuinely believes - for example - that "prison works", as he has said, or whether he does not care whether it works or not. At any rate, Britain now has its most reactionary Home Secretary for three decades one prepared to ignore the advice of his civil servants and pursue policies that, according to all the empirical evidence, will not work.
It is unlikely to be a coincidence that the government's "law and order" drive coincides with its extreme unpopularity in the opinion polls, the continuing economic difficulties, and with the fact that the prime minister, John Major, is the least popular prime minister since opinion polls began.
Jolyon Jenkins