Any thought that the Labour Government's public relations spin machine would be derailed by the resignation of David Blunkett is wrong.
The new Home Secretary Charles Clarke was busy with his first interview to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, even before he had said a word officially to Parliament.
So much for the supremacy of Parliament.
There are some notable quotes on CCTV surveillance, on Identity cards on "airy fairy" civil liberties, on the Indepenence of Judges and of course on David Blunkett's biography criticism of Charles Clarke himself.
Ah well, back to the Home Office kremlinology to try to divine exactly what the political code words might mean, and to pick up any nuances which might indicate a course of inaction:
Transcript of the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Thursday 16th December 2004 (since the BBC does not produce make available to the public, any written transcripts of the programme):
James Naughtie, Today presenter: JN
Charles Clarke, Home Secretary: CC
JN:
Ten past eight. The landscape, looks rather different to the Prime Minister this morning, he's lost a Home Secretary who
JN:
In that office , this morning, sits Charles Clarke, and he joins us, for his first interview, now. Home Secretary, Good Morning.
CC:
Good Morning Jim.
JN:
Ahm, you're in a very important position, obviously, you have to draw a line , between collective security, and individual liberty. In what ways do you think you differ from Mr. Blunkett ?
CC:
I think I'm closer to him in his view of the the importance of collective security, than some people have acknowledged in the commentary. Ah, I look at the challenges that the country faces, the challenge of highly organised international crime, in areas like people trafficing and drug dealing, the challenges of international terrorism from organisations seeking to bring down every aspect of our democratic liberties, and I think it's the prime responsability of the Home Secretary, any Home Secretary, to actually, certainly I take it in this role as my prime responsability, to do what I can to protect the country, ah, to protect the civilization, even against those kinds of threats, to create a secure country in which everybody can live at peace, and that is my priority at this time.
CCTV
JN:
It's one thing to say that, er, you're determined to improve the fight against organised crime, as against terrorism. It's another, though, to subscribe to some of the policies, which you know, better than I do, were very unpopular on the Back Benches, you've served in the Home Office before, and you know how much disturbance there is, particularly about the question of detention without trial, for foreign nationals, on which the Law Lords will rule in a test case this morning, and, the whole reaction to the terrorist threat, which leads people to feel, that somehow there is, at least a partial victory for terrorism, because they are walking through streets that are protected by concrete blocks, and they are moving around under the sight of cameras that never seem to go away. Does that disturb you ?
CC:
I think you're, you're not quite accurate in what you're saying, Jim, really, in analysing the politics of it all
["I'm a political heavyweight - I know best"]
We'll hear the Law Lords judgement later on today, and I'm not going to comment on that in detail, but in general I think the concern, there is concern, amongst some who, er, errm, have been involved, particularly as lawyers, in, er, a whole series of, er, er, ways, at particular aspects of legislation, but the predominant feeling, that I've felt on the Labour party Back Benches, ah, and actually in the country as a whole, is that we have to tackle these issues. Now if you say to me, do I like a world in which CCTV exists, rather than not, well I'd prefer a world in which there was no need for CCTV at all, but I also know, that many communities , of all types, er, feel much more secure, where there is a CCTV er, pres, situation there, so that, so that, er, burglars can be seen and detected, and so on. So, I might wish an idealistic world in which we don't have some of these things, but I think, what people really want today, is to feel a world, in which they feel secure, and things like CCTV play their part.
JN:
But the question is whether you do some of these things, and introduce some of these security measures, with relish, or with reluctance, which is it ?
CC:
I don't think it's, er, that's the question at all, I don't think it's relish or reluctance, I, I don't think, really think that isn't the choice in anyway,
JN: [same time as CC]
Welll, err, hhmm [or something like that]
ID Cards
CC:
the question is whether the measures are actually introduced , or not, er, that's the question, and, er, what precise measures are introduced, if you take the Identity Cards, er, issue, for example, which you, flagged up in your introduction, er, I've, always been a supporter of, er, Identity Cards, and I supported David in the Cabinet discussions about that earlier this year,
JN: [same time as CC]
Right, never a wobble on that [?]
CC:
But the question of,
JN:[same time as CC]
[unclear]
but the question of, how you put it into effect, and what you do, is a matter for debate, the current legislation's already been significantly influenced, for example, by the reccommendations of the Select Committee, er, on these areas,
[Not on the evidence of the very few differences between the Draft ID Card Bill, which the Committee hurridly examined, and the full Identity Cards Bill, it hasn't ! David Blunkett took the surprising political ok in the executive summary, and ignored all the evidence and reccommendations about the lack of clear objectives, the lack of financial transparencyy , the lack of race relations or privacy impact or technical security analyses. How exactly was the legislation "significantly influenced" ?
c.f. http://www.spy.org.uk/icb and http://www.no2id.net]
and we'll debate in Parliament, but when Charles Kennedy asks me, just to drop it, as my first act,
[Note the Charles Clarke ignores the Conservative Party Opposition on this or any other "law and order" issue, throughout this interview. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are actually now, as they claim, a more effective Opposition than the official Tory one.]
JB:
Well he asked you to pause, I was going to ask you about that
CC:
Well, err, err, I certainly shan't pause. I shall go ahead with the legislation, and we'll debate it in the House next week in the right way. But why would we do this, we would do it, because Identity Cards are a means, of trying to create a more secure society, now as you say, some people don't agree with that, and that's their, er, legitimate opinion, but, er, we have to proceed, in, er, the way that I have described.
"airy fairy civil liberties"
JN:
Mr. Blunkett, once referred, in the course of one of his arguements, over some of these, issues to "airy fairy civil liberties", not a phrase that one could imagine, slipping easily from your mouth ?
CC:
I, err, certainlty wouldn't use the phrase "airy fairy civil liberties", I don't think Civil Liberties, are "airy fairy", I suspect what he's talking about, I don't know the quote in particular that you're describing, is , that he was always concerned, David has always been concerned, with real civil liberties, real freedoms, and not notional freedoms, and presumably he used that phrase in context of some discussion of that type. But, er, I certainly don't regard civil liberties as "airy fairy", I think that civil liberties are very important, and fundamental to the nature of the society in which we live.
[
Independence of Judges
JN:
And what about the independence of the judiciary ? Because this has come under a great deal of scrutiny, and caused a bit of concern, particularly, in the Lords, in your own party, in recent times, in the last couple of years, ah er, it's a very difficult position for a Home Secretary, isn't it, because you are expected to speak publicly about the Government's committment to. sec, security and safety for the citizen, and yet you have to try to res, restrain a natural inclination, sometimes to attack Judges, haven't you, I mean that is, that is part of the separation between the Judiciary and the Political Establishment, which is necessary. Do you accept that ?
CC:
Well, I don', I certainly shan't be attacking Judges. I think judicial independence is very important, but two things arise, firstly have you got a Modern Judiciary ? , and Charlie Faulkner the Lord Chancellor is working very hard to ensure that we do modernise the judiciary, and secondly the fact that, er, a, er Judge gives the last word on a particular thing, is correct, that's the law of the land, but it doesn't mean that their considerations can't be debated, and I think that most Judges would acknowledge, there's merit in debate about these questions.
JN:
Oh indeed, but I think you would accept
CC:[same time as JN]
but the, er, the, er, just to finish
[or something similar]
JN:
er, um, sorry, yes
CC:
but the independence of the judiciary, as you put it to me, is something I value very, highly, I think it's a central part of our, our modern life.
JN:
But I think you would accept, wouldn't you, and, per, perhaps this comes about because of all the post 9/11 stuff, there's been, a political climate developing in which it's much more common to hear, a Minister, even a Home Secretary, er, making a comment about a particular judgement, of the sort, that a generation ago, would have been thought to be beyond the pale. Do you accept that, was a change, and that it's one that you're, perhaps, erm, nervous about and unhappy about ?
[David Blunkett, nearly prejudiced the trial of an alleged terrorist in Gloucester, and also of any chance of a fair trial in the UK of the football supporter improperly tried and convicted and expelled from Portugal, with his remarks which might have been ok from an MP. but not from the Home Secretary responsible for gathering evidence against such people]
CC:
Well, yes and no, er, I'm not sure that you're right, in terms of political history, I'd need to go back and check about what, som, my predecessors have
JN: [same time as CC]
Well, we can go back to Norman Brook or something, but you know my general point
CC:
but, but, that's not the central point, I agree. I do think 9/11 changed everything. you see 9/11 was a statement by an organisation, that it has, as it, it's ambition, not as a kind of negotiating position, to destroy a society based on the rule of law, based on freedom, based on independence, based on, based on votes for women, based on, er, a wide range of different things, and it was about destroying our society, and that was something that had never happened in that way at all, before, and that creates a whole set of moral issues for us, both as Government, in our policing, and in our Judicial and Legal structures
[There is a lot of evidence and analysis that 9/11 changed nothing in terms of real threats, these were the same before and since, it is just that the politicians in Washington and New York started to take the warnings that they had ignored over the years about their former ally Osama bin Laden a bit more seriously.]
and my central stance, and I think it ought to be the, er, Judiciary's central stance, and the Media's central stance, is that our form of Democracy is worth defending, and that's the stance that I will follow.
JN:
In that sense, do you accept the characterisation of the position that we're in, as a War On Terror ?
CC:
I think that's a very fair, er, description, I think that there are people who have declared war on us, actually, and the choice is whether we, er, respond to that, or not. Now, I think 9/11 was the, the, moment of tremendous, significance, from that point of view. It wasn't the only act of course, there have been many other acts, er, as well, before and after, which have been terrible, from that point of view, but 9/11, had a particular significance. War has certainly been declared, on democratic society, by terrorist organisations, and I certainly think it's our responsability as a society, and certainly my responsability as Home Secretary to do my best to defend us against that threat.
JN:
Do you think that there are too many people in prison ?
CC:
Er, I think that there are some people in prison, who ought not to be, if that's the meaning of your question
JN:[same time as CC]
Well, it, it's one of the aspects of the problem.
CC:
By, by, by that I mean, that , er, is that er, the priorities of this Government have always been Education and Health, and the least educated, the least healthy parts of the population, are the people in the Criminal Justice System. If you look for example at literacy levels, or levels of drug abuse,
JN:[same time as CC]
mmh
CC:
or mental health, in the er, prison population, there are some very serious issues, and I think that we have to work harder than, erm, ever, to try and ensure that people are able to escape the Criminal Justice System and therefore not be in prison.
[Charles Clarke probably does not mean actual prison escapes, per se !]
Although I think that prison should be a sanction, and be used to stop people from doing things which they oughtn't , very, very much so, I think that prison is an important measure in that regard, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to rehabilitate people.
JN:
Well, quite, because one of the arguements that's often made, and was particularly made in the direction of Mr. Blunkett, was that if prison is seen as a solution, more and more often, to, crime, people end up in there, in a system, which hasn't developed, in terms of trying to rehabilitate them, in the, way that all parties have said that it should develop, the result being that, a new generation of criminals is trained, and sent back onto the streets, under the notion put out by politicians that er, these people aren't doing any damage because they're in prison, when in fact it means they are sent back into the community, erm, ah, as trained criminals, as it were. We know that the er, recidivism rate is extremely high, and quite often putting someone in prison is the way to make the community less safe in the long run, not more safe.
CC:
Well, this, er, these matters of penal policy are very complicated, but in terms of, there are two fundamental questions, in terms of prison numbers. Fundamental question one: Can we provide through Education, Health and all the rest of it, a system of rehabilitation which helps people re-establish normal law abiding lives. Question two, should prison be a sanction, which it really exists as a real sanction, a real life sanction to punish people who commit appalling crimes ? Now I say Yes to both of those, now the balance between the two, in terms of what that then means in prison numbers and so on, is a consequence of how you cond, conduct the other two areas, but I strongly believe that prison is a very necessary sanction, and should be actively be there , for people who are law breakers, but I also strongly believe, that we should be working as best we can, to try and help people Escape the Criminal Justice System, to lead normal law abiding lives.
JN:
Would you like to be seen, you, you are probably one of the top three people, top three, or four people in the Government now, would you like to be seen as a, reforming Home Secretary ?
[Transcribing rambling questions. which seem to be interrupted with irrelevant thoughts, like this one, is very annoying. What is it with professional broadcasters, of many years experience, both on the BBC and on ITV e.g. John Humphrys, Jonathan Dimbleby, Sir David Frost, Jim Naughtie, etc ?
These are not off the cuff questions , they have all been allegedly researched and written down into a script beforehand.
What is wrong with:
"You are probably one of the top four people in the Government now .
Would you like to be seen as a reforming Home Secretary ?"
or just
"Would you like to be seen as a reforming Home Secretary ?"
Surely filling out extra time can be done by means of asking extra questions ?]
CC:
Yes there's a number of areas of reform which I think are important. I think the Immigration and Asylum system, needs urgent reform.
[Perhaps thisis implied criticism of David Blunkett, given the scandals involving visas, and the shoddy treatment of the whistleblowersa Steve Moxon and James Cameron, but which ultimately cost both Beverly Hughes and David Blunkett their Ministerial jobs at the Home Office]
Already, with[?], great achievements have been made by David er, Blunkett and his predecessors
[is charles Clarke really giving credit to both Jack Straw and the Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard ?]
but I think everybody acknowledges that there remain major issues that have to be resolved, so I see that as a major area for future
JN: [same time as CC]
Issues of numbers ? Or the way that people are treated when they get here ?
CC:
Er both, but principally numbers. I think that the impact of organised crime, that I mentioned earlier, on People Trafficing, has had a very serious effect on our society, as people are brought in a quite unacceptable way, for personal gain, by great criminal gangs, leading to terrible tragedies. Er, when I was er, Prison Mini, er, Police Minister, er, we had the issue of the containers, of container lorries going across the Channel, and people dying. Then we had the cockle pickers in, in Morecombe Bay, and these are appalling tragedies, as a result of these Trafficers in People, and they have to be stopped.
[Identity Cards , despite the Government's claims about illegal working etc. would not have prevented either of these two tragedies]
JN:
Looking about the, looking at the posture of this Government, six months before an Election, possibly, we don't know, you've got a Freedom Problem, haven't you ? A lot of people are duisturbed, in your own party, about aspects of, er, laws, and er, regulations which you believe necessary after 9/11. A lot of other people, maybe not natural Labour supporters, are worried about the Nanny State, about Fox Hunting, there's a feeling that this is a Government that is, intruding. in our lives, more and more, and saying it's necessary to do that. Do you think you've got a difficulty in peer, in appearing over weaning, overpowerful and too intent on running our lives ?
CC:
Not as much as the difficulty is, as some commentators say. Er Tony Blair's first er, soundbite, I should perhap his second soundbite, after "Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime", was about people's Rights and Responsibilities. People exercising their Rights as Citizens, but also bearing their Responsibilities as Citizens. I believe that's been the way that we've tried to operate throughout the period of Government, and certainly that David Blunkett tried to operate, I don't think criticisms of us being an Overweaning State are fair. I think things like Anti-Social Behavior Orders, which are a, er, manifestation of that, are a legitimate means to try to crack down on unacceptable behavior, by er, mainly Young Men, but, er , others as well, as we saw even Pig Farmers, the other day, and er, operate in a way, which er, actually ensures that people live their lives peacefully. I don't think that's the Overweaning State. The fact is, and it's the er, oldest story in the book, that one person's right can be another person's lack of right, but it's important that everybody behaves er, well towards their neighbours, and the communities in which they are. If that's being Overweaning, then so be it, but I don't think that it is.
JN:
Finally, isn't it inevitable, that this, whole episode, which combines questions of public probity, questions of how much private life should be private, and all the rest of it, is going to be seen , by many people, in one way or another, as a symptom of the beginning of the end of the Blair era ?
CC:
There may be people, you may be among them, Jim, I don't know, who take that view
JN: [same time as CC]
I'm just putting it as a [indistinct]
CC:
Er, as I say, [indistinct] you may be among them, you may not be, but er, who take that view. I think you would be an utterly wrong view, I have every personal sympathy and support for David, in his personal life, and what he's done, as well as respect for what he's done in his public life, and I think that, er, that is a, set of events which have worked out in the dramas of yesterday, and I'm very, very sorry that it's come to that, but the idea that somehow, some symptom of a, Failure in Government, or whatever, I absolutely do not accept.
JN:
He said you "went soft" at Education, I suppose he wouldn't want you to go soft at the Home Office ?
CC:
Well he wouldn't, and actually we had a very nice lunch last Monday, where we talked about all this and his, he, er, was nice enough to acknowledge that, er, actually the criticism wasn't justified, in the case of Education.
[So David Blunkett's criticism of the other Cabinet Ministers still stands ?]
I think any fears that I might be soft on crime, wouldn't be justified either.
JN:
Do you think he knew then, that it would end like this ?
CC:
I know, he didn't.
JN:
Charles Clarke thank you very much.
CC:
Thank you.
