The Home Secretary’s answers to your questions

The transcript from the webchat is now available from the Number 10 website.

A few comments on John Reid’s responses follow.

Daran Thomas: Do you think that complete media coverage of criminal cases has any effect on public confidence and perception regarding crime figures and convictions?

If so, how can the government restore these factors and regain public confidence against the media?

John replies: I think we should be very careful about allowing more and more coverage of offenders, their details, pictures and so on. Of course the public have a right to some information about crime, criminals and the justice system, but I am uneasy about pressures to move in the direction of the United States and think we should proceed with care.

Of course, where conviction has taken place, especially where those convicted are guilty of crimes against children like child abuse, I think there is a case for further information to be made available to the public.

I wonder what John is doing about Whitehall, Government, police, and other anonymous ‘sources‘ that risk prejudicing the proper operation of the criminal justice system.

Mr Steven Baum: Having been to New York last year I was impressed that there is not graffiti, and street crime + anti social behavior has really declined. I did a lot of research on this and the main reason attributed to it is “ZERO TOLORANCE”. plus 3 strikes and you are out. The youth of New York fear going “up river” for 20 years. This country is declining into a yob rule. The human rights act encourages kids to get as “asbo” as they get steet cred for getting one, and anyone under 16 has no fear of the police. I am not sayinmg go back to the stocks etc. But please please get a grip on society. I got the cane at school, it did not turn me into a violent person or encourage me to go out mugging old ladies. I was brought up to respect my elders but the youth of today has no respect because they know they can get away with anti social behavior. Take a look at what happened in New York and make a tough stance. he public are getting fed up with the weekly new “ban” and want our streets back.

John replies: Thanks for your comment Steven. Lets never forget that the vast majority of young people, millions of them, are hardworking, law-abiding who just want to get ahead and make a future for themselves.

However, if we are to have a decent society everyone has to operate with a respect for other people. That is the whole point of ASBOs – to intervene early and show people that certain types of behaviour – even short of criminal offence – is just not acceptable. Of course there are always some, sometimes idiots, who regard being lifted by the police or ASBOs or prison as a badge of honour. That doesn’t mean that any of these things are unnecessary, just that they are a necessary part of educating people out of their behaviour and part of that education is sanctions ranging from ASBOs right through to indeterminate prision sentences. Indicentally, a recent National Audit Office report concluded that the majority of people who received an ASBO intervention did not re-engage in anti-social behaviour

Yes. the NAO reported that the “majority of people who received an anti-social behaviour intervention [my emphasis], in a sample of cases examined by the National Audit Office, did not re-engage in anti-social behaviour”. An ASBO is a type of anti-social behaviour intervention, but not all interventions are ASBOs – interventions also include warning letters and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.

But the NAO further reported that “over half of those who received the strongest form of intervention – an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) – breached the Order, and one third did so on five or more occasions. Forty per cent of people who received an Anti-Social Behaviour Order had received an earlier anti-social behaviour intervention and 80 per cent had previous criminal convictions”.

bringing a degree of peace to the communities they had disturbed, and the overall British Crime Survey shows that in the 3-4 years we have been using ASBOs to around 2002/3 – 2005/6, the percentage of people believe in their to be high levels of anti-social behaviour in their area fell from 21% to 17% so a lot more needs to be done but a good start.

T Robbins: Why should I be prevented from having a passport merely because I wish to keep my private information secure by keeping it away from your proposed intrusive and unsafe ‘National Identity Register’?

John replies: Dear Mr Robbins, obviously everyone needs a passport if they want to travel abroad. Increasingly country after country is going to require a biometric passport or visa (eg the USA already does) – ie a passport with your fingerpriint or the iris of your eye or exact facial features. If you are going to have biometric passport with that feature their obviously has to be a record of the feature to check it against. If there is a record of features, there is therefore a register.

Well, there is only international agreement that a picture of the face is required to be printed on a passport and stored electronically on a chip in the passport.

But let’s assume that he’s right, that a central database is necessary – it isn’t, but let’s just say it is necessary for the sake of argument.

Is it necessary for the purposes of passport control to have the following information in the database (with thanks to James Hammerton for summing up Schedule 1 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 so well):

• every address you’ve ever lived at;
• every name you’ve ever been known by;
• every immigration status you’ve ever held;
• your fingerprints;
• the number of every official identity document issued to you, such as driving licences, passports, visas, etc; and,
• the details of every occasion on which your identity is checked, and who it was checked by, and thus a record of, for example, each time you register with a doctor/clinic, sign up for benefits, enroll your kids in a state school, access any public services to which you have to prove entitlement, open a bank account, apply for a credit card or take out a mortgage.

Surely all that is necessary for passport control is to be able to determine that the passport is genuine, and that the holder is the person to whom the passport was issued?

If we are uncomfortable with the idea that this can all be done on the passport, with no central register containing personal information, why not just have a biometric, and the name and address, and the passport number?

Incidentally, the use of biometrics is intended to protect the individual. One of the greatest threats to indivdiuals and to our country as whole is the theft of identities. It is the major element in identity fraud (credit cards, bank accounts etc), internet theft, organised crime and terrorism through the use of multiple identities. It is not entirely safe now even with a pin number to go and withdraw money from a “hole in the wall” because people can discover your pin number. The one thing they would not be able to replicate on your passport or on an ID card is your fingerprint or your iris. That’s the benefit of identity management and having a register against which to check it.

No, it is a disadvantage not a benefit – because a fingerprint can be copied and it cannot be revoked. PINs “aren’t entirely safe” (neither are biometrics for that matter) but at least they can be changed. And John, we aren’t going to use irises, remember?

Andrew Lewin: Recent criminal justice reforms have angered civil liberties groups as going too far: so where do YOU feel the line is between the needs of security and the rights of individual freedom? What ‘red lines’ would you NOT consider crossing?

John replies: The truth is that all of our liberties are under threat from extremist terrorists who have a contempt for the liberties that we value so much. Therefore, we need to protect them and in a civilised society people accept that requires some curtailment on our own liberties. For instance, while everyone agrees on the desirablitlity of freedom of speech, most people agree that it has to be curtailed when it comes to racist remarks or encouraging hatred against others.

Whether or not “most people agree” is generally immaterial to whether or not something is right. And John, it isn’t just a matter of restrictions on free speech – which I happen to believe are too restrictive at present.

Is it right that the state can put someone under house arrest if the state says that person is a terrorist or involved in illegal salmon fishing, but the person doesn’t get a trial?

It is that balance which is always difficult to achieve, but I am proud that in this country we are amongst the most libertarian in the world, though we are under one of the greatest threats from terrorism.

Notice that John hasn’t answered Mr Lewin’s question.

SpyBlog has much more.