23/03/2012 Newsnight

Cheap alcohol causes criminal behaviour and chronic illness,

expensive alcohol causes all those things to happen too, but not to

poor people. Is it fair to target the drinking habits of one section

of society. The fear of a drunken underclass has played pretty well,

but resisted solution. Is the Government on the wrong side of

Government on the wrong side of history.

The MP, Eric Joyce, is under curfew at home after being convicted of

drunken assault in a Commons bar, what does he think.

Is race rearing its head in the US presidential campaign. Obama sets

in after Mary Trevelyan School Martin is shot dead. If I had a son

he would look like Mary Trevelyan School. How will the shooting s in

France affect the vote. Will the arguments over the

killings in Toulouse simply deepen Good evening, dizziness, blurred

vision, impaired judgment, symptoms of heavy drinking, or perhaps, you

could argue, of a Government trying to rush out new poll on the back of

an unpopular budget. The Home Secretary made a rare

Friday Commons statement to announce a minimum price on units

of alcohol, he was accused of trying to take attention away from

the tax on pensions. Is there any proof it will cut down

"binge drinking"? It is perhaps a step or two beyond

the inner city drinking the Prime Minister had in mind when he put

his name to today's alcohol strategy. But Hogarth's 1751

painting of gin crazed Londoners was brought in to support the gin

Act, and it prompted riots. It is a dilemma that politicians today will

recognise. Whether to impose price regimes to persuade people to

change their behaviour, or whether to leave people to make their own

choices. THE SPEAKER: Statement, the Home Secretary, there is

Secretary May. From her statement to the House

this morning, there was no doubt where the Home Secretary, Thresa

May, stands on "binge drinking". will put a stop to the easy

availability of cheap booze blighting Britain for too long.

This is a comprehensive strategy to take back our town centres from the

drunken thugs and restore them to the law-abiding majority. According

to this former President of the Royal College of Physicians, the

recent evidence supports her position. Canada have had some

experience of a form of amendment unit pricing in some of their

provinces for years for beer. It has shown an impact on consumption

also on harm. There is some practical evidence from Canada. Now

the evidence linking price in general to consumption and harm is

overwhelming, many countries have, for example, cut the price, as they

did in Finland in 2004, when taxes were slashed, there was a huge

surge in consumption and health harm and mortality. So the link

with price is clear, minimum unit price, there is less practical

evidence for, but the modelling is very strong.

But however wise he makes it sound, is it possible there was some

politics at play here. Labour think so. On the timing of the

Government's announcement. Over the last ten years there have been only

three Government statements on a Friday. On the Iraq war, on swue,

and on Libya. All involving national emergencies, what is the

national emergency today. What is the national emergency that means a

decision was made late yesterday afternoon to brief an important and

serious strategy into the newspapers that meant a decision

was made this morning to interrupt the budget debate and make an oral

statement, the only emergency is that the Prime Minister and the

Chancellor have gone wobbley over the coverage of their budget.

The evidence linking rising price and falling consumption may be

stacking up. But on minimum price per unit, the experts can't look

into history. They have to model how people might behave in future.

Scotland has already said it will introduce a minimum unit price for

alcohol. Though it may face a legal challenge on that from the drinks

industry. The Scottish Government has consulted on what that price

should be, and has asked the university of Sheffield to model

the impact. Work from the team from January this year found that if the

minimum price per unit is set at 40p, that would affect 45% of

alcohol sold through off-licences and supermarkets. At 50p, 70% of

the units sold would have to rise in price. We have learned that the

coalition Government has now asked the same team to model the impact

of different minimum prices for England and Wales. As they decide

how low to go. But is this whole approach

expecting too much of people. has always appealed to people in

this country, largely because the weather is terrible, and life is

quite tough. I think there is almost a class issue in this debate

about drinking. Traditionally it has been people who have things to

live for, other than drinking, who have tried to stop other people,

who perhaps have less to live for, to stop drinking. There is an issue

really about where pleasure comes in. If you have lots of possible

sources of pleasure, you might be particularly tough on those whose

pleasures are more limited. would all like as little Government

interference in our lives as possible, we are not talking about

an ordinary product like soap powder, we are talking about a drug,

a psychoactive drug and a drug of dependance. We have legislated on

seatbelts, tobacco, I think some legislation around alcohol is not

just desirable, I think it is absolutely essential. In the past,

those trying to curb consumption of alcohol sought religious backing

for their cause, or pointed to the dangers for frackry workers. These

days, for many, it is -- factory work. These days, for many, it is

ill-health, that makes the case for cutting back. Will this prove any

more convincing a reason to separate the British from their

beer. We have a GP and Tory MP, not to

mention a member of the Commons health select committee, an MP

against minimum pricing, Eric Joyce, was forced to quit the House of

Commons after a drunken punch up in the Commons. He's under house

arrest at the moment. You can speak with real authority and experience

about the problem of alcoholism. Bluntly, would a policy of minimum

pricing have made a difference to you? No, of course not. With the

experience of my own sins, if you like, the fact is middle-class

people, and I guess I have to accept that I am one, will be

entirely unaffected by this. This is a policy entirely directed at

the least well off. That is why I think it is entirely unacceptable.

But you have seen the way it can derail careers, and throw people

off balance. The laws of economics suggest that at some stage, that

the less able you are to afford that, the less it is going to hurt

you, surely? It won't affect professional people, a change in

the minimum unit price, won't affect professional people, it

won't affect people on reasonable wages, it won't affect pub or club

prices, it ont even affect, if I may say, prices in the House of

Commons. It will only affect people who buy and consume primarily in

supermarkets and buy the cheaper end stuff. It seems to locate the

entire problem with drinking and anti-social behaviour with the

least well off. I think it is abomb mid-able. Is it political? It is

middle-class people saying we can do one thing, and all the less well

off people we will blame them for all the ills of society, and locate

the whole problem with the least well off, and punish the least well

off. This has no impact on most people. It has no impact on people

like me, and on my own behaviour it had no impact. Would you concede it

is more often a problem for poorer people, who are less able to get to

grips with "binge drinking"? not sure I would concede that. I

have suspect and I have heard good evidence to say that there are many

middle-class people seeking help and assistance for their own

overconsumption of alcohol, and other drugs, and so forth. I'm not

sure there is strong evidence of that. If we are beginning now to

rely on provincial studies done in Canada as one example, which is

what we seem to be hearing about, I think it is probably rather early

to say what the outcome in terms of people's behaviour might be. Sill

sofically, any policy -- philosophically, any policy that

concerns themselves with the less well off while the better well off

can crack on and do what they want. If we follow the Scandinavian model

and raise the alcohol for rich and poor, across a range of alcohol,

would you say that is something that should happen? I think what

happens in Scandinavia, is that there is a much higher level of

duty, it is more expensive, people consume much more at home. There is

more home brew, and home distilllation in Scandinavia, how

they socialise and behave is different. In the end there is a

big difference between applying a higher level of duty, which is one

argument, when you can put the benefits back into health and

education, and simply requiring the shops to make a higher profit, that

seems to me to have no, as it were, public merit, at all. You have

heard the charges levelled at your Government, it is abominable, it is

aimed at a tax put on the poor? completely disagree. This alcohol

strategy is not just about pricing, it is about pricing, availability,

marketing, it is about early intervention. It is also about

actually mandating sobriety, and offering treatment. That may be a

treatment that works better for Eric Joyce. But for young binge

drinkers, we know they are sensitive to price. As long as you

can get drunk for 68p as a young person, will undermine all other

measures. It is not just about pricing but a whole package of

measures, this is a fantastic strategy. The controversial one is

about the minimum pricing, the Tories simply don't like it when we

raise the bulling done club, that is now many in the -- Bulling don

Club, but that is how many will see it, that it is OK to be drunk if

you are wearing a white tie and so on? It is about taking away the

ultra cheap alcohol. It won't make the pub prices more expensive at

all. That is where it happens? It is the pub brawls. That is exactly

the point. I disagree. What very often happens is people will

preload on ultra cheap alcohol, the clubs and pubs sometimes get the

blame, when people are already almost drunk by the time they get

there. Is there anyone suggesting that is true? We know people

preload. This free loading argument -- preloading argument, it has been

put up recently so you can see the coherence of what Sarah has just

said. Unless you introduce the preloading argument before people

go out, it doesn't make sense to see violence in public situations

as a consequence of cheap alcohol, because the unit alcohol is more

expensive. What Sarah has said about preloading there is no

evidence to show or research on that. 70% of people preload before

going out on a night to the pub? know that as a consequence of that,

up to 78% of A&E admittance after 12.00 is to do with alcohol. That

could be to do with alcoholic parents with wine, it targets the

poor? It doesn't target the poor. We know that the heaviest drinkers

pay, on average, 40% less per unit for their alcohol. Of course, no-

one is going to pretend that very wealthy people are going to be

affected by minimum pricing. Just explain to us the timing, this was

your own question a few months ago. Chloe Smith three months ago said

would be against EU law. Three months later on the back of the

budget, it is not against EU law? What is changing is the

commissioners have made it clear, where this is a proportionate

measure, that will address an urgent pressing health need, it

would be acceptable. I'm really encouraged. I think we could just

continue to stick our heads in the sand, as the Labour administration

did, and cosy up to the drinks industry, or we can say we take a

package of measures. This isn't just about pricing, this is about

availability, giving communities powers to address problem premises,

it is looking at how we make sure people stay sober but offer them

treatment. It is an exciting range of policies. When you hear the

Government talking now about the sense of responsibility to people,

I'm wondering on a very personal level, whether you regret the first

drink you had? The fact is, I'm responsible for my own behaviour.

As everyone, you give education and advice, they make their own call,

if they choose to smoke or drink alcohol that is their call. The

worry I have about the Government's position now, and Sarah, who I

absolutely accept she has the right intentions. The worry is, it looks

like the Government wants to take the right of making personal

decisions away from people. That is wrong. Do you think your own

problem is more in control as a result of whatever steps you have

taken since the punch-up. It is your choice, you said it is your

choice to do what you want. There qums a point for many people that -

- comes a point for many people that you don't have that choice at

all. Are you still in control of your own choices? Yeah, I think so.

Something cataclysmic happens when you have a bunch of personal

decisions to make, I have too. I think as far as generalising out to

public policy, it really is a business of Government to give

people advice, help and assistance, but not to say to them we will make

the a decision for the least well off, you may no longer do this. We

will put it out of your ability to afford, that seems amoral if not

immoral. My son would Someone Like You Mary

Trevelyan School, a powerful, personal -- my son would like --

look like Mary Trevelyan School. He said the shooting of Mary Trevelyan

School Martin, shot by a local watchman, should prompt national

soul searching. Was he right to get involved in a case that was is

becoming a passionate debate about race in America. The death of Mary

Trevelyan School Martin, gunned down by a neighbourhood watchman,

who wasn't prosecuted as he claimed self-defence, has sparked outrage

across America. Rallies have been held across America to shout for

justice. In Florida, a law known as Stand Your Ground, can prevent a

criminal prosecution when deadly force is used in self-defence.

There have been mounting calling for the arrest of George Zimmerman,

who opened fire on the teenager in a quiet Orlando suburb. For weeks

the US President remained silent on the subject, to the frustration of

many. When his words finally came today, they were powerful,

condemnry, and invoked his own black family. My main message is to

the parents of treftrf Martin. -- Mary Trevelyan School Martin, if I

had a son he would look like Mary Trevelyan School Martin. Was he

right to get involved in an argument where these sensabilities

are highly felt. Was President Obama's timing right, was the

intervention unsense ry, we have a TV host commentator, and other

other guest. It is good to be able to speak to you. Armstrong Williams,

when you look at the facts of the case, a young man going to visit

his father in a gated compound, unarmed, carrying a drink, shot

dead, and a guard not even charged or followed up for this? It is

obvious that the Sanford Florida Police officials did not stand up

to their responsibilities. There is no way, even with the Stand Grour

Your Ground law in Florida -- Stand Your Ground law in Florida, a court

must decide if you have actually killed inself defence, just to

believe George Zimmerman to say how he was able to receive the injuries

and how it happened, and for the police to believe him and not

question whether he was lying or not. And for Mary Trevelyan

School's body to lie in a morgue for -- Mary Trevelyan School's body

to lie in a morgue for three days, that is a travesty of justice. When

you speak about the President it is another issue, when the President

says this could have been my son. It could also have been his son

when you have the thousands and thousands of young blacks every day

every week, and the statistics are growing in the inner cities in the

United States. Either one of those cases he could speak out on, or he

could have spoken out when those rare cases where black kids killed

white kids, a part of his humanity is diminished. For the President,

that is why he has an Attorney- General, I can understand why he

spoke up. It would have been my preference for the President to

discipline himself and not to come in on this case. He was wrong to

take the lead on this one, to speak out. He could have left this to his

Department of Justice. Why does he have to vofl himself with something

like -- volume himself, with -- involve himself with something like

this, when it is going to involve an issue of race? First of all, I

think the President has spoken on all of those occasions, he has been

very vocal about his positions on how the black community is lacking

in education, and the young people are dropping out. He is up front

about that. He has been condemned about it a few times as well. I

think it was very important for him to actually speak up on this, first

of all, he was asked a question by a reporter, secondly, at this point,

this has become a national issue, and if he wants to be evasive about

this, especially now that the Justice Department is involved in

the investigation, would be completely irresponsible of him. I

think the way he approached it was perfectly fine. He made it very

personal, he spoke about it as a father, he spoke about it from a

perspective of not just a President, but for somebody who actually cares

about the community at large. I don't think he made it a race issue

in the end. I think it would be disengineous for anyone to say he

did so. -- Disingenious for anyone to say he did so. It is not a race

issue? When the civil rights movement only protest and march

when a young black, that has been killed by somebody who is white, or

Latino, when they don't ever protest when it is the other way

round, how can you not say race is not involved. It is not just the

President. You know, I admire the President for speaking out, I can

understand him speaking out as the CEO of our country, but still,

these are issues that happen every day. And I would challenge the

commentator to name one case, like this, where it is not a high-

profile case and there is not a lot of pressure, where the President

has spoken out. I'm saying the President must protect his

integrity and the voice he has as a voice of reason, as a voice of

fairness. This is not a race issue, this is a human tragedy, but many

people will say privately that he spoke out because of the hue of his

skin. I would hate for them to think so. This is a strategy, but

his Attorney-General, and his wife Michelle Obama could have stepped

out and spoken to the nation about this tragedy, and immore the

American people to do better. We -- implore the American people to do

better. We cannot tolerate these kinds of incidents anywhere. Do you

think something has changed today, do you think he has gone from being

an American President to a black American President? Of course not.

That would be just an absurd thing to say. I would ask the commentator

on the other end exact low the same question, that he has not --

exactly the same question, he has not talked about a single issue

where somebody was murdered in this fashion, of any colour, and the

police department refused to file or even arrest that person, before

they start to lay blame and talk about Mary Trevelyan School

Martin's tragedy as something so specifically racial, I want them

Mary Trevelyan School -- I want them to about the law and how that

came about, the President was extremely restrained, it was the

right time to speak about it, if not the same gentleman criticising

him today would say he's not saying anything about it. The President

doesn't have to make a statement about everything, that is not his

job, but now the Justice Department is involved, he waited until the

state of Florida refused to do the right thing, that includes the

state office. That is when he got involved. Another country where

race may play big in elections around the corner is France, after

the shooting of three soldiers, a rabbi and three Jewish children, by

a militant Islamist, the President of the Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy,

has appealed for unity. The country has a new far right candidate,

Jean-Marie Le Pen n a country where the National Front has

traditionally done well. How might this play out politically.

The names of the three children and four adult, shot dead by a single

killer, rang out in Toulouse's main square today.

This simple ceremony, a way for the people of the city to show they are

standing together against the hatred behind the murders.

TRANSLATION: These events don't raise any question about diversity

in France. People will now realise that stigmatising a religion, can

only lead to something terrible. The tragedy has led, inevitably,

for demands for greater security. But the socialist politicians who

run the region, whose national leader, Francois Allende, is a

front runner in the French presidential election, are keen to

play it down. TRANSLATION: There is no doubt these events add a

dramatic addition to the presidential campaign, we must

remain calm and not allow them to become too important. In the face

of the tragic events of the last few week, all mainstream

politicians are calling for university. That is what the people

on the square want. The problem is, particularly during an election

campaign, everyone knows there is also an undercurrent of concern

about immigration, and too much diversity that can't be ignored.

The prevalence of halal meat in some areas of France, including

this Muslim district of Toulouse, became an issue at the beginning of

the campaign. The Islamic method of slaughter was questioned not only

by the far right National Front, but also by politicians of

President Sarkozy's centre right party. To the bemusement of many

people here. TRANSLATION: We grew up with halal meat, we can't change,

I don't know why halal meat has got mixed up in politics. They are like

little boys in the Government, they obvious low don't feel very well.

Now, in the -- obviously don't feel very well. Now in the wake of the

killings, the line from Sarkozy supporters is slightly different,

not against diversity, but against extremism.

TRANSLATION: Immigration in France is nothing new. But we have a much

more serious problem now, it is a problem of radical, fundamental

Islam, which is shaking the foundations of the Republic.

But the National Front doesn't hesitate to put the two issues

together. TRANSLATION: I think there is a

link between security and immigration. There are homes and

suburbs where young men may explode in violence. There are networks.

The question for an editor on the leading regional newspaper, will

the killings force Nicolas Sarkozy to turn back to this issue? He will

be compelled to talk about immigration, because public opinion

wants a real debate on that, because they are very -- they see

that some process of French integration had failed. I think

French people want to have a debate, but a real balanced debate. Nicolas

Sarkozy has eaten into the lead since January, when the challenger

typically led by 57% to 43% in the second round of voting. That gap is

down to 46%. Crucial will be how National Front supporters vote in

the second round. Current low, 50% of them will vote Sarkozy, to just

11% for Hollande. 39% are undecided, enough to tip the election. Tragedy

could have mobilised all these electors of the National Front, and

maybe they will have a natural leaning towards the French

President, Nicolas Sarkozy, because he summerises, and embodies all the

notions of security and the country needing a leader in these kinds of

situations. But appearing to benefit from a

tragedy is something no mainstream politician in France wants to do.

In racing the issues of security, and inter-- in raising the issues

of security and integration in the coming weeks, President Sarkozy

will have to tread a very fine line, to avoid alienating as many voters

as he may attract. Last night here on Newsnight we

broke the news from a leaked report, that the welfare-to-work company,

A4e, had paid back thousands of pounds to the Government after

uncovering thousands of fraudulent claims. Tonight more details.

The report we broke last night did reveal, across the country,

evidence of fraud, irregularity, and risky claims by A4e. So much so

that they could only be sure of 70% of cases, that they had claimed for

the right amount of money, if they should have claimed for any. Today

what we have moved this on to is this, the DWP, the relevant

Government department, is now certain it never received the

report. We know at the time they were told

no serious issues were raised. Why it is important, is the DWP only

got it yesterday, but weeks ago it asked for all relevant information,

why didn't it get it. More interestingly, pouring through the

parliamentary records, we noticed this audit, subject to the report,

was made public in October 2009. A4e said we are doing this, looking

at the work of the top 20 people, ready by October 2009. What did the

DWP get, what did they get if they didn't get this, what did they do

about it? We asked the Government to provide us what they actually

got. Surprise, surprise, they have said no. But the whole future of

A4e depends on what they actually submitted in October 2009.

Coming up in a moment, we're in Glasgow with tonight's review show.

We have got lots of new offerings from several literary heavyweights,

we go back to Treasure Island with Andrew Motion. Recreate a silver

swan with Peter Carey, go wild with Ben Okri, and discover the The Man