Letter: Fight against crime
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: My old friend Roy Hattersley has never been one to skimp on hyperbole in place of the facts ("New Labour's programme is chilling and Draconian", 18 November).
His accusation that I am more concerned with "creating a reputation for being tough on law and order" than reducing crime is nonsensical. If we are to reverse the long-term increase in crime we must be unequivocal that those who break the law will face effective sanction, and we must galvanise effort to prevent crime happening in the first place. That is what we mean by being tough on crime and tough on its causes - and to do it we are embarked on the most comprehensive crime-reduction programme this country has ever seen.
In truth, reducing crime never appeared to be much of a priority for Roy when he was shadow Home Secretary. Although crime had increased by a record 18 per cent in the previous year, his contribution on crime to Labour's manifesto in 1992 ran to a mere five short paragraphs, majoring on brave anti-crime pledges to demolish derelict buildings and fence off waste-land.
On terrorism legislation, he accuses the Government of going back on its promises. This is simply wrong. In opposition, I and others on the Labour front bench consistently argued for permanent anti-terrorist legislation. In addition, we promised to provide greater protections. That is what we are doing. In government, we have not operated exclusion orders - which were an ineffective and unjust form of internal exile opposed by unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland alike - and the new Bill will introduce the long overdue judicial oversight of decisions to extend detention.
On my proposals to give magistrates the power to decide where defendants should be tried in either-way cases, I readily confess that I have changed my mind on this issue. But the more I have gone into it, the more persuasive is the case for change. After all, in Scotland, defendants have never had a right to choose to be tried by a jury. Indeed, it is the prosecution that decides. Perhaps Roy and groups like Liberty could tell me why they have not spent the last few years campaigning for change there?
JACK STRAW
Home Secretary
Home Office
London SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments