Examination of Witnesses (Questions 41-77)
RT HON
ALAN JOHNSON
MP
10 NOVEMBER 2009
Q41 Chairman: Could I welcome the Home
Secretary to the committee. Home Secretary, thank you very much
for coming at such very short notice to appear before this committee.
We are conducting a very short inquiry into the Extradition Act
between United States and the United Kingdom and, in particular,
we want to focus on your role in this Act; whether or not you
have the discretion to act, the extent of that discretion and
the circumstances and the factors which you need to take into
consideration when making a decision. Can I start by asking you,
as Home Secretary, obviously, you exercise discretion in many
areas of policy, in particular in immigration. You accept that
the Home Secretary does have discretion to act in certain areas?
Alan Johnson: In certain areas;
not in this. One of the major objectives of the 2003 Act was to
take away the discretion of the Home Secretary, and actually,
whilst I have heard criticisms of the Act around an imbalance
of evidence, et cetera, I have not heard an argument that says
we ought to go back to the old days. It used to go round and round
and round; it was horrendously drawn out; there was a feeling
that the decisions were not based on justice, they were based
on whoever had the best media campaign, they were not based on
the facts of law; so this Act deliberately set out to remove that
discretion. As the High Court has made absolutely clear on numerous
occasions, the discretion that exists actually would struggle
to be properly termed discretion. I have to look at the situation
against a series of facts set out within the law.
Q42 Chairman: Indeed. Those factors
that you referred to in the debate in July of this year, very,
very narrow factors, I think, you mentioned, but you are not conceding
today, are you, that you cannot use your discretion in other areas
of policy? It is just this particular area of policy that your
discretion is limited.
Alan Johnson: I do not have any
discretion about whether to prosecute anyone. No politician has
that discretion. I do not have discretion about where to prosecute.
It is a matter for the prosecution authorities.
Q43 Chairman: Indeed.
Alan Johnson: I do not have the
kind of discretion I had in many other departments.
Q44 Chairman: But you showed in your
speech last week that you were a plain speaking Home Secretary.
Where you felt that things had not been quite right, for example
as far as immigration policy is concerned, indeed, counter-terrorism
proposals were concerned, you were prepared to say maybe we got
it wrong. Looking at the circumstances of the Act and hearing
from those who signed the treaty at the time, is this another
case where you perhaps should think maybe we got it wrong?
Alan Johnson: No. I will not labour
the committee with going over what I actually said about immigration
and other issues—not counter-terrorism. I do not think we
got it wrong. I think the problem was not the 2003 Act, the problem
was the arrangements that have been in place since around 1870.
I think those arrangements were unbalanced, those arrangements
were difficult, and I can see exactly why Parliament decided they
should be revised.
Q45 Chairman: What is the current
position on the Gary McKinnon case? You have said to the House
that the clock has now stopped. What exactly do you mean by that?
Alan Johnson: What I mean is that
the High Court judgment in July was that there should be no further
reference to a judicial review, or anything else, on the Director
of Public Prosecution's decision to prosecute Gary McKinnon in
the US. So that was the end of the road for that. It rejected
argument that to extradite Gary McKinnon would be a breach of
his Article 3 human rights, and then it was left for the legal
representatives to make a case as to whether it should go to the
newly formed Supreme Court. On 9 October, I think it was, that
permission was rejected. That ended all the domestic avenues to
pursue this case. I allowed 14 days for legal representation to
decide whether they wanted to go back to the European Court in
Strasbourg. Around three days into that 14 days, I received fresh
representation, which contained an updated psychiatric analysis
of Gary McKinnon's health, and I decided that was evidence that
was not before the High Court in July.
Q46 Chairman: This is new evidence?
Alan Johnson: The argument was
about a deterioration over recent months, so it was not in front
of the High Court when they made their decision in July, and I
felt, on that basis, I should look again and have reasonable time
to consider that fairly and fully and, in that case, I stopped
the 14-day clock, which means that if there were a situation where
the legal representation wanted to go back to the European Court
in Strasbourg, they would not have been defaulted by the fact
that I had allowed the clock to run out.
Q47 Chairman: So you are currently
considering evidence that has been placed before you.
Alan Johnson: Yes.
Q48 Chairman: Evidence that was not
before the courts, concerning health issues related to Gary McKinnon,
and until you have done that the clock will not start again.
Alan Johnson: That is correct.
It is important to make clear, that is the other bit of my discretion,
if you like, but, once again, the discretion—
Q49 Chairman: So you have a bit of
discretion then!
Alan Johnson: We were talking
about this before, those three elements. Let us not talk about
Gary McKinnon here; let us talk about the Act. If anyone was being
extradited to face the death penalty, if anyone was being extradited
to a country with which the UK Did not have specialty arrangements,
or if the person whose extradition is sought had been extradited
to the UK from a third country and that country's consent for
the person's onward extradition had not been granted, I must refuse
the request. They are the three areas, which can hardly be called
discretion. They are set out in the Act. I have to judge whether
those three conditions apply. The other one, which applies in
this case, is that after the McKinnon case had gone through all
the procedures—District Court, High Court, House of Lords,
European Court—then Asperger's was diagnosed. So it was
an intervening occurrence, and that then allows the Secretary
of State, my predecessor, to decide, on the basis of the Human
Rights Act, does it breach Article 3 of the European Convention
on Human Rights?
Chairman: We will explore those points
shortly.
Q50 Mr Streeter: Home Secretary,
following your arguments very carefully, I would not want to be
in your shoes and I have tremendous sympathy for the position
you are in, but I am not quite sure why you are examining the
fresh medical evidence if you are not exercising a discretion
as to whether or not he can be extradited?
Alan Johnson: When this case went
to the High Court they looked very carefully at the medical evidence;
they looked, indeed, at the assurances given by the US back in
February about how they would treat someone with Asperger's. The
fresh evidence submitted to me has occurred since that hearing
in July. It says that the situation has deteriorated, it says
that Gary McKinnon's psychological state is much worse, it said,
although it was referred to at the time in July that there was
a propensity to commit suicide, that that had become much greater.
This was from an eminent psychologist. I felt that it would be
wrong to ignore that, given that it was not before the High Court;
so I am looking at it again on the basis of: does this breach
Gary McKinnon's Article 3 human rights?
Q51 Mr Streeter: Have you received
legal advice as to where this alleged crime was committed? Was
it committed in the United Kingdom, where the keyboard was, or
was it committed in the United States, and does that make a difference
under the 2003 Act?
Alan Johnson: On the issue of
where Gary McKinnon should be prosecuted, it is quite clearly
a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Indeed, there
was an amendment in the Lords last Thursday against the Police
and Crime Bill seeking to introduce this issue of forum, which
was defeated. It is quite clear to me (and, of course, the High
Court did not allow any further reference to judicial review or
anywhere else) that it is the Director of Public Prosecution's
decision as whether to prosecute and, in consultation with the
Attorney General in the country of extradition, it is their decision
as to where the forum should be. I will quote to you what Lord
Justice Stanley Burnton said about this, because you mentioned
about where the act was. He found that the offending conduct was
directed at the US, the information accessed was US information,
that the witnesses were American and that it would be far more
difficult for the relevant information to be put before a court
in the UK than in the US. He expressed the view that it would
be "manifestly unsatisfactory in the extreme" for Gary
McKinnon to be tried and punished in the UK. So I am very happy
that this is a legal decision, as all prosecution decisions should
be, and I have absolutely no discretion whatsoever in this Act.
Q52 Mr Streeter: Following up on
your answer before that one. If you did decide that, because of
the deteriorating mental health situation, there is a potential
breach of Article 3 rights, what happens next?
Alan Johnson: That is a very good
question. Actually I am not looking at what happens next. I want
to take the decision on whether it breaches his Article 3 human
rights. I think it is then a matter for the prosecuting authorities
to decide what happens next.
Q53 Chairman: Wrapping up the discretion
point, we have seen legal advice which suggests that, in fact,
you do have discretion to intervene in this case. You, presumably,
have legal advice to tell you that you do not have discretion.
Alan Johnson: I have very strong
legal advice, but I have the High Court decisions. I refer this
committee (I am sure you have already seen it) to the decisions
of the senior judges in the land, who have made it absolutely
clear that there is no discretion other than those elements that
I have mentioned.
Q54 Mrs Dean: Can I move on to the
wider aspects of extradition? Some of the countries with which
we have extradition treaties (for example, Albania and Azerbaijan)
fall far short of UK standards of due process and fair treatment
of prisoners. Do we have such arrangements just in order to have
access to their nationals who commit offences in the UK, or are
there other reasons that make these arrangements desirable?
Alan Johnson: No, those two countries
you mentioned are part of the European Convention on extradition
under which all European countries came before the European Arrest
Warrant. So these countries that are not part of the European
Union and several other countries are still governed under that
European Convention, and it is important that if there are criminals
who have committed crimes in this country and they flee to those
two countries, we should seek to get them back, and vice versa.
Whether an Albanian in the UK should be extradited back to Albania
because of the condition of their prisons and because of the other
factors you mention would be issues to be considered against the
human rights bar to extradition found in the Extradition Act.
It would, once again, be Article 3 of the European Convention
on Human Rights, which the District Judge, at the very first stage
of the extradition process, is obliged to consider, let alone
all the other elements of appeal that would come in later. So
if it was the case that they would suffer inhuman and degrading
treatment, which I believe is the definition of Article 3, because
of the state of the prisons in Albania, that would be a factor
in the extradition.
Q55 David Davies: Home Secretary,
I think it was either The Daily Mail or The Telegraph
that recently reported that 50 people who had committed murder
in Albania and come over here under false passports could not
be sent back for some legalistic reason. We have heard a lot of
arguments along the lines of, "It is nothing to do with me,
Gov", but do you regret the fact that you apparently do not
seem to have much control and rights to protect one of our citizens
who has, clearly, committed only a very minor offence? Frankly,
do you not feel we seem to have gone from a situation where 60
years ago we controlled half the world and now we have got about
as much control over our citizens as an African Bantustan in apartheid
South Africa?
Alan Johnson: I would not accept
that all. If you look at the previous Extradition Act prior to
2003, we could extradite from America; America could extradite
from us.
Q56 David Davies: We did not get
many IRA murderers from America.
Alan Johnson: In terms of the
circumstances that you describe, if the death penalty was applicable
in Albania, or any of these countries, I could not send them back,
for the reasons I have just described. That has been decided by
Parliament. You will have to be clear about what you are referring
to.
Q57 David Davies: How many members
of the IRA did we ask to have deported who are still living in
America?
Alan Johnson: I do not know, but
this would be under previous governments as well. Your point seems
to be that we are going to hell in a hand cart on the basis of
no proper extradition arrangements.
Q58 David Davies: That is exactly
my point.
Alan Johnson: With respect, Chairman,
that is a ludicrous accusation and it is not based on the Extradition
Acts now or prior to 2003.
Q59 Mr Winnick: Home Secretary, some
people believe—a good number of people, in fact, if not
yourself—that the treaty signed in March 2003, the UK-US
Extradition Treaty, is somewhat lopsided; that it is not on the
same equal basis between our two countries. The new treaty, for
example, am I not right, requires information to be made by the
United States, not evidence as such, but that is not the position
when we are asking for someone to be deported from the United
States to the United Kingdom?
Alan Johnson: I do not consider
there is an imbalance at all. Incidentally, this would be academic
in the case we were just talking about—Gary McKinnon—because
Gary McKinnon has admitted to offences. So the issue of whether
there is a probable cause, which is what has to be proved in America
under the terms of their constitution, versus reasonable suspicion,
which is what the Americans have to prove to extradite someone
from this country, I do not see as an imbalance at all. The imbalance
was prior to 2003. The imbalance was under the old treaty obligations,
where America had to provide prima facie evidence but the
UK had to prove probable cause. You have seen this before.
Q60 Mr Winnick: It seems to have
been reversed as a result of this.
Alan Johnson: But it has not.
First of all, the definition. Lord Devlin defined "reasonable
suspicion" as follows, and that is what the Americans have
to prove in the UK: "The circumstances of the case should
be such that a reasonable man, acting without passion or prejudice,
would fairly have suspected the person of having committed the
offence." That is Lord Devlin's definition. The definition
of "probable cause" is defined in the US courts as "a
reasonable ground for belief of guilt". Given that no two
legal systems are exactly the same, that is as close a definition
as you can get. The final point: if this treaty is imbalanced,
how many UK criminals have we sought to extradite from America
and are having difficulty or the American's are refusing? Answer
zilch, nil, none. They have surrendered 30 suspected criminals
that we have asked them to extradite. How many US extradition
requests for people in the UK have been refused? It is seven.
So if there is an imbalance, I think it is the Americans who have
greater cause for complaint than us.
Q61 Mr Winnick: In this particular
case, how adamant are the United States? They have, so far at
least, been quite determined, at all costs, that the person should
be brought to the United States to face justice. Is there any
possibility that the United States will relent if they are satisfied
if the trial were to take place in the UK? After all, if it is
a question of the person being tried in some country, he certainly
will be tried, be it here or the United States; so why are the
United States so absolutely determined to take this course, which
seems to show, Home Secretary, if I may so, a lack of confidence
in the British justice system?
Alan Johnson: I find this argument
amazing, because the US have a proper mature legal system. The
US has trial by jury; the US has counsel; the US allows witnesses
to be questioned.
Q62 Mr Winnick: So do we.
Alan Johnson: It is almost as
if we are talking about an enemy state. It is very important in
a world of international crime, where criminals cross borders
much more frequently and much more consistently than they used
to, to have proper arrangements in place to bring criminals to
justice. I do not want to talk individually about Gary McKinnon
any more. That is an individual case and I have said what I am
doing with it, but in terms of this treaty it is quite proper
for the US—and I have quoted to you what Lord Justice Stanley
Burnton said about where this particular case should be tried—to
argue that a criminal act (and there is no argument that this
was a criminal act) should be brought to trial. Extradition is
not a statement on guilt or innocence. Extradition says someone
should be brought to trial for the actions that they have committed,
and for the Americans to want that to happen in their country,
exactly as they want Abu Hamza to be tried in their country, exactly
as they want six other cases that are currently going before the
European Court of Human Rights, is absolutely understandable.
Why it should seem shocking for Americans to want to have someone
who committed a crime that had a profound effect on their country
from people who profess to be very keen on law and order really
does surprise me.
Q63 Mr Winnick: If we were dealing
with an alleged murderer or a notorious drug baron, I could well
understand, and most people who are rather critical of what is
being pursued would understand that, but in this particular case
it does seem to many of us very odd, to say the least, bearing
in mind that the person is bound to be tried, if not in the United
States in the United Kingdom, and bearing in mind, very much so,
his health condition which we have had more evidence about today.
Alan Johnson: I think I need to
just repeat again, it is for the courts and the prosecuting authorities.
Has a crime been committed? Yes. Should it be prosecuted? Yes.
Who makes the decision on where it should be prosecuted? The prosecuting
authority. They have decided in this case that it should be in
America. The High Court in this country has agreed with that,
has said that the opposition argument is unarguable and refused
to allow that to go to judicial review, for the reasons that I
gave earlier.
Chairman: Home Secretary, members of
the committee, I will adjourn the committee until 5.28. You have
ten minutes to vote and return. We will resume then.
The Committee suspended from 5.18 pm to 5.37 pm
for a division in the House
Q64 Chairman: We had just concluded on
an issue concerning reciprocity. You said, Home Secretary, in
answer to Mr Winnick, that you thought there was probably a level
playing field between the UK and the US. However, if you look
at the Hansard extracts from the speech of Baroness Scotland
of Asthal at the time this debate was taking place in the other
place, she said this: "If this order was approved, the United
States will no longer be required to supply prima facie evidence
to accompany extradition requests that it makes to the United
Kingdom. This is in line with the new bilateral ..." agreements
that have been made. "By contrast, when we make extradition
requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient
evidence to establish `probable cause'", and she quotes the
US Constitution as being the reason why the test has to be higher.
As you know, in the debate we had on 15 July, I did raise with
you a conversation I had with your predecessor, David Blunkett,
when he said that he felt that the United States had got the better
deal, in terms of the extradition treaty. How do you feel about
that?
Alan Johnson: If you talk to David
Blunkett now, in terms of his experience of how it has worked
out in practice, you might get a different answer. For Baroness
Scotland, of course, I would refer you to another Hansard
extract (Policing and Crime Bill, House of Lords Report, 5 November,
Column 474), when the same point was raised. She said that she
does not believe that there is an imbalance, and when someone
put it to her: "Well, you said something different in 2003",
she said: "There is a difference between form and fact",
and she made it clear that her view was that it was about as close
as you can get and about as equal and as balanced as you can get
between any two judicial systems. So my argument to this Committee,
and anyone else who raises this with me, is do not look at who
said what and when, look at how the Act works in progress; look
at how it is working now. Is there any evidence whatsoever that
we are finding it more difficult to get people extradited from
America who we want to bring over here to answer for crimes committed
in this country than they are to get the people from the UK? The
answer is no. That is my point; we have not had a single request
refused. The Americans, if they were sitting here, might show
a certain amount of frustration at the Human Rights Act. They
do not have to deal with the Human Rights Act. I am very pleased
that we do have the Human Rights Act and that we do have to judge
these things by the European Convention on Human Rights; it adds
a completely new dimension which I would think the Americans would
call, if anyone was going to call the Treaty imbalanced. They
would, of course, point out they cannot change "probable
cause" because, as you rightly say, Chairman, it is part
of the American Constitution.
Q65 Mr Streeter: On the point you
were making earlier, Home Secretary, where you were making the,
I thought, excellent point and important point that we are not
talking about extraditing someone to an enemy state which does
not have a proper legal system; we are talking about a country
which is not just a friendly state but with which we definitely
have a special relationship, it leads me to ask you this: I understand
how you are slightly trapped by the law but, given the widespread
and heartfelt public concern about this case, why is it that up
to now, as far as we know, no one at senior levels of the British
Government has raised this at senior levels with the American
Government to say: "Look, this is a special case; we will
try this person over here and would you please accept that"?
That is the sort of thing that might just unlock the conundrum.
Alan Johnson: I think I have dealt
with the issue about where—I am sorry to keep coming back
to Gary MacKinnon because it is kind of sub judice, in
the sense that I am looking at this case—but we can say
about the so-called "forum", about where he should be
tried. That is a decision for the prosecutors. It has been decided
by the prosecutors—it was never any different before the
2003 Act. The High Court have said it is absolutely right; they
have said, in terms, that it would be manifestly unsatisfactory
in the extreme for Gary MacKinnon not to be tried in the area
where the damage was done, where the information is, where the
witnesses are, and that is America. He said the case to say that
it should be tried in the UK was unarguable. I am not clinging
to the Act to say: "I am in a difficult position because
of the Act"; I support the Act; Parliament supported the
Act, and I think it is the right thing to do. I do not think these
decisions should be made on whether someone has a popular newspaper
in favour of them or whether there are pop stars recording records
about them; I feel very strongly that these issues should be dealt
with on the basis of justice. There are other people in exactly
the same position, looking to be extradited to America. America
is a country where they will judge whether Gary MacKinnon is innocent
or guilty. As I said before, extradition does not say whether
there is innocence or guilt; it is the trial that will decide
this. So I do not think that it would be proper for the UK Government
to be making representation, at this stage, when an extradition
case is in process and when the person has not even been prosecuted
or found guilty and there is not even a sentence passed. I feel
very strongly that we must obey the law because this is about
justice, not about popular causes.
Q66 Mrs Dean: Do you know whether
the American authorities have had the opportunity to reconsider
the request for extradition since the diagnosis of Asperger's
has been made? Or does their request for extradition go prior
to that diagnosis?
Alan Johnson: It was prior to
that diagnosis and the argument that has been made as to where
the proper forum should be, UK or US, was decided between the
prosecutors in both countries: our Director of Public Prosecutions
and the Attorney General in the US. They have decided that the
correct forum was the US. That has been challenged through the
High Court. They did not give permission for it to go to judicial
review because they said the case was "unarguable".
It is inconceivable, in those circumstances, that the Americans
would say: "Okay, fine, have the trial in the UK". They
believe that as the damage was done in the US, as the information
is in the US and the witnesses are in the US—all of the
factors are in the US—that he should be tried in that country.
Q67 Mrs Dean: However, they are aware
of the diagnosis of Asperger's and the difficulty that transport
and travel over there could cause?
Alan Johnson: They are and, once
again, Lord Justice Burnton made the point that he was very impressed
by the letter that the American officials sent when they found
out that Gary McKinnon had Asperger's; they sent a letter reassuring
a long list of medical treatments that they would give and the
way that he would be cared for in their system, and Lord Justice
Stanley Burnton said: "These were the considered assurances
of a friendly state with which the UK has close relations".
Q68 Patrick Mercer: Home Secretary,
the maximum 28-day period allowed between the exhaustion of all
rights of appeal and actual deportation may be increased in exceptional
circumstances. Could you outline those circumstances, please?
Alan Johnson: They are not so
much exceptional circumstances; what the law says, as I understand
it, is if an extradition is due to take place and it has not taken
place within 28 days, that person can apply to the courts to be
discharged unless reasonable cause can be shown for any delay.
So exceptional circumstances are not built into that. If the 28
days have passed and nothing has happened an argument can be made,
the UK authorities would say: "We couldn't actually extradite
because: the weather was so bad all the airports were closed;
he broke his leg that morning"—or whatever—that
would be exceptional circumstances. They are not defined. I think
it would be very difficult to define those exceptional circumstances;
it is what happens after those 28 days run out.
Patrick Mercer: Thank you, Home Secretary.
Thank you, Chairman.
Q69 Chairman: When do you think we
will have a result in this case? Obviously, it has been going
on for years and year and years, involving two governments, and
Mrs Sharpe has spent most of her recent life on this campaign.
Is there an end in sight? When do you think a decision will be
made?
Alan Johnson: I hope to reach
my decision very quickly. I am conscious of the fact that, for
the reasons you said, it needs to be quick, but it must be considered;
I must take time to look at it properly. Thereafter, I believe,
if the decision was to carry on with the extradition, there are
further appeals to the European Court that were considered before.
So I cannot say. What I can say is, once again, I think it supports
our process that people have the right and the opportunity to
go to a district court, a High Court, the House of Lords (or Supreme
Court, as it is now), to the European Court and then back through—because
of the intervening diagnosis of Asperger's that is allowed further.
I think it is absolutely right and just that that should be the
case. It does extend it, though.
Q70 Chairman: Finally, on the extradition
issue, Mrs McKinnon did say to the Committee earlier on that she
was keen to meet you to talk about this case. Would you rule out
meeting her in the future, formally, to discuss these matters?
Obviously, after you have come to your conclusions.
Alan Johnson: I do not think it
would be appropriate, not out of any unkindness but because I
think you set a precedent there—which I can understand in
the Gary McKinnon case—for future Home Secretaries to meet,
in those circumstances, family members. It is very common to meet
MPs; indeed, I met Gary McKinnon's Member of Parliament earlier
on today and had a discussion; I met an all-party cross-section
of MPs in the summer on this, and I am aware of the strong feelings
of Gary McKinnon's mother, and she has put those very eloquently
and I have exchanged correspondence. I think it would be inappropriate
for me to meet, given all the circumstances.
Q71 Chairman: We now want to change
the subject, very briefly, to the issue of the misuse of drugs
committee. You have just come from a meeting of the Advisory Council
on the Misuse of Drugs. Did anyone resign at the meeting?
Alan Johnson: No. I do not know
whether anyone has resigned since the meeting finished at about
3 o'clock, Chairman, but they were carrying on to meet Professor
John Beddington, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser.
Q72 Chairman: You made it very clear
in the media your decision as to why you felt that Professor Nutt
could not continue as the Chairman of the Committee, and you talked
about advisers "campaigning" on issues. Do you stand
by the statements that you made? You do not want to think again
about the decision that you made?
Alan Johnson: No, I stand by that
completely. I think the decision was the right decision. I understand
why the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs were concerned
about this; it is their Chair. Their major concern and the reason
why two very good people resigned—and I am very sorry to
lose them—is because they felt that Professor Nutt was being
dismissed because of his views—his very well-known views—about
cannabis and ecstasy, in particular. I reassured them that was
not the case, and I went through the difficult argument about
when that line is crossed. If someone is in that position (they
do not get a lot of reward out of it—it is unpaid—and
we are thankful that people do put themselves in that situation),
they do carry a lot of cachet in the scientific community. Indeed,
they were telling me that home affairs correspondents who were
not interested in their fairly dusty papers sometimes, as soon
as they knew they were members of that Committee they were much
more interested. So it carries a great deal of influence, and
there is a duty, I believe, to accept that politicians make the
final decision and then to draw a line and get on with the work.
Q73 Chairman: It is reported in The
Times today that actually you knew he was going to make this
speech because it was put on the Home Office website before he
made his speech, and, therefore, to some extent, really, the Government
wanted to get rid of him and so were quite pleased that the speech
was made.
Alan Johnson: No, that is not
true. We had the incident with ecstasy with my predecessor where
she sent a confidential letter saying: "This must not happen
again"; it is not the way we expect our senior drugs adviser
to behave. Yes, they can put their proposals forward, yes they
can argue it, but they have to be quite clear that they are not
turning from an adviser to the Government to a campaigner against
the Government on these policies. At my meeting earlier on we
talked constructively about the future, about what we can do to
reassure the science community that their decisions are important
to us and that they are given due weight, but, at the end of the
day, we have to make the decision. Nevertheless, we think there
are things we can do to improve the way we work with the Committee.
Q74 Martin Salter: Home Secretary,
I would not at all disagree with the premise that advisers advise
and ministers decide, but we do need people that are prepared
to come forward and be advisers. Is there not a case for greater
clarity to enable advisers to know where that line in the sand
is drawn? I would find it difficult to express terms of reference,
if you like, whereby advisers would be free to promote the advice
they are giving and stand by their arguments? At what point does
that go into the field of campaigning against advice which has
been ignored by their political masters?
Alan Johnson: There are around
70 of these advisory groups and they have been going for a long
time—the ACMD have been going since 1971—and you have
to look at this in context: there have been very few, if any,
occasions when this has occurred. So there is a code and it has
worked pretty well. In this incident, I lost confidence in my
main adviser. If he had lost confidence in me he would have resigned;
to me, losing confidence in him meant I had to ask him to go.
I am very sorry about that, but nevertheless I think it was the
right decision. The Royal Society have put forward—Martin
Rees has put forward—a proposed code to cover all of this,
and that may or may not be necessary and that is being discussed
by the Prime Minister and our Chief Scientific Adviser.
Q75 Mr Winnick: We had, in fact,
Professor Nutt here a fortnight ago before the dismissal occurred.
Can I just put this question to you, Home Secretary, which I have
put to a number of witnesses during our inquiry into the cocaine
trade? Do you, in any way, accept that the politics of the House
of Commons is such that each party (certainly the two main parties)
want to prove they are tougher than the other one in dealing with
drugs, hence the controversy not on cocaine but on the reclassification
of cannabis?
Alan Johnson: I think the public
expects politicians to be pretty tough about drugs, and I think
we have to take the public view into account as well. That is
our role. If I was to look at all the decisions we have made,
we carried through a statutory instrument last Thursday on spice,
this drug, so that—thanks to the splendid work of the Advisory
Council and a very quick reaction from the Government, I have
to say—we are now ahead of the world, probably, on where
we are with this particular drug. In the vast majority of cases
there is no controversy. There is not controversy, incidentally,
when we downgrade, generally, from B; the controversy is always
upgrading, it seems to me. That categorisation, I think, is very
important, and I think Jacqui Smith was absolutely right on cannabis
and on ecstasy, to take a precautionary view of this evidence
and to say: "Yes, the evidence is very well put and we do
not argue with the evidence, but as a precaution we believe that
were we to do what we were being asked to do it could lead to
a situation we would regret in the future."
Q76 Chairman: However, some would
argue that, on the figures, Professor Nutt was right. Last year,
19 deaths from cannabis but 100,000-plus deaths from tobacco,
8,724 deaths by alcohol and 23 by other drugs. On the facts, that
is what he was saying, was it not?
Alan Johnson: What Professor Nutt
has argued for, for sometime, is some kind of relative scale.
Our view is this: we regulate tobacco and alcohol differently;
on drugs we are governed by three UN Conventions, which means
that we take a very different view to something that is illegal
and making them legal or keeping them illegal. We are never going
to make alcohol and tobacco illegal; what we have to do is regulate
them in a different way. A similar argument could be made that:
"We lose so many lives through terrorism and we lose all
those lives through road accidents. Why do we not take the money
we spend on counter-terrorism and spend it on safer roads?"
It is a distorted argument.
Q77 Chairman: When can we expect
the name of the new Chairman?
Alan Johnson: We will have to
go through due process and we will have to do it as quickly as
possible, but in accordance with the process. I cannot give you
a date but I hope we will have concluded this by the end of this
year or early next year.
Chairman: Home Secretary, thank you very
much for coming today to give evidence.
|
