|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Charles Clarke defends Labour's record on civil libertie
YouGov Thursday 23 Nov 2000 HOME OFFICE Minister Charles Clarke has hit back at suggestions that the Blair Government is more illiberal than its Thatcherite predecessor. The Norwich South MP, tipped by some to step into Jack Straw's boots in a forthcoming reshuffle, has said that he finds the idea that New Labour is more illiberal than the Thatcher Government "absolutely laughable". "You can say in the Freedom of Information Act for example, that it's not as good as some people would like, but it's a lot different to anything the Thatcher Government would have proposed." He denied that there was ever a problem in the RIP Act - covering the Government's email snooping powers - with the so-called reversal of the burden of proof, even though an amendment was made in the Lords which effectively corrected the reversal. When asked why the amendment was made if there was never any problem with the Bill, Mr Clarke blamed the Lib Dems "who argue for the lawyer position as they always do". "Parliamentary arithmetic," Mr Clarke said, was the reason for an amendment to a Bill with which he "didn't accept there was a problem in the first place." IN THE latest of a series of interviews Home Office Minister Charles Clarke talks to BEN FAREY about reshuffle rumours, bandwagons, email snooping and cocaine. YG: What is the Government's next step going to be after its defeat in the Lords over the lowering of the gay age of consent? CC: Well, the Government will have to consider its position. I'm strongly in favour of lowering the age of consent. I don't know what size the vote was or the arithmetic. I can't give you any clearer a view. It's being handled by my colleagues in the Home Office not by myself. YG: William Hague has said he wants to prevent Scottish MPs from voting in Westminster. What's your reaction to that? CC: A ridiculous idea. The whole purpose of devolution is to give greater democracy, greater involvement with every part of the country and what's happening. Scotland's obviously principally involved with giving a greater amount of power to the relevant regional or national bodies. The idea of disqualifying Scottish MPs from voting on these issues is absolutely ludicrous... any more than you should abolish the Welsh right to vote or the London right to vote. YG: Do you think Mr Hague will get anywhere, as far as this initiative is concerned? CC: No I don't. I think that it's a populist position he's putting forward in the hope of getting electoral support. YG: Another bandwagon? CC: Well, he makes his own bandwagons as well as jumping on other people's bandwagons. I think what William Hague is lacking is any sense of personal strategy about what a Conservative party would do in Government. He picks ideas off the tree which he hopes will glean a bit of support here and a bit of support there without any coherence to it whatsoever. YG: What inspired you to get into politics initially? CC: I was strongly of the view that society and the institutions of society ought to be created by the people who society serves, so politics was - in my opinion - the means of doing that. So if one was seeking to address injustice then the political process seemed to be the right process. That's why I think that politics is very important, for me. YG: Do you think that people go into politics for the right reasons today? Almost invariably, yes, of all parties. I think that people get into politics because they believe that society can and should be changed and they'd like to be part of that. I feel warmer to politicians of all parties who get involved with that process, than those who cynically say 'there's nothing to be done, and we're not going to do anything to it.' After politicians have been involved in it for a long time, then cynicism can be a way of getting there, but fundamentally I think that people do get involved for the right reasons: because they want to change their society. YG: Do you think that there are exceptions or not? CC: A very small number. A tiny number of people who are basically just in it for themselves in some careerist way. They are there. They exist. But they are a relatively small number. YG: There are rumours that Jack Straw might have to watch his back in a forthcoming reshuffle. Would you be interested in the job of Home Secretary? CC: No, not particularly, I have enjoyed doing what I'm doing now. I certainly think that Jack's a very... you know, a good home secretary. I've enjoyed working with him. And he's certainly got nothing to worry from me. There's a great rumour mill that goes around about reshuffles. Allegedly I was going to be in the Cabinet two weeks ago. But, as we all know... what a load of bollocks. YG: But if the position came up, would you accept it? CC: Well, if the Prime Minister asked me that, for God's sake I'd think about it. But I don't think that it's something that's remotely on the cards. It's like saying if I were asked to be Chancellor would I accept it. Well I expect I would. But it's not something that is on the agenda. I think, going back to what you said earlier, think I can make a change in the way the police are run in this country, which is beneficial. I'm very happy with it. I'm not seeking other responsibilities. YG: How do you react to criticisms from some quarters that New Labour is one of the most illiberal governments we've had for some time? CC: Quite honestly it's nonsense. I think the arguments have to be advanced in any particular case. The idea that we're more illiberal than the Thatcher Government, I find absolutely laughable. You can say in the Freedom of Information Act for example, that it's not as good as some people would like, but it's a lot different to anything the Thatcher Government would have proposed. YG: Are you happy with the way Regulation of Investigatory Practises Bill has turned out? CC: I am. I think it's been a good Bill. We changed it a lot as we went through. We had a very good partnership with industry. We learned a lot from industry. I think they learned a lot from us. It was a very difficult balance between the need on law enforcement to fight the drug trade and trafficking in people and paedophilia and so on, and cyber crime where surveillance is a very important element in the ability to do that, versus the human rights of every individual. There's a trade-off there and I think the balance is about right. YG: There has been a lot of misinformation about RIP. A lot of scare mongering in the press. Some people are concerned about this reversal of the burden of proof business. How would you allay their fears? CC: It is not a reversal of the burden of proof. It's a statutory defence and says that it shall be a defence in certain circumstances and against a certain charge to be able to demonstrate that this or that happened. And I think that that is a perfectly reasonable way to proceed. We believe it's consistent with the European Convention of Human Rights and it's a perfectly perfect way to proceed in our view. I don't believe it's a reversal of the burden of proof, in fact we had this debate in commission and across the floor of the House both on the RIP Bill and on the Sheraton Bill. I feel very happy with this and don't think anybody's fundamental rights will be reduced in any way. The Liberals disagree. The Liberals argue for the lawyer position as they always do. I don't agree. YG: So there's never been a problem with the reversal of the burden of proof? CC: No, I don't think there has. YG: Why then was an amendment tabled in June in the Lords, which effectively, as some people have seen it, reversed the reversal of the burden of proof? CC: Well, I know that's what's argued... we felt it was necessary to come to an agreement with the Lib Dems in particular, to get an agreement in the Lords, so we did. I don't actually myself think that the amendment made any significant difference at all, it wouldn't have been the case otherwise. But the Lib Dems did: fine. YG: But, if there were no problem initially, presumably there would have been no need for an amendment. CC: Yes, precisely, we thought there was a need for an amendment because of the parliamentary arithmetic in the Lords. But, we didn't accept there was a problem in the first place. YG: You didn't accept there was a problem? CC: No, not with the burden of proof. No. YG: So why was there an amendment then? CC: Because of the parliamentary arithmetic in the Lords. YG: What about the conflicts with the Human Rights Act? CC: Well, there is no conflict. YG: None at all? CC: No. One of the parts of the Human Rights Act is that the Secretary of State for whatever Bill has to sign on the face of the Bill as to whether the Bill does or does not conform with the Human Rights Act. He can't sign if it doesn't conform with the Human Rights Act, that's perfectly legal and the Commons and Parliament can pass the legislation despite that statement. And one can imagine circumstances in which nothing can be done. That's never happened so far. However, in the case of the RIP Bill, it was compatible with the HRA. He didn't do that as a kind of wish, a Utopian wish, he did on the basis of considered advice as to what the situation was. And the advice he had that added to his conclusion was that the Bill was consistent with the European Convention of Human and the Human Right Act. YG: But business does not seem particularly happy about it? CC: Well, it depends on who you speak to in business. I saw a piece in Computer Weekly the other day that said it very positive. There were concerns in business about various aspects of it. Some parts of business were worried about some aspects of it. Other parts of business were worried about other parts of it and we discussed it with business and we made amendments to try to reassure them about the various points that were made, which I think were reassuring. Obviously the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but I think business generally is relatively satisfied with where we are at the moment. Our intention is to work very closely with business throughout. YG: There is talk about a growth in personal privacy tools which will circumvent these decryption notices, rendering RIP pretty useless anyway. What do you have to say about that? CC: Well, you have to take a decision whether you're opposed to it. Whether you're happy for paedophiles to operate on the net unaddressed, whether you're happy for drug gangs to operate on the net unaffected, whether you're happy for people to be trafficked in that way or not. There's no doubt that the development of Internet technology and all the things that go with it has strengthened the hand of the criminal, but it's ridiculous to try to stand in the way of progress in that way, but we have to develop what weapons we can to contest them. And the crimes which are committed via the Internet are important crimes and have to be contested. YG: But you can understand people's concerns that it affects their privacy and their civil liberties? CC: Well, I understand it up to a point. I understand the concerns of people who believe what they have read in the papers and are therefore frightened about this, that and the other. But, as you yourself said, there's a lot of misleading information in the papers on false information. YG: But, the whole act is very complex. A lot of people are confused because it's fragmented, bits are being phased in after a certain amount of time. Do you think that this has led to some of the confusion? CC: To some extent. But it's partly because the Bill is trying to deal with the whole issue of surveillance. Now there are all different kinds of surveillance. A policeman sitting across the room looking at us, a bug in the salt pot, they're all different levels. Now, for the first time - and the Government hasn't got sufficient credit for this - we've put all the forms of Government surveillance onto a consistent basis that has to be properly and legally approved. That has not been the case in the past. There were a lot of agencies that could do these things without any scrutiny whatsoever on what they were doing. And I think the Bill is a step forward from that point of view, an important step forward. If people are worried about their situation, which they are entitled to be, the issue runs right across the whole way in which then technologies of surveillance are now so much better developed than they were 20 years ago. The question facing that is do you want to regulate it or not. Our position is to regulate it. Other people are saying, 'no, let's not regulate it, let it go on,' and deal with it in that way'. Fine. But I think that that's turning your back on what's really going on. YG: What's your problem with the Lib Dems? CC: I don't have a problem with the Lib Dems. YG: You called them "outrageous and scurrilous" a few weeks ago. CC: Well, actually you should look at the full interview that I did with Nick Robinson. I haven't got to the bottom of this yet. I did an interview with Nick Robinson on [BBC] News 24 and it was then taken on the radio news that weekend, and that phrase was used. In fact I never used the phrase 'outrageous and scurrilous' thinking about it... I may be wrong about that. But it certainly wasn't done in that way. What I've said, and I said at the Lib Dem conference and on that interview, was that you should judge the Lib Dems by their conduct. And I think there are some who work very well with others. The example I gave in that interview and at the Lib Dem conference is Norfolk County Council, where the Lib Dems and Labour work very well together. And Norwich City County, where they're in deep opposition. And the opposition in opposition can indeed be outrageous and scurrilous. I say then that there are very few significant policy differences between Labour and the Lib Dems. But the conduct of individual Lib Dems, national or locally gives rise to great anguish and concern about the situation. And I think that Lib Dem politicians should look to what they are doing in that context. YG: If you did make those remarks - and given that Labour's majority is likely to be reduced in the next election - do you think that perhaps you were shooting yourself in the foot, because you are likely to have to co-operate with the Lib Dems even more in the future and they seem to be becoming more important? CC: I don't know why you say more important. I'm not against co-operating with the Lib Dems. You're not listening to what I'm saying. I've said the question of co-operation and all other matters depends on the conduct of Lib Dems and whether they're intending to be outrageous and scurrilous or whether they're going to work in a positive and constructive way. I've seen Lib Dems who work in a positive and constructive ways. I've seen those who are outrageous and scurrilous and the judgements will be made depending upon how Lib Dems decide to behave. That's my basic position. I said it at the Lib Dem conference and on the television. As I say, I didn't actually hear the reports that week after I did the Nick Robinson interview. I've been told that they brought together two parts of the interview to make it look as though I was saying all Lib Dems were outrageous and scurrilous which actually is not my view. YG: Lord Woolf has said that the Home Secretary should lose his right to set the tariff for adult killers. Do you support that move? CC: Well, I'm still considering it. My basic view is no I don't. My basic view is that there is an important political judgement in some cases which need to be made about tariffs. And the reason is that I think that it is important to ensure that the element of demonstration on some crimes that take place is retained. I think with particularly horrific crimes, it is important for people to understand that the consequence is very, very severe. I've read the reports of Lord Woolf's remarks, but I haven't read his remarks in detail, so I need to qualify what I'm saying by that consideration. But my initial instinct is not to agree with Lord Woolf, no. YG: Going back to the HRA. There are all sorts of stories. Will speed cameras become a thing of the past? There was a case the other day of a Rastafarian who has said that it is his human right to sell cannabis... CC: Everybody's going to have 'rights'. There are going to be lots of pleas from different parties. It will take three or four years for various people who think they have a case under the Human Rights Act to make their case and for that to go through the courts until we get a final judgement. What the HRA does is to put human rights at the fore of British law making, which is what it should do, and it will no doubt practise for some areas of British life, which is what it was designed to do. What it will not do is give a licence to every particular person who has a grievance to make the argument that because of the Human Rights Act that their own grievance has been rationalised. Now, some will try. The Rastafarian and cannabis, the issue of a particular speed camera in Scotland, you need to know that that was a very narrow judgement and other ones as well. People will make cases in that way and they are entitled to do so. And then the law will have its way and at the end of the process the judgements will happen. There have been very important judgements the other way, even in these early days, which indicates that the Human Rights Act makes less of an impact to our domestic life than some predicted. YG: But do you anticipate a growth in the number of these crank cases? CC: Well, people have got to decide all this. I think 'crank cases' is a slightly pejorative term, people are fighting them for genuine reasons. But people have got to decide what their chances are of winning. Now at the moment, because there has been almost no case law on it whatsoever, and by definition because the act only came into effect on October 2nd its very difficult for me to make that judgement. YG: Where you surprised to hear that cocaine was found in the toilets in parliament? CC: Yes I was. I haven't got a clue. I've no idea why it was there, how it was there, who brought it there, or anything of that kind. Was I surprised? Yes I was surprised. YG: Do you support the legalisation of cannabis? CC: No I don't. YG: Have you ever smoked cannabis? CC: I said in 1997 I had, I said in the '97 election campaign. I've been on the record for longer than anyone else on that. YG: What you say the main mistakes of the Government have been so far? CC: I'd say the major mistake is not explaining the process of change involved in all the different areas we have. Fully including the process of change from the initial idea to the speech, to the Green Paper, the White Paper, the legislation, the budget committee. The change that people can see. There's a lot of complicated processes and I don't think we have always explained those as much as we need to. YG: What about the major successes? CC: I think we've already made major changes in Britain: in the running of the economy in principle which has been tremendous: an end to the politics of the previous Government and the cycle of boom and bust which has been very, very dramatic. So the economy I think has been very successful. Then if you look at the key public sectors - education, health, crime and public transport - there have been very significant and positive developments in each of them. In each of them there is a lot more to do, but there have been positive developments. The literacy and numeracy results, the crime figures coming down, even in the Ministry of Health, there are a whole string of achievements - a list as long as your arm - which are material to change peoples lives. The Pensioners, dealing with pensioner poverty in the way that we've tried to. YG: How well do you think that the Government has handled the whole fuel crisis? CC: I think the initial situation was... it came very quickly and we didn=92t understand quickly enough what the whole impact would be over a couple of days. Well I certainly didn't. But I think after that we dealt with it well, we'll have to wait and see what happens. But at the moment I think that the combination of being absolutely clear that it's the Government's obligation to make sure that the country functions properly and the fact that the Chancellor has been listening to the concerns that were being made has taken us forward. YG: Would you support the Dome being knocked down tomorrow? CC: I haven't studied the ins and outs of it. I wouldn't particularly, no. I think that some of the benefits of the Dome haven't been understood. Five million people have really enjoyed it. It's been very positive. In think its been important for the regeneration of the area. I don't think it's anything like the scale of importance that some people have given it... People will make their judgements. Tony has said what he has to say on that. But I think that the money we have made available in the budget to repair primary and secondary schools throughout the country is a very positive thing. YG: Should Lord Falconer consider his position? CC: I don't think so. I think he played a very important part and the Dome was only one of responsibilities. I feel very confident in him as a person. Should he consider his position? Of course he should. Everybody should consider their position the whole time. But should he resign? In my opinion not. YG: What are you spending most time on at then moment? CC: Police and crime. My job is crime reduction pure and simple. Crime figures are beginning to turn even more strongly downwards than they were and that's very encouraging. Find this item online at http://www.yougov.com/news.html?news.id=3D10009739
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!