|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Robin Aitken reporting there.
Well the Home Office Minister Charles Clarke is in our Norwich studio.
Mr Clarke, pretty well, as we've been seeing in that film, pretty well
every professional in this field says the laws are out of date, they should
be looked at again, we should have a proper debate about the whole thing
and that's exactly what this Police Foundation report is saying. Are they
just wasting their time?
CLARKE: It's not true John that
just about every professional thinks the issue is as clear as you said......
HUMPHRYS: No, I said they wanted
debate I didn't say it was clear. Let's be clear right at the beginning
of the interview.... They want to debate it seriously.
CLARKE: Well the suggestion was
there was a consensus that there needed to be a change in the law. I don't
believe or accept that that is the case. Our view all the way through
is let's look at the facts. If you take ecstasy which was mentioned in
that report, sixty to sixty five people died as a result of taking ecstasy
over the last ten years. That's an unacceptably large figure and no doubt
it's the reason why the advisory council to which we do listen by the way,
we listen to all input in particular from our advisory council on the misuse
of drugs, recommended as recently as nineteen ninety-six that there should
be no change in the status of ecstasy. Similar issues arise in relation
to other areas.
HUMPHRYS: No possibility there,
just to deal with ecstasy quickly, absolutely no possibility that you would
even consider, even look at the possibility of reclassifying ecstasy as
a drug like marijuana?
CLARKE: Not on the basis of the
current medical evidence John. If the medical evidence were to change,
if doctors were to look at the situation, assess it as they do not just
in this country but internationally and say there was some different assessment
then of course we'd have to take that into account but the medical evidence
at the moment on ecstasy is absolutely clear and in our country we've had
the tragedy of as I say sixty to sixty five people have died - died as
a result of taking ecstasy over the last ten years and to fly in the face
of that would be very irresponsible for any government.
HUMPHRYS: Okay. Well now clearly
that claim cannot be made for cannabis, for smoking marijuana, whatever
it happens to be, those soft drugs. In Nineteen ninety-eight, the last
year for which figures were available, more than one hundred thousand people
were arrested and they've either been cautioned or convicted for possession.
You yourself were brave enough to say that you had tried it yourself.
Now would society have been better served if you had been arrested and
charged as a result of having a few of them when you were a student?
CLARKE: Not necessarily John.
The police have their guidelines. The Association of Police Officers produces
guidelines on the matter. A large number of people do take cannabis you're
quite right. About one and a half million people last month we estimate
compared to fourteen million taking cigarettes and forty-two million taking
alcohol. A large number of people but nothing like as large as those other
two drugs and if we were to relax legislation in that area I'm convinced
that the one certain result would be that consumption would go up with
the medical implications and society implications which are involved with
that.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but you see a lot
of people say that a third of all adults have tried, and indeed tried last
year, cannabis. Now you cannot be alone in the House of Commons can you
if we take a third of all adults and then we extrapolate from that statistically
we're looking at a couple of hundred MP's who've tried it aren't we?
CLARKE: Well I've got no idea.
You'd need to ask all of them. I was asked, John, the question that you
showed on your clip as part of a public meeting the election campaign where
the issue was integrity in politics. I thought it was important to tell
the truth. I still think it's important to tell the truth. Howard Marks,
the convicted drug dealer who you referred to in that campaign went about
trying to disrupt the democratic election and I don't think he should be
treated as a hero in this respect at all.
HUMPHRYS: But shouldn't other MP's
be as honest as you?
CLARKE: I think MP's should all
be honest. I think as a matter of course. MPs should tell the situation
that effects their lives. I think that applies to everybody in public
life too John. I think the culture of cynicism which sometimes abounds
and which sometimes with respect to you I think you try and encourage,
ought to be fought and the best way to fight it is by politicians telling
the truth about their own experience and giving their own views frankly
and that's certainly what I try to do.
HUMPHRYS: So here we have a law
that's made by people who have broken it manifestly, quite clearly, ignored
more often than not, has left maybe half a million people altogether -
if you work out those figures over the last ten years or so - with criminal
records of one kind or another, that doesn't even act as a deterrent and
yet we are not prepared even to look at it again. Isn't that extraordinary?
CLARKE: Well first of all we look
at it constantly John. We have our Advisory Council who advises us on
these matters. In the issue of medicinal use we've positively conducted
research, we gave the Medical Research Council allocated a million pounds
just earlier this year to further research in the field and further trials
for issues like MS which you highlighted in your film. We are of course
prepared to keep on looking at the issues but the question remains in every
context - what is the impact for society? What is the impact for the health
of everybody and what is the impact most important of all of a relaxation
upon consumption. I believe the most effective, the most likely impact
of a relaxation in the law on any of these areas would be to increase consumption
of those drugs and I think would be bad for the people concerned and bad
for society.
HUMPHRYS: So even if you're not
prepared to consider decriminalising the use or the possession of marijuana
what about this terrible word "depenalisation" which means there would
actually be no penalty for doing so?
CLARKE: Well I think decriminalisation
doesn't solve the problem in any respect. There are clear police and operation
implications out of that which the police force indicated I think in their
evidence to the Police Foundation Committee when they were considering
their report but equally at the end of the day, to have a law which simply
cannot be enforced which is what decriminalisation means, would have the
same effect which I'm concerned about with any other change in this area
of sending a signal that basically taking drugs is okay and more consumption
will therefore take place which I think would be very damaging for the
whole of our society as well, and I emphasise, to the individuals themselves.
HUMPHRYS: But this other approach,
depenalisation, what about that?
CLARKE: I beg your pardon John,
I didn't hear that other question..........
HUMPHRYS: This other approach which
this report may well suggest this week. It's a very distinguished Police
Commission Report. Depenalisation - in other words you would suffer no
penalty as a result.
CLARKE: That's the same point as
I made a second ago John.
HUMPHRYS: It's not quite is it?
CLARKE: Sorry. I agree there's
a subtle difference in it but the central question is - should we reduce
the sanctions in any way for those people who take cannabis in this case
or ecstasy in another case? That's the issue which has to be addressed
and the main concern I have is that I've tried to say as clearly as I possibly
can in this discussion is that if we send any signal whatsoever which suggests
that taking more drugs is an acceptable way of proceeding I think we'll
see consumption go up and that'll mean more tragedy, more sadness for the
individuals and also more bad effects for society as a whole.
HUMPHRYS: So you're happy to see
what amounts to a kind of Reefer Roulette at the moment - it depends which
bit of the country you're picked up in, which police force nick you as
to whether anything is going to happen to you or not.
CLARKE: Well, we do have ACPO guidelines,
that is the Association of Police Officers guidelines across the country
which try and achieve a uniform approach to the situation, as in all aspects
of law and order, all aspects of every part of public life actually, things
implemented in somewhat different ways in different areas, and different
sentencing regimes will apply. But we have sought and we will continue
to seek to get uniformity across the country, because I accept that the
point you make of different ways of dealing with it in different communities
is not a good way proceed and it's better to have uniformity.
HUMPHRYS: Because we have some
police chiefs who actually believe it ought to be decriminalised, who've
no intention whatsoever of arresting people, let alone charging people
who've been caught with a bit of marijuana.
CLARKE: Well police make their
professional judgements, that is their duty. They do it according to the
issues which seem to them right, but most importantly do it according to
the law of the land and according to the guidelines which operate and which
guide their forces and themselves, and police do respect those guidelines
and they most certainly respect and operate the law of the land.
HUMPHRYS: But it makes the law
of the land look a bit of an ass doesn't it. I mean if you know that if
you can cross into one county you can puff away to your heart's content,
but if you do that in your own county or another county you'll be nicked
for it.
CLARKE: But your description John
is a parody of the situation.
HUMPHRYS: Is it?
CLARKE: There's no county in which
you can puff away to your heart's content, living next door to a county
where you're going to be arrested and beheaded the next day. That's not
the case.
HUMPHRYS: Now you're making comparisons.
That's not what I said.
CLARKE: ......operation right across
the country as happens with many laws of the land, and we have to fight
I agree and acknowledge the truth of your point for more consistency, more
uniformity across the country and that's what we're seeking to do.
HUMPHRYS: Now, you referred to
the medicinal use of cannabis a bit earlier on. There is a commission
looking at it at the moment. If that comes out and says there are clear
medicinal benefits and there are no more dis-benefits, there are no problems
than there are with a million other drugs, because of course all drugs
have some sort of side effect - even a simple old aspirin has a side effect
- the government would say okay, we will legalise it for that use?
CLARKE: In principle we've made
that clear already. We've said if the medicinal case is made, if a drug
is developed based on cannabis which actually has the medicinal effects
which are advertised for it and those trials have taken place and we've
come to the conclusion that it's okay on the basis of medical advice, then
we'd be prepared to consider amending the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow
that to take place. But that is based on clear medical evidence, clear
medical advice and I am well aware for example of the MS case. I've met
people with MS in my constituency who say it does have a beneficial effect
for them, but the key effect is to get proper medical tests, proper medical
trials. We put money into conduct those trials so we know the situation,
and then to take our judgement on the basis of professional medical advice.
HUMPHRYS: Now, we saw some young
men in Robin Aitken's film there, in your constituency as it happens getting
treatment because they are addicted. People who are addicted to hard drugs
often cannot get the treatment when they need it, urgently when they need
it because there are simply not enough resources, the system is simply
clogged up with people who have been tested for the most moderate sort
of drugs- I mean the marijuana, the cannabis whatever. Now that itself
is a serious problem isn't it. People who are being denied treatment for
a real problem because the system is being clogged up with people who've
been tested for softer drugs. And that situation is going to get worse.?
CLARKE: I accept the first part
of your question John but not the second. There is a shortage of proper
rehabilitation facilities for Class A and B drugs for people to get off
the habit altogether and lead a drug-free life. That scheme that you showed
in my constituency Ferry Cross is outstanding example of a first class
scheme which is doing excellent work in that area. I know the room myself,
I. visited the facility myself and it is the case and it's a fair criticism
that across the country there are not enough resources going to that area.
I hope they will be announcing some things in that respect even next week
as a result of the budget, but more generally in the Spending Review 2000
I hope we'll be giving priority and commitment to rehabilitation in the
proper way. But I don't accept the second part of your question John,
which was the reason for the clogging up was the issues around soft drugs.
I simply think that is not the case. It is the case there's not enough
resources for rehab. Properly for Class A drugs. It's not the case that
the reason for that blockage is too much clogging up in dealing with lower
category drugs.
HUMPHRYS: But it is actually going
to get worse isn't it, because people are going to have, what are they
called, drugs testing and treatment orders against them when they're arrested.
If they are arrested and they're found they've got some marijuana or whatever
it is in their bloodstream they're going to have to go away and be tested
and treated and all the rest of it. That'll impose extra burden on the
system.
CLARKE: The whole point of the
drug treating testing orders John, is to get to into a situation where,
where drugs are at the centre of crime as they are in very many areas,
there is a sanction available to get people to have the ability to get
off the drugs which they are on in the first place. That system is focussed
on Class A drugs, and it does intensify the problem which you mentioned
earlier, the fact that as yet we don't have sufficient rehabilitation facilities
available for people on Class A drugs who are caught in that way, and that's
why we are putting resources into that. But you're right to identify the
problem, but I emphasise again, that's got nothing to do with the various
issues about the legalisation of cannabis and ecstasy and so which you
discussed in your pre-film.
HUMPHRYS: Charles Clarke, thank
you very much indeed.
CLARKE: Thank you very much.
|