|
====================================================================================
NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND
NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING
AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS,
THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY
====================================================================================
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE:
26.03.00
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Brussels
wants the European Union to play a bigger role on the international stage,
but after what's happened in Kosovo should we trust them to look after
our interests? I'll be talking to the European Commissioner, Chris Patten.
And should the government
change the law on drugs. I'll be talking to the Home Office Minister in
charge of drugs policy. That's after the News read by Fiona Bruce.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: A new Report says our laws
on drugs aren't working - will the government take any notice?
And the Tories pledge to
cut taxes if they're returned to power - can they make such a promise stick?
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first to Europe.
This week Europe's bankers are getting together to decide how much more
money the European Union should give to help the Balkan countries - including
Kosovo - recover from their ruinous conflicts. The Union's been accused
- by NATO amongst others - of pursuing war more effectively than re-building
after the peace. It's an important test for those who want Brussels to
take a more active role in creating a common European foreign policy.
If it fails, some of Europe's leaders say it will destroy the credibility
of such a policy.
Well a central figure in
all this is our own Chris Patten, a former Chairman of the Conservative
Party of course, who's now External Affairs Commissioner of the European
Union. But before I come to that, if I may Mr Patten, a few words about
Northern Ireland because of course you chaired the commission that recommended
sweeping changes to the RUC and yesterday the Ulster Unionist voted unanimously
that if those changes are acted upon they will not go back into an executive,
so in other words that's it effectively for the peace process. Did you
get it wrong?
CHRIS PATTEN: No I don't think we did.
I thought our report on policing made very good sense. A lot of it was
I think beyond controversy, sensible ideas for modern policing in Northern
Ireland. What was controversial, which of course touches on the debate
yesterday by Unionists, was our strong argument that we should try to detach
policing in Northern Ireland from the partisan political argument.
HUMPHRYS: Change the name of the
RUC, get rid of the cap badge and...
PATTEN: Yes remove those symbols
which are regarded by one side of the community as meaning that policing
is owned by the other side. Now that may be unfair but that's how it's
seen and I don't think that the decision by the Ulster Unionists yesterday
did the police any favours. I think that's a point which has been made
by the Chief Constable and the previous Chief Constable as well. I think
it was an unwise decision and I think that Ulster Unionists will have reason
to regret it and I think the police will deeply regret it.
HUMPHRYS: But you can't jeopardise
the whole peace process for the sake of a couple of very very divisive
recommendations. Shouldn't you say now, or shouldn't somebody say now,
let's drop them.
PATTEN: Let's remember why there
was an independent commission on policing because frankly the issue was
too hot for local politicians to handle in the run up to the Good Friday
Agreement so it was agreed that there should be an independent commission
which would bring forward proposals. These issues of security and these
issues of symbolism go right to the heart of the political argument. I
don't think anybody else will put forward a better set of proposals than
we managed, many of which can be implemented without any changes in the
political or security situation but obviously you can't ignore what the
situation is like on the ground. I do very much sympathise with those who've
said, look a basis for what we agreed on Good Friday in Belfast was that
we should give up the gun, that there should be decommissioning and I think
that the fact that there hasn't been has clearly put huge pressure on Unionists,
including moderate Unionists.
HUMPHRYS: Sorry, you say you can't
ignore what's going on around, does that mean that you might perhaps think,
maybe some of those recommendations, those two particularly divisive ones
should be looked at again?
PATTEN: No, not those but I think
there are some other things that we recommended which will undoubtedly
depend on the security situation and will depend on the continuance of
an executive.
HUMPHRYS: Right, Kosovo. We are
not meeting - we the European Union - is not meeting the promises that
were made to Kosovo are we?
PATTEN: I think we are doing better
than some of the critics have suggested but we are not doing as well as
we should and that was the reason for the decision taken by European heads
of government at the end of last week, that Javier Solana, the representative
of foreign ministers and I should do rather more to try and pull things
together, not just in Kosovo but in the Balkans in general. We learnt quite
a lot of lessons after Bosnia about delivering assistance more rapidly
but we didn't learn enough and we still find it's taking us too long to
do things. We still find we have to work with lousy procedures which make
it difficult for even very good people to do the job that they would like
to do. So there's a lot for us to do to make sure in particular that during
this summer, between end of one winter, beginning of another, we make substantial
progress in reconstruction and rehabilitation in Kosovo.
HUMPHRYS: Which costs a great deal
of money and there is indeed not just a lot but an enormous amount - just
remind you - you won't need reminding what Mr Prodi said in June of last
year: we owe the Balkans a clear future, the sums will be enormous three
to four billion pounds for the next five years'. Well now, what actually
happened after that was in July, the European Union pledged, the European
Commission pledge ninety million for '99 and then three hundred million
every year for five years. That's less than a tenth of the figures that
Romano Prodi said were needed.
PATTEN: No, but he was talking
about figures for the whole of the Balkans. We're talking about spending
this year in Kosovo about three hundred and sixty million. Our programme
for Kosovo will mean that we spend there just over a billion, just over
half the world bank assessment of what's needed and I think that represents...I
think that represents a good contribution by Europe. The real question,
however, I think goes beyond that, given that two plus two continue to
equal four, we do need to get the money from European governments, we do
need to bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality. So the sorts of money
that we're talking about for Kosovo and for the Balkans will either mean
that we have to do less in other areas, and substantially less, or else
that we need more money.
HUMPHRYS: So we need more money
is the conclusion of that isn't it, including from Britain.
PATTEN: I think the conclusion
is that we need to do both, we need more money and we are going to have
to make some cuts elsewhere because to be realistic I don't think that
member states are going to provide the sort of increase in money, after
the agreements they made in Berlin, that one might like to see. But we
can, I think, juggle the money around a bit and make sure that we can do
more in the Balkans, even at the expense of doing a little bit less elsewhere.
HUMPHRYS: So this country has not
stumped up enough - so far.
PATTEN: This country..I think all
European governments have stumped up for this year enough for us to make
a real contribution to improving things in Kosovo. The real question is
that it's a long term commitment. We are going to be in there for some
time and we've got to recognise that we'll need to spend a lot over the
next four or five years...
HUMPHRYS: ..a lot more...
PATTEN: A lot more, we need a programme
which is increasing but we also need to do some other things as well. I'm
very keen that we should have a more benign trading relationship with the
Balkans. I'm very keen that we should have better trade deals with the
Balkans in order to encourage their economies to grow and prosper, about
eighty per cent of their trade at present comes into Europe duty free but
I think we should be doing more to help them in areas like agriculture,
steel, textiles and so on.
HUMPHRYS: So when Lord Robertson,
formerly George Robertson, Secretary General of NATO says 'we're on the
razor edge' and he's referring specifically to Kosovo here, 'between success
and failure', and he went on to say, 'the sad reality is we rose to the
crisis in a military context after that we're not willing to follow it
through', are you saying he's right?
PATTEN: Yeah. I think George Robertson
is entirely right in saying that we put a huge amount into the war and
we haven't shown the same political commitment and economic commitment
to making the peace work and I think that's a point that the Prime Minister
here has been putting with considerable vigour and eloquence. I heard
him putting that point on Thursday night in Lisbon to his fellow heads
of government.....
HUMPHRYS: But not saying therefore
that we will stump up another ex amount of money?
PATTEN: No... I mean there isn't.....
let me make it clear there is no argument that we should be spending more
in Kosovo and more in the Balkans.....
HUMPHRYS: A lot more......
PATTEN: A lot more. The dispute
is going to be where it comes from and that's going to be decided in various
arcane ways in Brussels over the next few months I guess. The important
thing that I think George Robertson is saying is this: that it's always
hugely more expensive to fight a war than to make sure that peace works.
If we don't manage to keep things on the rails in the next year or two,
if we don't manage to support success when it starts to show, for example
in Croatia and Macedonia and one or two other places, if we give...
HUMPHRYS: Montenegro for the future.
PATTEN: And Montenegro for the
future. Montenegro, where at the moment Milosevic is trying to stir up
trouble. If we don't keep things on the rails then the consequences will
be far more costly than anything we are doing at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: But, we are not even
doing it at the moment adequately with Kosovo. We have not provided the
police force that they desperately need, that Kouchner said that they desperately
need, without it cannot return to a proper civilian administration.
PATTEN: I think the problem of
policing in Kosovo underlines a gap we have in Europe, probably beyond
Europe as well in our ability to manage crises, to cope with crises and
to prevent conflict and that is the ability to provide a force which is
somewhere between ordinary policing and their military presence.
HUMPHRYS: Paramilitary?
PATTEN: Yes, you are not talking
about, as I have said before, you are not talking about Dixon of Dock Green,
you're not talking about the sort of neighbour policing that we were talking
about in that report on Northern Ireland...
HUMPHRYS: ..the RUC in a way..
PATTEN: ...well the RUC it has
to be said, have sent officers to Kosovo and are doing an extremely good
job. They do have more of the sort of training which is actually required
for the situation in Kosovo. They have experience of dealing with difficult
public order situations, they've go experience of dealing with firearms,
they actually have more of the sort of capacity which is actually required.
But when we start looking as we have to, not just at providing more military
capability as Europeans, but also providing more non-military capacity
to deal with crises, I think we do have to look at this problem of policing
because at the moment it's a real gap, we've been sending more policing..more
police to Kosovo, Britain has done so, Spain and Germany have just announced
that they are doing so but it is difficult, I repeat, to find that quality
of policing which is required somewhere like that.
HUMPHRYS: And if we can't find
them, then Kosovo is going to suffer, we are all going to suffer in the
long run because of the broad picture.
PATTEN: I think we are beginning
to close that gap, perhaps we needed to be more realistic at the outset
about how we could provide that sort of policing, that very focused almost
paramilitary policing as you were saying. We are starting to close that
gap but we have got a lot further to go as Bernard Kouchner would be the
first to say.
HUMPHRYS: And if we fail, it isn't
just that Kosovo itself will suffer, but the European Union is going to
suffer because this is an absolutely crucial test for its credibility.
PATTEN: European leaders, not giving
up member states' control over foreign and security policy, the idea that
President Chirac or Chancellor Schroeder or Tony Blair are going to give
the national interest in foreign policy, but European leaders have recognised
that there are some things that Europe can do more effectively if it works
in the aggregate, if people try to work together. We are the biggest trading
organisation in the world, we are the bigger donor of development assistance,
humanitarian assistance, we are a huge contributor to the UN but we don't
have the political clout internationally that should go with that and what
Europe's leaders have said is that we should try to develop common positions
in foreign and security policy and in particular that we should try to
contribute more to our own defence, that we should build up within NATO
a greater defence capacity and that we should be able, if NATO doesn't
want to get involved to deal with issues, perhaps in the Balkans or elsewhere,
on our own.
HUMPHRYS: But if we can't solve
the problems in our own back yard...
PATTEN: Absolutely right. I think
the Balkans is the big test case and it's the big test case and that the
Americans keep on referring to. There is some scepticism in America about
whether we can really make a go of developing our own security and defence
identity and a lot of Americans, senators and congressmen point to the
Balkans as being the real test. I think it is crucial for Transatlantic
relations that we do show in the Balkans that we do show with them an enhanced
military capability, that we are capable in Europe of doing more to look
after ourselves.
HUMPHRYS: It's also crucial here
at home isn't it, whether we are seen to succeed, however you define success,
in the Balkans is a crucial factor there in either building up or undermining
the attitude that people have here towards the European Union, towards
the Euro, and what you're seeing at the moment clearly, and you spend enough
time in this country to know this very well, is that we're moving further
and further away from our embrace of the Euro, for our embrace of a closer
European integration.
PATTEN: I don't think that the
- and this is perhaps to put it mildly - I don't think the debate on Europe
has gone particularly well for people like me who think that Britain's
future has to lie in playing a constructive central role in the European
Union. One of the curiosities I find is that there's no argument, there's
no debate about us playing a central role in NATO, about pooling our sovereignty
in NATO, but people are doubtful about how much we should do as part of
the European Union. I think that is a curiosity. But we do...
HUMPHRYS: .... see what a bureaucratic
mess the European Union is apart from anything else?
PATTEN: Well, I think that we are
with a - not least in the area for which I'm responsible - responsible
for spending a very great deal of money, one of the biggest development
programmes in the world. We are trying to reform our procedures, we are
trying to make things more effective, to make things better focussed, to
make things happen faster. As you can imagine after being responsible
for Hong Kong for a few years where there was a real can do atmosphere,
it's sometimes frustrating that it takes quite so long to make things happen
in Brussels, but that is very often because of the constraints put on us
by member states and member governments. If European taxpayers want us
to make more of an impact then they've got to tell their governments that
they should create an atmosphere in which we can.
HUMPHRYS: But what they're actually
telling their governments, certainly in this country anyway what people
are telling the government is that they're becoming increasingly disenchanted
and we now see the position developing where it well may be that there
won't even be a referendum on the Euro in the next parliament. What would
your reaction to that be?
PATTEN: I think there should be
a referendum on the Euro when the economic conditions are right, and I
would certainly be in those circumstances strongly in favour of Britain
joining the Euro. For me it doesn't raise some fundamental principle of
sovereignty. I think that is rather a curious argument though one I recognise.
There are strong arguments on both sides, but I happen to take the view
I've just expressed.
HUMPHRYS: So, would you be happy
to wait until even after the next parliament, if Mr Brown or somebody said
actually the economic conditions aren't quite right and one of those five
tests haven't been met?
PATTEN: No, I very much hope it'll
be early in the next parliament.
HUMPHRYS: Early in the next parliament?
PATTEN: I very much hope that because
even though I know the argument about influence can be overdone, I've got
no doubt at all that as other countries join the Euro, and we could be
in a situation in a couple of years where fourteen out of the fifteen member
states will be in the Euro, as other join the Euro there's no doubt at
all that we do lose some influence over important economic decisions.
You can't deny that that's true. It's clearly the case. I don't think
it's the case at the moment, but I think it would inevitably become the
case, so I hope that we will join when the economic circumstances are right
and I hope going back to where we started this particular discussion, I
hope that we can demonstrate by making our aspirations in the Balkans credible
through success on the ground that Europe can do some things better and
that Europe can from time to time help nation states through encouraging
more effective co-operation between them.
HUMPHRYS: Chris Patten, thank you
very much indeed.
PATTEN: Thank you.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Governments are desperately
nervous about relaxing the laws on drugs, no matter how often they're told
that they're not working. This week a Report from the Police Foundation
will recommend that the legislation should be reviewed and the penalties
for possessing some drugs should be reduced or even taken away altogether
- but, as Robin Aitken reports, it's unlikely that the politicians will
take a blind bit of notice.
ROBIN AITKEN: Norwich has all the ingredients
that comprise the traditional English cathedral city but just beneath
the surface, alongside the quaint streets and the air of peaceable, provincial
normality there's another, much less comforting reality - drugs. The familiar
facades conceal what has become a national concern.
Picture postcard Norwich
is world's away from the drugs problem of popular imaginings, but the truth
is that thousands here regularly break the law by consuming illegal drugs.
Drug taking has become a commonplace and that's a worry for legislators
who see a widening gap between political rhetoric and what people actually
do.
At the Bure Centre, part
of Norfolk mental Healthcare Trust, they offer psychological and psychiatric
counselling to drug users. It works with the local Drug Action team -
one of the multi-agency groupings central to government strategy on drugs.
The main aim is to reduce illegal drug use but so far there's no evidence
of that happening locally.
DAPHNE RUMBALL: I think more people have moved
into using heroin, using from a younger age, that's been reflected in
some recent research into that population. Cocaine is gradually becoming
more visible throughout the UK and those are the sort of drugs which a
proportion of users find difficult to extricate themselves from without
professional help.
STUART MINTO: I don't know if we are failing,
I think what we're doing is we're certainly identifying more young people
and I think that in a sense we can turn it on its head and say if more
young people are coming into contact with drug agencies and more young
people are getting treatment then we're actually achieving something, because
if young people are not coming into contact and we don't know about them
then we can't make an impact on what they're doing.
AITKEN: But what the professionals
I've spoken to say is that more young people are using drugs.
MINTO: And I think - I mean, being
realistic, we understand that that's the situation.
AITKEN: There are signs nationally
that the proportion of young people using drugs has begun to level off,
but the numbers are still worrying. Norwich is in no sense exceptional.
Nation-wide one in twelve, twelve year olds has tried an illegal drug.
Among fourteen-year-olds the figure is one in three. And nearly half of
all sixteen year olds have experimented with drugs. But it's not just
young people. A third of all adults have used illegal drugs at least once.
And the cost to the country is huge. It's estimated crime, sickness and
absenteeism caused by drugs costs the country four billion pounds a year.
Labour has put an extra
�237 million over three years into tackling the drugs problem. This brings
the total spent each year on anti-drugs activity to �1.5 billion pounds.
One tiny fraction of that sum is accounted for by PC Richard Price, the
drugs education officer for the Norfolk Constabulary.
PC RICHARD PRICE: Well cannabis is extremely prevalent
in Norfolk. It's totally accepted amongst young people. I think there's
a general acceptance amongst young people that the police have adopted
a different approach and stance to dealing with cannabis users and as a
consequence, for many young people, it's become as commonplace as smoking
cigarettes.
ACTUALITY.
AITKEN: Constable Price exemplifies
the new approach the police have adopted to drugs education. He thinks
the "Just Say No " approach just don't work. He has concluded that in
drugs education honesty is the best policy.
PC PRICE: It's a little bit like
being mildly drunk. If you have large amounts of cannabis it makes you
a bit incoherent...
AITKEN: He has few illusions that
anything he says will deter youngsters from experimenting. His aim is
more modest.
PC PRICE: I would probably liken
the approach to that of sex in schools. Sex education isn't about stopping
young people having sex, 'cos they're gonna have sex whatever. It's about
making sure they understand about what unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted
diseases, safe use of condoms, and actually I see drugs as fitting in an
educational sense very much into that way of thinking. Hopefully they'll
choose not to take them, that's my objective. But informed decision making
is probably the best I can hope for.
AITKEN: But in Britain's hedonistic
youth culture getting people to sign up to self denial is a tall order.
This is the Time night club in Norwich.It operates a strict "zero tolerance"
drugs policy; anyone caught flouting it is handed over to the police. They
take all the precautions they reasonably can and yet no one is pretending
that in places like this there is never any drug-taking. For many the
drug of choice would be ecstasy - "E". It's estimated half a million
tabs are consumed every week in Britain. Ecstasy can kill- but it's commonplace.
For the police drugs like
cannabis and ecstasy pose a challenge to the authority of the law. With
so many apparently unconcerned about defying that authority many senior
police officers speak of the need for more debate - without conceding
the case for liberalisation.
ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE COLIN LANGHAM-FITT: I'm absolutely convinced
that most police forces would like to see the debate widened to make sure
that people better understood exactly what the issues are. As you say,
we police by consent. At the moment people think why are we wasting our
time with soft drugs. I think if they saw some of the problems of these
alleged soft drugs they wouldn't be quite so surprised that we devote some
of our efforts to trying to stifle the supply of soft drugs, so-called
soft drugs.
AITKEN: But as the police in Norfolk
admit, they don't spend a lot of time trying to find individual users.
Even when they do, for first-time offenders the result is often a caution,
an approach mirrored elsewhere around the country. And this de facto toleration
of drug use has emboldened proponents of more liberal drug laws.
On this Norwich park bench
there's a modest tribute to a politician who has no inhibitions about drugs
policy. At the last General Election, Howard Marks - the celebrity drug
smuggler - stood against Charles Clarke, the Home Office minister on a
platform of legalising cannabis. Of course it's quite easy for a maverick
like him to take a stance, it's much more difficult for mainstream politicians
to fashion their response to soft drugs. Even when they themselves have
taken drugs - as Charles Clarke himself admitted at pre-election hustings
on a platform with Howard Marks.
CHARLES CLARKE (23 APRIL 1997) I did smoke cannabis two or three
times in my late 'teens. I've never smoked tobacco at any time and that
was one of the reasons no doubt that i didn't smoke more cannabis when
I was younger.
AITKEN: And Mr Clarke is not alone.
MO MOWLAM MP (SUNDAY WITH ADAM BOLTON - SKY NEWS 16/1/00): I tried marijuana,
didn't like it particularly, and unlike President Clinton I did inhale
but it wasn't part of my life then and that's what happened.
AITKEN: Labour MPs like Ian Gibson
the member for Norwich North, next door to Charles Clarke's constituency,
find themselves frustrated by the current approach. The government wouldn't
welcome a national debate on drugs. While Mr Gibson thinks that defies
commonsense.
IAIN GIBSON MP: I think there ought
to be a Royal Commission and I think it should happen as soon as possible.
I think we'll have to think about who's on that Royal Commission, what
the questions are that they're going to ask. You'd have to have young
people on it themselves, you'd have to have their parents, you'd have to
have all aspects of society feeding into it. It may take a long time to
come through but it would be worth it in the end. And I would just about
think that cannabis would be seen as not being the major problem that we
think of it now.
AITKEN: But it's an emotive political
issue. The protection of young people is usually cited by opponents of
liberalisation. Last month the Tories called for tougher sentences and
"drug exclusion zones" around schools.
DAVID LIDDINGTON MP: I want to see a tougher regime
adopted against drugs by the police and by the courts. I think that people
who at the moment are ignored ought to be cautioned; people who are cautioned
probably ought to have a court appearance. And I believe that for the traffickers,
particularly people who sell to children, there should be mandatory minimum
prison sentences to indicate society's rejection of what they're doing.
AITKEN: That sort of uncompromising
stance draws on the awful consequences for individuals who do get involved
in serious drug misuse. John, Gary and Jock are three of the clients at
the Ferry Cross drop-in centre in Norwich, all casualties of Britain's
drug culture. They've all been hooked on heroin and are now trying to
break free.
GARY: I haven't done smack for
about five or six weeks now. I'm in the process of just not coming off
it, you know what I mean, and that is hard, but I don't want to do it anymore.
I hate the stuff. That's the worst drug there is as far as I'm concerned.
That just kills your life, that kills everything, basically.
JOHN: I'd say from the
age of 14 I was doing heroin. I was chasing it. I got expelled from school
over possession of heroin and I've just been out on the street you, know
what I'm saying.
JOCK: I've seen 13 and 14 year
olds actually hitting up heroin, up at the railway tracks, that's 13, 14
year old kids.
GARY: You know, sitting there cooking
up with - can - coke can top and that, you know what I mean? With the needle
share - sharing needles and that. There's the Aids, the Hepatitis, it's
just all one shabby circle.
AITKEN: The staff at the centre
do what they can to help; merely getting addicts to moderate unreasonable
behaviour is the first step. Dealing with the consequences of drugs
has caused many of these workers to question the law on soft drugs like
cannabis.
RICHARD HOLGATE: I certainly think one possible
avenue would be licensing which would be looking at the manufacture, the
distribution, the purity the packaging, how it's used, where it's used
and actually putting sanctions and controls in society to manage that.
Now the problem with that argument is one group of people will say we shouldn't
be using it at all and another group of people says it should be freely
available because we're free citizens able to make up our own minds. We've
got to find the middle ground and certainly the criminal element of it
currently is ineffective.
AITKEN: It could be an
ecstasy tablet brought to a freelance drugs testing service in Norwich.
The purpose - to see if it's real or a dangerous fake; The drug's illegal
but those involved says theirs is the responsible attitude. It's this
sense that the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act has been overtaken by events that
has led the Liberal Democrats to call for a standing commission on drugs
to recommend new approaches.
SIMON HUGHES MP: The logic of what's happening
on the ground is that we're not getting it right, we're not seeing huge
numbers fewer people taking drugs, we don't see young people less likely
to participate or experiment, we don't see smaller amounts of drugs. We
don't see fewer people making money out of drugs. So the problem, the
fact that people are becoming dependent and addicted and some very damaged
by drugs doesn't appear to have changed at all. In fact it's got worse.
AITKEN: But people like
Norfolk multiple sclerosis sufferer Thomas Yates have stimulated some fresh
thinking. The government has ordered trials on the possible therapeutic
use of cannabis - it's said to be highly effective in controlling the
pain of MS. Such ideas are already affecting official attitudes.
GIBSON: There was a case,
a big case here in Norfolk last week where someone was growing plants,
forty plants and got off, the judiciary got them off because they were
using the plants, so they said, to treat their MS. And I think that's all
part of the liberalisation that the judiciary and the police are saying,
look, let's back off these smaller problems.
LIDDINGTON: I think if the medical
profession comes to a considered view, on the basis of careful clinical
trials that a cannabis-based drug would give an effective treatment to
Multiple Sclerosis then clearly there would be a very strong argument for
allowing that to be used on prescription and subject to all the safeguards
for the testing and registration that we have for other medicines.
AITKEN: Britain's drugs
laws are thirty years old. Today, for many, smoking cannabis is routine.
Public attitudes have changed; time for a rethink?
HOLGATE: I think there's
an issue that it is easier for politicians to take a party political
view. What I perceive is that more and more politicians want to have this
debate but they're being held back and I think we need to remove the shackles
and allow people freely to debate this issue and encourage the debate to
come into the public arena.
AITKEN: The Police Foundation
report this week looks likely to join other past reports recommending
liberalisation in the government file marked "ignore". Be that political
cowardice, or be it responsible government - but there'll be a strong
sense of disappointment among those who deal with the reality of drugs
if another chance is missed.
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.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: If the Conservatives win
the next Election, we shall be paying less tax at the end of their five
years in power than we are at the start of it. Now that is the promise
made by William Hague - and a very silly promise it is too - according
to his critics. Jonathan Beale looks at whether it can be delivered.
JONATHAN BEALE: The Conservatives say this Government
is taking more money away from people, despite a promise not to raise tax.
Gordon Brown has hoarded a fortune since Labour came to power. William
Hague claims that Labour will have increased total taxes by more than 40
billion pounds in the lifetime of this parliament. Much of it has now
been earmarked for improving public services. But the Tory leader says
if they were in power they'd identify new savings. They'd guarantee lower
levels of tax and hand people at least some of this money back. The Conservatives
have long claimed to be the party of low taxation. But until now, no Tory
leader has gone so far as to guarantee to reduce the overall burden of
tax in the lifetime of a parliament - whatever the economic circumstance.
William Hague has done just that. But there are serious doubts as to whether
he can deliver.
Piccadilly Circus on Budget
Day and the Tories alert passers by to Labour's higher taxes. The Chancellor
has cut the basic rate of income tax, but the Tories say he's still taking
more money by stealth, the overall burden of tax has gone up - the Tories
will reverse that.
EDWARD TROUP: Well any commitment to future
action is risky. Any Government that binds its hands or promises to do
things one, two, five years out is running a risk. Giving a guarantee on
the tax burden is doubly risky. The tax burden is made up of two numbers.
It's the amount of tax divided by the amount of national income. Governments
have some control over the amount of tax, they really have very little
control over national income. If national income goes down or if it doesn't
go up as fast as you expect then lo and behold the tax burden goes up -
really nothing to do with Government. So it's a dangerous thing to offer
a long term guarantee on.
BEALE: Conservatives are already
out selling the idea. John Marshall wants to be the Tory MP for Finchley.
When Margaret Thatcher was its MP lower taxes were more an aspiration.
But times have changed and so has Finchley. It's now a Labour seat.
JOHN MARSHALL: What it would do is to emphasise
the difference between the two parties. The Labour government has increased
taxes very substantially we are committed to reducing them. And I think
you will find that those who abstained at the last elections will come
out and vote in droves for the Conservatives.
BEALE: A few miles down the road
a focus group prepares to give its verdict on the tax guarantee. These
women are former Conservative voters who switched to Labour at the last
election, but until now none of them was even aware of one of the Tories'
key election pledges.
UNNAMED WOMAN: The Conservatives, they've ome
up with this because they think this is what the majority of the public
want and if they talk about this great tax guarantee we'll all go out and
vote them, but it's not, because were not all stupid you know. They have
to get money from somewhere .
BEALE: The Tories have already
identified some savings to help lower the burden of tax. They claim
they can release at least 3 billion pounds from the Social Security budget,
a further billion pounds by cutting Government red tape such as reducing
the number of special advisors. They'd also divert fifty-six million pounds
which they say is being used by this Government to promote the Euro. Even
if they could achieve these savings it's still a fraction of the Government's
total spending of 350 billion pounds. Philip Oppenheim now manages his
own bar and restaurant. As a Tory Minister he used to help manage the nation's
finances. Past experience tells him that savings only ever come in small
measures
PHILIP OPPENHEIM: It's incredibly difficult. I
mean the last Conservative Government tried it for eighteen years and they
made some savings. There are always some savings but they're never as big
as you think.
TROUP: Cutting spending is extremely
hard. The welfare budget - the social security budget is well over a hundred
billion pounds now. These are very difficult numbers to grasp. But if you
try to cut one per cent off that, if you try to reduce social security
spending by one billion pounds a year it would mean taking a thousand pounds
a year from a million people and that is quite a hard political thing to
do.
BEALE: The Conservatives have still
to prove that they can make significant savings in public expenditure.
Not least because William Hague has promised to match Labour's increased
spending in both health and education. That leaves him the Herculean task
of persuading voters that the Tories can offer tax cuts while at the same
time delivering better public services.
Both parties know that
the public are demanding better schools and hospitals. Gordon Brown's Budget
may have set the agenda on which the next election will be fought. The
Tories accuse Labour of going back to the bad old days of tax and spend.
But Labour say the Conservatives are defying simple laws of economics.
You can't get more for less.
So John, how are you going
to offer tax cuts and increase public spending in health and education
at the same time? They seem incompatible.
UNNAMED MAN Very simple, only thirty-five
per cent of government expenditure is spent on the Health Service and education.
We'd spend more money on health more on schools and at the same time seek
to cut elsewhere. Under this Government we've got both higher taxes and
second rate public services.
BEALE: Among our former Tory voters,
they're not convinced that paying less tax will give them better public
services.
UNNAMED WOMAN: You know if they do lower taxes
they will take it from somewhere else and I just think that Labour are
a much more caring party than the conservatives. I think they just care
about rich people and that's the end of it.
UNNAMED WOMAN: Saying that they're going to cut
on public spending, what are they going to do, let the roads go to rack
and ruin? Not put any more money in the pensions for the old age pensioners
at the moment.
ANDREW DILNOTT: I think the idea that we can persuade
the electorate that somehow you can get more for less that you can have
better public services without paying for them. In the long run I don't
think people will believe that. You wouldn't believe that in your own
domestic activity so why we should expect the public to believe that they
can have better hospitals, better schools, better universities, better
care for the poor without paying any more rather escapes me.
BEALE: And what happens if the
increased spending in education and health leaves little or no money left
in the bank? How will a Tory Government pay for the promised lower levels
of tax then? The only option left might be for a Conservative chancellor
to borrow.
TROUP: Simply to borrow money in
order to meet the tax burden pledge would be effectively fiddling the
books because it would be putting off the taxation for the future. And
I think that's just a trick that has been used by chancellors in the past,
but the public now I think will see through that pretty quickly
BEALE: Richard Jeffrey is a member
of the Conservatives' Council of Economists - a recently formed group
of experts offering the party independent advice. His is change the policy:
RICHARD JEFFREY: It could be possibly the case
that at the election date the economy was on a peak, the tax ratio looked
very good and then of course the economy dips into recession and the next
election at the end of the lifetime of the Conservative government was
actually at a less advantageous stage of the economic cycle and the tax
ratio had gone up. That is a potential hurdle and that is why I think in
the longer term it will perhaps be more sensible to frame the tax guarantee
in the context of the economic cycle rather than the political cycle.
BEALE: Privately many Tory MPs
too have serious doubts as to whether the party could deliver the tax
guarantee - something they won't say on camera. But comments made to On
The Record included warnings that "...it cedes the ground to Labour on
public services" another MP said "...this could come back to haunt us"
and commenting on the difficulty of selling it to the electorate one MP
quipped " ...It's an argument that won't come over well from the back of
a lorry in Wigan"
They might not be the
only ones looking for a way out. When he took over the job of Shadow Chancellor
Michael Portillo said he was happy to discuss the tax guarantee. It gave
the impression that he wasn't a fan. William Hague later referred to
it as an aspiration. They've both since reaffirmed their commitment but
it'll need more than brave faces to win the argument.
OPPENHEIM: I would say that the Portillo
line that it's an aspiration is probably the wiser line to take, because
a guarantee on reducing the burden of taxation is very difficult to make.
Virtually every government in history has made it in recent years has
regretted that. My guess it it'll be dropped quietly and oppositions can
normally get away with that. I think the tax debate fine, very good idea,
focus on tax, remind the middle classes and quite a lot of less well off
people that taxes have gone up by stealth, remind them of that. But don't
get yourself on the hook of a guaranteed tax pledge because it will make
them look imprudent at the election. I don't think it will necessarily
be deliverable and it will blunt their reasonably good attack on Blair's
stealth taxes and on public spending.
BEALE: Gordon Brown's budget has
signalled the areas over which the election will be fought and won. The
Tories know from history that tax has been labour's Achilles heal. They
can't afford it to be theirs too.
HUMPHRYS: Jonathan Beale reporting
there and that's it for this week. If you are on the internet you can keep
in touch with us through our website and the address is on your screens
now. Until the same time next week, good afternoon.
...oooOooo...
23
FoLdEd
|