Question: In recent months concern over crime has risen to the top of the political agenda. David Blunkett has just announced measures to deal with youth crime; what do you think of these measures?

Mike O'Brien: They are very good measures, they are overdue. The Home Office has been working on them for some time and I think what David is doing is articulating the concerns of my constituents.

I've just spent the Easter period canvassing on the streets of Bedworth, which is a former mining town. The community there is very concerned about youth crime and they want to know that the Government is concerned about it too and that the Home Secretary is doing something about it. Over Easter I was canvassing with a student who was working with me on the Hansard Scholarship and he is Canadian, but he's at a North American University in New York. He was saying to me that he'd been canvassing in rural New York, he'd been canvassing in British Columbia and he'd never come across the level of concern that there was in Britain about youth crime and almost every other door there was someone saying well what are you going to do about the young tearaways who are creating vandalism, disturbances, being abusive, causing a lot of difficulties for older people. Now there is always a tension between generations, but I think what we've actually got is something a lot more serious.

I was also talking to some people from New Zealand and Australia and again they were saying that although yes in our inner cities the Australians and New Zealanders have problems with youth crime, the level of problems that we have in Britain are of a different proportion. So what are the kids doing in rural New York, rural and city British Columbia, New Zealand and Australia that our kids aren't doing? And the answer that seems to be coming back is that the culture is different. They spend a lot more time involved in sporting activities, there are a lot more facilities for them, the whole youth culture is geared up much more to that.

What they have succeeded in doing in other countries is creating a youth culture where peer group pressure is to succeed at sport rather than robbing little old ladies of their handbags.

We need to look at our whole youth culture. We need to spend more on a youth service, we need to spend more on sporting activities, but we also need to recognise that today we have a problem with youth offenders and that some of them are as young as 11 or 12 and they are creating quite serious difficulties for decent people. And we have got to lock some of them up and that's why Blunkett is right to say that we've got to have more secure detention centres for 10,11, 12 year olds and also that we've got to be prepared to push much harder the parental responsibility orders, something that I was very strongly in favour of when we put through the Crime and Disorder Act.

Question: Some parents might argue that they are perfectly good parents, but one of their children is simply out of control. Why should they have to pay fines or penalties because of that?

Mike O'Brien: Well it's not so much fines or penalties. The Parental Responsibility Order is about teaching parents how to be better parents, because some parents are just simply inadequate. What they may well need is some education on basic techniques of how you control children. For example, you don't keep threatening without delivering on some sort of sanction like you have to stay in this evening rather than going out with your mates. Some parents just threaten and never deliver so the kid does not know where the lines are drawn.

And some of the basic things that good parents do in this country whose kids do not get into trouble are not being done by inadequate parents, not because they are evil or bad parents in their own sense, it's just because they have never been taught the techniques of control. You also have families from hell or even indeed just merely inadequate families who persist through several generations in causing problems for their neighbours. These issues also have to be dealt with and it is possible to do this, but it's not about large fines for parents because I'm not sure that that's going to do a lot of good. It is about teaching the parent how to be a better parent and therefore to get control of the kid.

Question: There's been a lot of crime summits and crime task forces all dealing with various elements of crime. Are they all needed?

Mike O'Brien: I'd hesitate to say they were all needed, but certainly crime is a complex issue and getting the benefit of an array of knowledge and expertise is something that, in an overall sense, is desirable. So probably most of it is and if I go back to my constituency experience - the biggest issue in my constituency is law and order. And I live in a very nice constituency by and large where most people enjoy living in the 101 villages of North Warwickshire and the town of Bedworth. It's a good place to live if there wasn't the anti-social behaviour. We've dealt with some of the problems of our schools being under-funded; we're addressing some of the problems of the health service; but what we've still got a long way to go to address some of the law and order problems. Therefore we need to focus on doing that more.

Question: Something you said before was there's always been a clash between the different generations. Isn't that the case here only it is being blown out of proportion by a media hysteria over this issue?

Mike O'Brien: Well I think it's a bit of both. I think we have a genuine problem: it is substantial problem; it's a greater problem than exists in a number of other countries; but at the same time yes there is the perennial media circus about it.

Question: The government's held summits on street crime recently and crackdowns on crime. The big problem is that the prisons are overflowing so how do they deal with all these offenders that they'll catch?

Mike O'Brien: It's about locking up the right people and not the wrong people. It's about locking up the people who are persistent offenders and need to be locked up for a period of time and reformed whilst they are inside; and we don't spend enough on prison education and reform, but some of them do need to be locked up for a period of time. What we sometimes don't need to do is lock up certain kinds of offenders who are less of a danger to the community

Question: Like who?

Mike O'Brien: Well there are some petty offences which are not particularly a danger to an individual's physical safety. It is only when they become persistent that you need to lock them up. Various kinds of theft would be the obvious example where it is very important that those people be punished, but it's possible to punish them in the community and make sure they pay back the community. And I'm a great advocate, although we haven't done yet in this country, of openness in community service. I think when people are doing community service they should be clearly identifiable, perhaps wearing some sort of uniform, and people should see them going round clearing off graffiti off the walls, cleaning out our canals, doing work for the elderly, whatever it is that these offenders are to do as part of their community service. Most people think community service is too easy. And where offenders on community service have successfully completed work, there ought to be some recognition of that payback, perhaps a sign up saying it has been done as a community service. People should know that offenders have paid back and have done a community service.

Question: Why should they be identifiable?

Mike O'Brien: They should be identified so that the community knows that there is some retribution, there is some justice that there is some attempt to get these people to pay back. And in a sense, far more than retribution or punishment, it is about pay back: it is about saying 'you've taken something; you've done wrong, you've got to give back now.' And therefore community service for people who are non-violent offenders and even some of the violent offenders where the offence is on the lower part of the scale ought to be visibly carrying out community pay-back, community services. It's not about shaming them - I'm not particularly certain that works one way or another - it's about the community knowing there is a system of justice where somebody has to pay back and the person knows that they've done it as well and have been seen to do it. It is about the offender and the community knowing that dues have been paid and they can move on.

Question: You've been a Home Office Minister, why haven't the Government attempted to extend community sentences - is it because they are scared of the media and public reaction of going soft on criminals?

Mike O'Brien: What Jack Straw did was to toughen up some of the Community Sentences, which were pretty inadequate and barely a sentence in the past, and seen certainly by the offenders as getting off. What Jack Straw did was to stiffen many of those Community Sentences; increased the numbers and variety of them so that magistrates had a breadth of selection of appropriate sentences. What David Blunkett is doing is taking that further and ensuring that we identify those offenders who would be best served by doing some form of Community Service Order.

I do think that we have to accept as a society that we are going to lock up more people than we did before. It is the case that Tony Blair made a significant change in the attitudes of the Labour Party on crime and disorder when he became the Shadow Home Secretary and he said, "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime". And there is a price to pay for that and part of the price is that we're going to lock more people up. We should be prepared to do that and we should accept that there should be a bill in terms of more expenditure on prisons.

Question: Looking at the people who are in the prisons, and one thing you were talking about before is education and rehabilitation. Is there enough of this going on?

Mike O'Brien: There's not enough at all.

Question: So what more needs to be done?

Mike O'Brien: A lot needs to be done. Of course Jack Straw and David Blunkett would be the first to acknowledge that. The difficulty is that the more education and rehabilitation costs more and it's a question of priorities and the amount of resources you have.

What we need to do when we have people in custody - particularly younger people - is to give them not only educational qualifications, but some again basic techniques of dealing with their social inadequacies, particularly drug problems. And also in some of the cases, particularly for people who come from care, putting in some support systems for when they come out.

I was a criminal lawyer before I became a Member of Parliament and I dealt with a large variety of clients who were young. Often they had come out of care, although not always, and they were inadequate in various social skills; they were inadequate in education; they'd had disrupted education; lots of personal problems. They required an element of support in the community. However what they also sometimes required a period of detention so that they could get their lives together, get themselves out of the drug culture, so that they could engage themselves in moving away from the peer groups they associated with. That would give them an opportunity to have somewhat of a breathing space to learn new behaviours and educate themselves a bit more. If they then have a level of support on release for six months or a year - close supervision followed by a level of support to ensure they get a job, they get some proper accommodation, and they have the opportunity to feel they have some hope for the future.

A lot of various young people, particularly as they get into their early twenties, can be diverted away from crime. At some point most young offenders leave committing crime and they go off and do something else. The core of long-term offenders is relatively small. Youth crime is therefore a phase through which young people go. What we need to do is squeeze out that phase: squeeze it up from the bottom by having more controls and more activities for young people at a younger age; nip in the bud their behaviour so they know where the lines are drawn; ensure their parents know how to control them at a younger age; and squeeze it from the top by providing people who are ready to come out of the criminal way of life, with an opportunity for a job and a better way of life. So squeezing that phase of juvenile crime behaviour down to the minimum is important.

Question: The Government's in conflict with the Police in their proposals to reform the pay and conditions of Police Officers. How do you think the Government should respond to Police concerns over this?

Mike O'Brien: We send Police Officers out on our streets to safeguard the community. You do not incentivise them by paying them less. You incentivise them by respecting them; by paying them a decent salary; by making sure that they know they have the support of their bosses and the Home Office.

The Police Federation who I used to be Parliamentary Adviser to are very skilled at safeguarding the interests of their members. Although not legally a trade union they are a statutory organisation, they are really the best trade union in this country. They are very good at what they do. And they have been able to manoeuvre the Home Office. David Blunkett ought to have been better advised by officials who had been there a long time, but clearly that wasn't the case. There were games being played by the Fed, and they were going to get the best deal for their members. In a sense who can blame them - that's what they are there for - and they have rallied Police Constables across the country to fight for a better pay settlement and also to deal with some of the issues in the Police job.

Question: They would argue that the Government has been too criticial, damaging morale in the Force. What do you think of that?

Mike O'Brien: The Spanish practices; the sickness scams; the early retirement scams; the big pay-offs that people get have been a difficulty in policing for two generations. David Blunkett is prepared to address that and it is right that he should. Every serious police officer knows these things have got to be sorted out. He's got to explain why he's doing it and if they feel that's being critical of the culture that they've operated in then that's sad but it's necessary.

However, it's also necessary at the same time that the Home Secretary should show his great support for the Police and that his aim is to put more police officers on the streets than ever before - we still have inadequate numbers on our streets - and also that he's prepared to be serious in giving the Police support whenever they are under criticism. To some extend David is feeling his way to how he will carry out that role. But a lot of police officers have over the last few months by the combination of the PMD settlement and the Police Reform Bill, been alienated. I think he is going to have to work very hard to make up that ground but he is more than capable and actually has got the makings of a very, very good Home Secretary indeed.

Question: Police Officers are also concerned over his new powers to be able to come in and dismiss Chief Officers. Why shouldn't he be able to sack an officer who is incompetent?

Mike O'Brien: He should be able to sack an officer who is incompetent and indeed there are a number of cases where the Home Office has had difficulties as a result of the inadequacies of their powers to deal with chief police officers who have not been up to it. What David is doing is right. However there also need to be some safeguards because we have a tradition of local policing.

To some extent what we are deliberately doing is trying to create the circumstances where we have good quality policing across the country - that means you have to have standards; they have to be imposed from the centre; you have to have measurement, checking, enforcement of those standards. That all has to be done in the centre so there is a greater degree of centralisation. But you need to balance that too with a level of acknowledgement of the operational responsibility of Chief Constables, of how they carry out their duties, and how they enforce the law in their own area. And that is a difficult balance to strike.

The Chief Constables believe that the Bill in its individual elements is fine, however the Bill in the combination of all those elements produces a level of centralisation which is more than they are comfortable with. There are ways however to deal with their concerns by tweaking the bill to, for example, give some safeguard over the power of the Home Secretary to dismiss or suspend a Chief Constable, either by saying that he will only do so in prescribed terms perhaps on the advice of the Police Inspectorate and that advice is all public - I think that is very important. Or alternatively that if he makes a decision to dismiss, that that is subject to review by a tribunal, perhaps composed by someone in the Police Authority and a former or current Chief Constable from another Force, and maybe a lawyer, although David doesn't like lawyers, to say that that power was carried out properly. So with a few safeguards in there, I think David would find that he does have the support of Chief Constables.

The difficulty for David is that because he is having some real problems with the majority of police officers, he needs the support of Chief Constables in order to deliver on the broader Police Reform agenda. I think therefore he should listen to the Chief Constables where they do have concerns, because they are basically anxious to support him on this Bill. They want the Bill, they just want the safeguards in there to make them more comfortable. They don't think he's trying to sack them, but because he did make that comment about intervening with the Commissioner it was not a helpful comment. With a bit of sensible manoeuvring: a few safeguards inserted into the Bill; a decent pay deal for police officers - he needs a bit of wriggle room from the Treasury in order to get that deal. He can deal with all these problems. He can regain the support of Chief Constables and serving police officers both, and he can restore the level of confidence he has from the Police as a whole.

Question: Just before the election when you were at the Home Office, you said the Government were going to reform the licensing laws. Why do you think these licensing laws haven't been put in place?

Mike O'Brien: Because it appears a decision was taken after the election not to bring them forward. Certainly I was told we would be bringing them forward fairly quickly, and indeed we made that a public commitment. The matter was transferred to the Culture Department after the election and whatever happened there I don't know.

Question: What's your message to the Government about licensing laws?

Mike O'Brien: The licensing laws do need reform. It is a popular measure; people are wanting to have a greater deal of freedom as a consumer; we do need licensing laws along the lines that we set out. The only area where there was serious controversy was over whether it should be Local Authorities or Magistrates who made the decisions over the granting of licenses. I'm fairly relaxed on whichever it is. But beyond that there was widespread support from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour MPs for the measure and I very much hope it will be brought forward in the next Queen's speech. The sooner the better.

Question: There are continual reports of businessmen funding the Labour party and there are always allegations of sleaze. There are reports now that Government Ministers are keen to move towards the idea of State funding of parties. Is this something you go along with?

Mike O'Brien: I was the Minister charged with party political funding referendums legislation and during the course of that there was a problem in the Lords over whether there should be tax concessions for donations up to £250. I opposed that but I do favour State funding. As Minister responsible for the Bill I pushed quite hard for us to agree State funding of political parties. Jack Straw was willing to look at these ideas.

The method I proposed would have ended the situation where any political party has to go to big business for donations. The current situation is just asking for trouble people will just naturally start asking questions about whether anyone who has donated towards a political party and gets a decision towards their favour has bribed their way to that decision. It's just asking for trouble to allow it to continue. But at the same time there is a view, in the Treasury, that people would rather their tax money be spent on the NHS rather than political parties.

The proposal was essentially this: that we create mass political parties by allowing everyone to tick a box on their tax form, whereby the State would then pay £20 / £25 to the political party of their choice. It had to be a political party with two Members of Parliament; it had to be a political party where there was a membership system. If they decided not to tick the box because they didn't believe in State funding, they didn't tick the box, it didn't affect the amount of tax they would pay. The people would decide whether or not there is State funding.

Question: And they decide how much goes to each party?

Mike O'Brien: Yes. They decide the overall amount. You then become a full member of that party with the ability to select the candidates, select local councillors, become involved in the local running of that party, receive the magazines of that party, receive regular reports from your MP, all those things. So we go from a situation where less than one per cent of people are active members of political parties in this country, to one where we create mass political parties with a level of activism far greater than we have now.

Question: So it sorts out political funding but it also sorts out apathy as well?

Mike O'Brien: Whether it sorts out apathy depends to some extent on the political parties. But it enables the political parties - for example the trade union wouldn't be donating to the Labour party as a union any more, but it would be encouraging its members to tick their tax form to sign up to become full members of the Labour party. And if we had even half the trade union members in the country to agree to tick that box, they would be signing up to become full members of the Labour party with all the rights of a member of the Labour party.

Question: But this weakens the position of the unions in the Labour party doesn't it?

Mike O'Brien: No. It would strengthen the position of the trade unions in the party by enabling them to sign up large numbers of their members to become full members. And those people aren't full members now by and large. And so in the selection of candidates and in the selection of the Prime Minister, their position would be enhanced. But it would mean that the people of the country decided how much. If you signed up four million people at £20 you can work out the sort of money the political parties would get. It would be more than enough to fund them in General Election campaigns and on a year to year basis. There would be no need for donations from businesses, the Trade Unions or anyone else.

Question: What's at stake if the current system continues?

Mike O'Brien: I think people will become increasingly disillusioned with politics and believe that all politicians are sleazy and up to their necks in it. My experience with politicians is that by and large the allegations made against them are made by their opponents and the media. It's always much easier to say that questions must be asked and you must prove your innocence to politicians because the public is willing to believe the worst. I think we're seeing that at the moment with some of the allegations over the vaccine issue. It is easy to make allegations. It is difficult to prove your innocence, particularly when things don't look so good. And having been myself through one or two circumstances where I know perfectly well, for instance Peter Mandelson was innocent of the allegations made against him, yet the media had hung, drawn and quartered him the day after the allegations were made. The effect of all that is you get a perception among the public that politicians are all corrupt when by and large they are not.

We did have a particular spate of problems during John Major's period with people receiving brown envelopes. That is not my experience of how most politicians in the country operate. However the public think otherwise. And if we don't move to a system of State funding, I think the public will become progressively disillusioned, alienated from the political process. If on the other hand we move to a system where they become members of the political parties; know they have the right as members of those parties because they are full members in their millions to select the candidates, to participate in the process of deciding who their Council candidates would be, all those things; then I think we have the possibility - not the certainty - of regenerating interest in politics and a sense of politics as an honourable profession, a greater possibility of doing than we've ever had before.