13/04/2016 Newsnight

Maybe he has been busy with his tax return, but Jeremy Corbyn has been

noticeably absent from the referendum campaign, that will

change tomorrow so is he ready to go full throttle for the Remain side.

He says he wants us to stay in the European Union, I believe that but I

think it has to give the impression that it is absolutely what he

authentically believes. We will ask Chuka Umunna if Labour is planning

to set the referendum out. And should knowing this lady disqualify

the culture secretary from regulating the press? What does

former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell say? Also tonight: Nick Clegg takes

us to Colombia to see how they ended the war on drugs.

And you might not know her face but you might well know her voice. I am

sorry. Helen, darling, the last thing I want to do is upset you but

you must admit, why all this subterfuge? I don't know. You don't

know? We will clock about one of the stars of the archers about its

portrayal of psychological abuse. Guess what, the referendum is ten

weeks away and we can see the arrangements are all firming up. Two

campaigns, one on each side were giving official designation today.

There is still come petition on the Leave side on which group will make

the best pitch to the public. The one group which did not get official

designation might take it to court but there remains a mystery on the

Remain am a where is Jeremy Corbyn? Tomorrow is a big day because Jeremy

Corbyn will set out his support for staying in. All eyes on him to see

how sincerely enthusiastic he sounds and it matters to the Remain side

because it want win unless it supporters turn out on the day and a

lot of them will not be inspired by David Cameron to do so. Our

political editor reports. The days are getting longer, the

Midsummer referendum will soon be upon us, Labour is official position

is to campaign for Remain. But is the party, specifically the

leadership, doing enough campaigning? Critics say Jeremy

Corbyn has been nowhere near noisy enough in making the case. If we end

up exiting the European Union we will partly, as a Labour Party, have

ourselves to blame and people will naturally asked did we do enough to

pull our weight? I don't want that on my conscience, I think Labour has

to be full throttle, and equivocal, passionately in favour of staying

within the European Union. So how might people have got the impression

that Jeremy Corbyn is lukewarm about the European project? Perhaps

because he has been arguing against it for most of his adult life. There

are literally dozens of examples of Jeremy Corbyn's hostility the EU in

the archives. You have European bureaucracy to uncountable to

anybody, powers have gone to national parliaments -- have gone

from. These are quite serious matters. The public don't seem to

know where Jeremy Corbyn stands, 78% of those asked recently identified

David Cameron in favour of remaining. 74% knew that Boris

Johnson was in favour of leaving. But less than half correctly

identified Jeremy Corbyn's position. I think there are two categories,

there are people like myself who have been passionate pro-European

campaigners all our lives,, that is one set of people and there is

another set of people who have doubts about the way the EU works

and Jeremy has maybe fallen into that category historically, who are

now swinging behind in and I think it's important you get both the

categories of people because the country, not everyone has decided,

people do want to hear rational argument. There is another reason

Labour are not focused on the referendum, made a fifth is election

day and a whole swathe of contests. In Wales where Ukip is calling

strongly Labour does not want to shout about its pro-EU position

whereas in Scotland it has been identified that some in the party

fear it could be dangerous to align with David Cameron. But tomorrow

Jeremy Corbyn will be delivering what is being billed as a major

speech on Europe. If pro-EU Labour MPs are expecting their leader to

give a passionate defence of our membership when he gives his speech

tomorrow I think they will be disappointed. I understand he will

give a far more nuanced argument saying on balance we are better off

in, but that the EU should reform itself utterly. That is unlikely to

satisfy his critics. He says he wants us to stay in the European

Union and I believe that but I think it's got to be, give the impression

that it is absolutely what he authentically believes. If we send

out the vibes that it is half-hearted somehow the public will

notice that, they will spot it and maybe that would motivate the

millions of voters that we need to make sure this is not a knife edge

vote, that this is a decisive vote for staying in the European Union.

In the end this referendum might be decided by turnout. If a labour

voters are unenthused and unconvinced then it could be

decisive. Jeremy Corbyn speaks tomorrow and

another big Labour figure is also speaking tomorrow, Chuka Umunna who

joins me now. You think there is room for nuance in the Remain

campaign? If Jeremy Corbyn goes out and says on the one hand, on the

other hand but on balance I am in favour of staying in, is that a good

way of selling it? I am delighted he is giving this speech and I told him

that today. To some extent, the EU is not perfect and it needs reform.

But that's not the question on the paper, the question is whether we

want to stay in or out the European Union and ultimately if you want to

reform it and let's not forget we come out we are still going to

probably everyone to trade with the EU, we'll have to comply with its

rules and regulations. But to reform it you have to be in the room at the

table, if you are outside you have no impact. I think there is a

strong, progressive centre-left case for continued membership of the

European Union. Is it, as a campaigning tactic, does what Jeremy

Corbyn seems to be up doing, does it work to say probably we should be

staying in or do you have to beat the drum for the in side? I think

Jeremy will beat the drum, you have to be full throttle. This contest of

globalisation, it was interesting seeing historic footage of Jeremy at

the end of the 70s, early 80s because globalisation has run across

our country and unleashed forces which have been positive and

negative. If we want to stop multinational companies holding

countries to ransom for example, playing of terms and conditions of

workers here against those abroad, being in a European Union which sets

minimum standards across 28 member states provide huge protection to

that. If you look at other big left causes, the environment, pollution

knows no borders and you have to deal with that on eight cross-border

basis. And global poverty. What you would say is a left-wing case, why

has the left, and why does the left or many on the left remain so

equivocal on membership of the EU? I think it is changing, I think there

has been hesitancy because there was nervousness around the EU

renegotiation. The Prime Minister said... It goes back to the early

80s and many have not switched from that position. It does because some

on the left saw the EU as a corporate club but as I have said I

think when you are looking at how we ensure multinationals pay their fair

share, operate fairly, you have two operate at a supranational

cross-border level with other partners to make sure they are good

global citizens. I think why there was hesitancy is that people were

worried about the renegotiation, that the Prime Minister was going to

bargain away the social protections which are so fundamental. But that

did not happen. Now we are faced with a clear choice, you are either

in or out, you either join the likes of Nigel Farage, Chris Grayling and

Iain Duncan Smith used a in and make sure we can build a more fair and

equal world and not just at home but abroad. I am listening to your

obvious passion on this but let's be honest, you feel much more strongly

about June 23 the local elections -- than the local elections only the

theft. Those pale into insignificance converted a decision

about Britain permanently stays in the EU comes out. -- compare to.

Both are very important. In London we have a mayor who has not built

enough homes, I'm thankful we have a fantastic candidate who has made

housing and transport the priority and that is why I think Sadiq Khan

is on course to hopefully be elected. But this EU referendum

campaign is fundamental. I am leading the London campaign and it

is one of Europe's great capital cities and I don't want that to go

away. I don't want the country to be diminished, let's keep the great in

Great Britain. I think that is what you will hear from our leader

tomorrow. Thank you very much. We asked vote Leave to provide us with

an interview but they said nobody was available. The media has been

playing what is the scandal today. Is it the fact that an important MP,

John Whittingdale, went out with a dominatrix the fact that the papers

did not report it, the fact that the BBC did report it or was it that

John Whittingdale did not report it himself? Or finally that he had to

oversee the press knowing they had something on him, a potential

conflict of interest? Let's see what Mitchell thanks, he was caught up in

a media storm of his own at one point. What do you think is the

issue is at the heart of this? I don't think there is an issue. The

fact is that this is a middle-aged single Conservative member of

Parliament who went out with someone who turned out not to be quite what

they thought. That happens to lots of people and there is no story

here. I can't understand... Move along, nothing to see. Would you

think it was a story if he had known she was a dominatrix? Arguably,

single man dating someone with an interesting career, is that a story?

I don't think that would have been a story but I have struggled hard with

this one to understand the mob descending, the Labour Party, which

is what they are paid to do, start it up and quite well, but at the end

of the day that is what you're left with, somebody who is single and

went out with someone and the relationship didn't work and that's

about it. Therefore we get onto some of the arguments, your personal

experience, did you know anything about this? You were the Chief Whip

before this was taking place but had it gone around, was everyone talking

about it? take confection tweet confession

from every middle-aged member of the party who had gone out with a

girlfriend or boyfriend and found out they weren't what they thought

he wouldn't be able to do his job looking after the Parliamentary

party and making sure the government gets its business. The reason why it

is an issue, some people think it is an issue, is because there is a

feeling that the man overseeing regulation of the press might have

wanted to court favour with the press and was conflicted because the

press had something on him and he might have wanted to stop them

publishing it. Now, do you recognise that as a conflict and is it

important? No, it's not, I don't recognise it as a conflict. The

press can't make up their mind where they stand on it. Is it the fact the

press didn't publish this because so it is possibly a matter of interest

to the public I think it can be overstated. It's not a matter of

public interest. Rather press being criticised for publishing now when

they didn't before or for not publishing when they knew about it?

Seems the system is working quite well. They didn't publish because

there is nothing there to publish. The potential conflict, the

appearance of conflict, might have been alleviated if John Whittingdale

had said to the Cabinet Secretary or David Cameron, there is this thing,

the press have a story they haven't run about me. I just want you to

know that, we don't need to put it into the public domain. Should John

Whittingdale have told David Cameron when he was appointed culture

Minister with responsibility for the press that this had been lurking

around? I don't think so, no. It's a debatable point. But the fact is the

poor fellow is entitled to his private life, this happened some

time before he was appointed to the Cabinet. I just don't think it was

something he would wish to raise with the Prime Minister or that the

Prime Minister would have expected him to raise. When you become

Cabinet minister, I'm sure people have you read ideas that MI5 run a

quick check on you and all of that. Is it like that? Does the Prime

Minister interview you and say, now, Mr Mitchell, is there anything you

want to tell me? Skeletons cost to mark we know our colleagues pretty

well. -- skeletons? We all know each other pretty well. The fact is, in

the case of John, he was a single man. I'm mystified. I can't

understand why this has taken up so much bandwidth of the media today.

If you would, because you've had pleb gate and all of that, living

through the furore, regardless of whether there is substance to it or

no substance to it, what is that like? It's not a pleasant

experience, one of the reasons I'm very pleased to come on your

programme tonight and give my view that John has been put through the

mill today and really in a way he should not have been. We saw the

same thing over the Prime Minister's tax return.

There wasn't really so gory but the mob descended at the Labour Party

did what they are supposed to do and stirred it up. -- there wasn't

really a story. The mob stayed for about three weeks in my case because

there wasn't a lot of other news. It isn't a pleasant experience and I

don't think John deserves this and I'm very pleased to come on here as

former Chief Whip and make it very clear. Finally, the fact he changed

the policy of the last government, moved it to something more

favourable to the press, you don't think of anything to do with the

fact the press were sitting on files with a story they could have run on

him? Nothing whatsoever, he has been a very distinguished chairman of the

culture media and sport select committee, his views are very

well-known, he didn't change his views and he has been utterly

consistent. Story should go away. Next week, the UN hold a special

general simply session on drugs. Have you heard of it? No, probably

because it isn't going to change anything and the only leaders

attending will be those of Latin American companies in Accra

countries, the most desperate for something to change. -- Latin

American countries, the most desperate for something to change.

Most of Europe treats drug as a legal but takes a soft approach to

soft drugs. Some states in the US, Uruguay and Canada, which have legal

regulated markets for cannabis. It is basically all over the place. One

of the staunchest supporters of the new approach is the former Deputy

Prime Minister here, Nick Clegg, who famously argued with Theresa May

over the issue while he was in government. Now he's been to

Colombia, one of the countries that called for this special UN summit,

to meet President Santos. While there he made a report for us.

I'm visiting Colombia because it's a country that we can learn from. It's

a place that knows better than anywhere else how organised crime

controls the drug trade. I'm going to talk to its president

to discuss whether regulating and legalising drugs is a better way

forward. Go to the other side. OK, guys? Yeah.

This first time? Yeah. This was where the original narco-traffickers

operated with such ruthless efficiency. It was home to the

infamous Pablo Perez go back, who controlled a fast criminal network

that extended across Colombia and reach into many other countries. --

Pablo Escobar. He was the fifth richest man in the world at one

point. Sinew mayor has only just been

elected, but he remembers the days of Escobar's rule. Jim

now Pablo Escobar is dead, his sister, Tim two lives here. She

tries to keep a low profile, it's no longer good to have the name

Escobar. Luz Maria thinks the death of her

brother didn't lead to the end of the problem.

There is still crime in Colombia and its link to drugs remains strong.

The Colombian government has tried to address many of the security

issues. They were helped by $16 billion of US support. They also

believe cocaine and its use could be eradicated by aerial spraying huge

swathes of the plant that is needed to make the drug cocaine. It didn't

work. Colombia remains the number one producer of cocaine in the world

and, with it, the crime gangs persist.

Fabiola is a farmer, she just wants to grow coca, not for cocaine.

The aerial spraying was finally halted in October last year, but

this method in the war on drugs had already proved destructive to many

ordinary Colombians. I think he's here, I'd like to see

him. I had breakfast with Columbia's president in the 1990s at the height

of the powers of the narco-traffickers. He survived many

assassination attempt on some of his family members were murdered. It was

under his watch that Pablo Escobar was killed and he had some

interesting ideas about drugs. Your view is if you decriminalised

that, it will help the security issue.

In fact, Colombia has gone further than the UK towards decriminalising

drugs. A lesson we could learn from. In the UK, many people are forced to

steal to fund their drug habit because both drug dealing and drug

use are illegal. In Colombia, possession of small

amounts is legal. I was fascinated to visit a

government funded clinic that tests pupils drugs to prove they don't

contain dangerous chemicals. -- test pupils drugs.

With Columbia now making progress in undermining cartels, this city is

now a different place. It was recently voted one of the best

cities to live in in Latin America. It really is a fantastic

illustration of how even in a very poor part of Latin America things

can change. And the grip, the terrible deadly grip of narco

trafficking and narco criminality does eventually end. Leave Nick

Clegg ably helped by BBC producer Rachel Wright. Mr Clegg is with me

here. We're joined from New York by a former drug policy adviser to the

Obama administration. Nick Clegg, thanks for making the film, very

interesting. What would your policy be, not on cannabis, we note Lib

Dems have had a decriminalisation policy on that for ages. Cocaine,

crystal meth, what would be your view is, and this is the big... By

far the biggest drug. That's the easy one. I don't think it easy at

all. You've just made a film in Colombia where they supply cocaine.

If you spit to the present, you spoke score cut the bit where I

spoke to the president of the country, he says, if you want to

shift the world's approach to the war on drugs, which has clearly

failed because criminals are getting... The potency, the harm on

the drug stock market you have to start with cannabis. They

understand. What would be your policy on cocaine? For me, the focus

is on cannabis because I think it is by far the biggest share, the lion's

share of the profits of criminal gangs, it is where other parts of

the world are experimenting by regulating it, taking the sale in

the interaction... You don't have a policy on cocaine, crystal meth, all

these other drugs? Of course you have a policy... Your policy is the

same as the UN policy, the same as the war on drugs everybody has been

fighting. There is one point of consensus, everybody wants to reduce

the harm of drugs. I'm a dad I don't want my kids taking drugs. You have

a different policy to the world on cannabis, but the same policies on

cocaine. Because cannabis is by far the biggest drugs consumed, given

that is the great thing which fuels the bank account of the criminal

community around the world, you've got to deal with that and that above

and beyond everything else. Of course it means you also give

treatment to people who have addictions of other varieties of

drugs, but the cannabis question is the question the world faces right

now. Kevin. Do you agree with that, do you draw distinction between

cannabis, which you might have one policy to come and cocaine and hard

drugs, where you take a different policy? Obviously they are different

but I must correct one thing. The vast majority of revenue coming into

transnational criminal groups and drug trafficking organisation isn't

from cannabis, it is the vast majority of illegal drug use,

cannabis, but these are violent gangs, violent criminal

organisations getting their money from human trafficking mainly. Then

we are talking about things like extortion, kidnapping, became the

methamphetamine and heroin. That is why there with absolutely no... You

can't take it seriously to say we will be legalising cocaine and

methamphetamine possession in parts of the world where institutions are

weak. On the cannabis policy, is declared and his colleagues have

forwarded for legalisation, I find it very disappointing given the

incredibly progressive and congratulatory policy we should give

the Lib Dems on mental health. But the issue is mental health is

absolutely connected, especially, to heavy high potent cannabis use. You

can't have one strategy odyssey for mental illness and health and turn

around and say Colorado and Washington may be having it right. I

can tell you from the US the increasing use use and the problems

coming out of this massive commercial industry, it is the

global tobacco industry all over again, we don't want to be copying

alcohol and tobacco for cannabis. As that specific point, it is

interesting because there are links between mental health damage and

cannabis use which you want to legalise and I suspect... The worst

people to help either your mental health or your cannabis consumption

or any other health problem you have is the criminal fraternity around

the world, why on earth are we allowing these damaging substances

to be held in the hands of people who wish us ill? Criminals? Surely

it's better to bring it into the open, to regulate it so you can make

sure what people consume is safer for them. You can tax it and

restricted by age, you can make sure that you can go after the criminals

who at the moment are getting away scot-free. The extraordinary thing

at the moment is we are locking up people because of possession of

drugs and we are allowing the panel to sell it to get away scot-free.

Kevin, come in. That is a Paule Sticheping me that we have do lock

people up in prison or allow it to go to Philip Morris and the global

alcohol industry which has been a disaster in the UK. You do not have

to go to criminalising and throwing people in prison, I don't think you

should do that anyone using drugs, they need treatment. But we don't

want to increase the availability and promotion that would come with

this idea of legalisation. Let's not get caught in that trap. The UK has

made process on this with specialist courts which deal with this complex

connection between crime and addiction because people are

committing crime to fuel their drug habit which they will do whether it

is legal or not, or under the influence of drugs which they will

do more if it is legal. This has to be looked at in a much more nuanced

way. Thank you Kevin, I will let you go now. Nick Clegg, an interesting

set of discussions, whilst we have got you I wonder if we can talk

briefly about John Whittingdale and what you make, Andrew Mitchell

telling us that there is nothing to see, move along. What do you make of

the change in policy which has occurred under John Whittingdale as

culture Secretary, there was a different policy under the last

government. I don't care at all about what John Whittingdale gets do

in his private life, it is his private life. As you imply in your

question, the reason has any resonance and I suspect it would

even if it was a different Secretary of State, whether he did or did not

have a relationship with this individual, this Conservative

government, and the most open secret in government, is desperately trying

to wriggle out of delivering on the commitments that David Cameron and

the party made with other parties in the last parliament following the

recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry. Very solemn promises were

made by the Conservative Party, an act of Parliament was passed on a

cross-party basis. The Royal charter approach was a conservative

invention and now for reasons you would need to ask the Conservatives

about the are keen not to offend some of the newspapers who don't

like that whole process, for rather misplaced reasons in my view. But

that is the point. That is what you are looking at rather than photos of

John Whittingdale? His personal life is his personal life. Some have said

is there not a conflict of interest? He might be wanting to court favour

with the press, do you think there is a conflict Wychwood Warrior you?

-- Wychwood Warrior you? It falls on the desk of David Cameron, and it

was David Cameron not John Whittingdale who made clear promises

to the country, to Parliament, to the victories of phone hacking, that

it would be permitted in full -- to the victims of. That is what this

government is choosing not to do. You think it is not a John

Whittingdale conflict of interest because it is David Cameron's

decision? Absolutely. Thank you very much. If you have ever flirted with

the idea that radio is a feeling medium you would discard that fought

with the current amount of attention being lavished on Archers. Helen and

Rob explained why. A slowly developed plotline of the bullying

husband and eight wife which ends up in violence. We are together, a

couple. I love him, he loves me and it is over with him and Jess. As

soon as possible we will be moving in with him. So now you know. Tell

me, I just want to understand. It looks a bit funny. More than funny,

you planned an afternoon out with Henry? On a steam train with Henry?

Yes. And with Kirsty? Yes. Behind my back? Deceivingly? Lying to me about

it and lying to the school as well? I am sorry, I am sorry. Do you

relate want to leave? I will show you, do you want to know how you can

leave? You see this night? Take it! Put it in your hand! Do what Greg

did, ended all now. Go on, idea you! Because you are nothing without the

Helen! Nothing! A bit of a spoiler, at one point you will lead to think

that Helen had killed Rob but tonight we learned that he has not

only survived but is pulling through after an infection. She will be

charged with attempted murder, how will this end, don't ask Louiza

Patikas who plays Helen or the editor of the archers who are here,

I want to give anything away. How long ago did you know this plotline

would come to this? About three years ago when I first accepted the

job. I went to Vanessa Whitburn's house who formerly ran the Archers

and pitched for the idea and she said we must do it. The next day I

called one of the writers and spoke about how we might make a tricky

relationship between Helen and Rob which was not very romantic and we

find out about this syndrome called gas lighting which is based on the

play which is effectively coercive control. You had written a book in

your previous life about a handsome murderer basically? Yes, it is very

Rob, someone who is an ex-RAF pilot in the Second World War who is

charming and charismatic and ended up killing two women in 1946. It is

a fable in some way about not believing the surface and what has

happened here is the old buy into Rob and his charming hunting,

shooting, fishing behaviour when in fact, at the beginning of the story

he seems to be a sort of tall dark and handsome man but he is actually

rather sinister. Louiza, when did you get let into what was about to

happen? Was that three years ago? It was slightly drip fed to me as well,

I had an idea of what might be going on, it was much more true for us

because we just knew a month in advance pretty much. We are slightly

ahead of the audience. Your character has changed quite a bit,

it's quite an revolution, the confidence being taken way, becoming

more neurotic -- quite an evolution. It has presumably been the most

interesting thing you have done with the part in the 16 years you have

been there? She has had a few exciting storylines but I guess you

are right, it's a dream for any actor to work this sort of material,

slow burn, highly dramatic peaks, incredibly conceived and written and

paste. I'm incredibly lucky. Here is a theory about why the attention is

so focused on it and what makes good soap it's that you been very

patient. Three years is a long time to be planning it, it's not like it

is getting boring let's have a domestic violence thing. It's about

900 episodes which is a lot. It's quite an old-fashioned way of

telling stories, Charles Dickens used to do serial dramas in all of

his big novels and people would say to him why do you think they are so

successful and he would say make them laugh, make them cry and make

them wait. Holding of satisfaction for the audience is part of the

reason for its success. We don't try to create a big showdown for

Christmas or Easter, we drag it out as long as we can. What do you think

of the reaction, Louiza? It's been a lot, money has been raised for

domestic abuse, it's extraordinary. Absolutely extraordinary, the

listeners have been incredible, it is really special what is happening.

The media coverage as well has been extraordinary, you can never really

anticipate how the story will land and I think as much as I knew it was

powerful it has gained its own momentum I think, showing how great

the show is and more importantly how how vital it is we talk about this

issue. Do people confuse you and Helen? Never! It's never happened

yet. I thought your little boy said you tried to stab somebody? He had

heard from somebody, asked if it was true. Why do you think Rob is like

he is, what is driving it? It doesn't appear to be sexual jealousy

in this case. People keep asking what does he want to achieve, he

wants to achieve control and he is site at it. Why are people like

that? -- he is psychotic. I think it's a very complex issue, there is

a book called snakes in suits, when psychopaths go to work and the claim

that psychopaths are not out there murdering people they are owed

running big companies or governments. Don't give anything

away... How do does this go on? We have a lot more to go? Yeah, this is

just the beginning. It's interesting that people think this is the

climax, it is just the beginning really. That is very enticing. 16

years in the archers, how long are you going to keep it going? I hope

to be as old as June Spencer. She has been in the job since 1950 so a

few years to go yet. You are allowed to do other things? Yeah, everyone

does other things as well. Thank you for coming in. That's about all we

have time for, let's take a quick look at the front pages.

The daily mirror going quite big on that. Facing investigation after

taking his lover on a free trip to the MTV awards in Amsterdam. The

Telegraph believing it is a different scandal, the BBC smeared

cabinet minister is their lead. The guardian has moved straight off it,

benefit fraud or tax evasion, row over the tourist targets. Voters

turn away from EU is trust in Camelon slide is the lead in the

Times. And the Daily Mail, new foreign aid outrage, not focusing on

John Whittingdale at all. And the Independent, a generation left

behind, the UK child poverty shame. That is it, I will be back tomorrow,

we will have a little bit of Jeremy Corbyn's speech to go on by then I

expect. Until then, have a very good night.

England and Wales saw the highest temperatures of the