Latest / UK Column Radio / Extradition- A Most One - Sided Affair - With Lord Deben

Transcript

Extradition- A Most One - Sided Affair - With Lord Deben · UK Column Radio

0:07
Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to a UK column interview. I'm Charles Mannett.
0:11
Speaker 1: I'm peace today to be joined by Lord Debon, who
0:15
Speaker 1: has spent many years as a government minister, then known
0:18
Speaker 1: as John Gummer. Lord Debon, thank you very much indeed
0:21
Speaker 1: for joining me and welcome to UK column.
0:23
Speaker 2: Thank you. No.
0:25
Speaker 1: I got in touch with you because you, over the
0:28
Speaker 1: years have been a close personal friend of the recently
0:33
Speaker 1: deceased Mike Lynch, and in particular you've spoken out about
0:38
Speaker 1: the extradition situation that he found himself subject to back
0:42
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three as a result of the Hewlett
0:45
Speaker 1: Packard Autonomy flaud case. What I'd like you to do, please,
0:49
Speaker 1: is just to explain to the audience your view of
0:53
Speaker 1: the situation as it unfolded.
0:57
Speaker 2: Well. I was concerned about this before Mike Clinch was involved.
1:02
Speaker 2: It was an agreement between the British government under Tony
1:08
Speaker 2: Blair and the Americans which was a one way extradition
1:13
Speaker 2: system which enabled the Americans to insist upon the extradition
1:21
Speaker 2: of individuals from Britain, but there was no reverse. We
1:27
Speaker 2: couldn't insist upon extradition from the United States. Now, the
1:33
Speaker 2: problem with this is not only that there is no reciprocity.
1:39
Speaker 2: It is that it could be used and later, when
1:43
Speaker 2: it happened to Mike Clinch, was being used for commercial purposes.
1:49
Speaker 2: The American legal system is very different from our own.
1:53
Speaker 2: It has quite a number of elected judges and prosecutors,
1:59
Speaker 2: people who may have other interests. So it is always
2:05
Speaker 2: difficult to have a reciprocal arrangement. But to have one
2:12
Speaker 2: that doesn't allow us to get the benefits of being
2:16
Speaker 2: able to extradide people whom our courts need is of
2:20
Speaker 2: course unacceptable. But the travel here is that Mike Clinch
2:28
Speaker 2: was the most important shareholder and the creator of a
2:34
Speaker 2: very successful software business, and he was hunted by Hewlett Packard.
2:43
Speaker 2: Didn't go to them, they weren't in the business of
2:46
Speaker 2: selling it. But Hewlett Packard came after them and offered them,
2:51
Speaker 2: after considerable due diligence, when everything was open to them,
2:57
Speaker 2: offered them a sum of money which was accepted. Indeed,
3:01
Speaker 2: it was accepted because the shareholders who were other Thanke
3:07
Speaker 2: and he didn't have a majority of those shares. The
3:10
Speaker 2: shareholders thought this was an extremely good deal. It was
3:16
Speaker 2: done by a British firm under British law, and yet
3:23
Speaker 2: Eunitt Packard decided that they would try to have the
3:28
Speaker 2: real trial in the United States. Now, this was after
3:33
Speaker 2: the British Serious Crime Unit, the fraud organization that we
3:41
Speaker 2: have had investigated the claims of Punic Backard and had
3:46
Speaker 2: said there was no case to answer. And then for
3:51
Speaker 2: a year after year after year, Mike Lynch was living
3:57
Speaker 2: under the shadow of being exiting. And it was a
4:02
Speaker 2: shadow because I think it's true that one hundred percent
4:08
Speaker 2: of people who are extradited would be found guilty, and
4:12
Speaker 2: a commercial case like this, indeed, well over ninety percent
4:19
Speaker 2: of people who are had up in this way in
4:22
Speaker 2: the United States are found guilty. Only North Korea has
4:29
Speaker 2: a more universal situation. So you will understand why he
4:35
Speaker 2: was very concerned about this. He was to be taken
4:40
Speaker 2: to an organizer, to a situation in which it was
4:44
Speaker 2: almost impossible for him to win. And the reason they
4:48
Speaker 2: have such a high proportion of success is because people
4:52
Speaker 2: are so frightened of losing that they do plea bargaining.
4:57
Speaker 2: It's a thing we don't know of in Britain. It's
5:01
Speaker 2: really nothing to do with justice. What you do is
5:03
Speaker 2: to say yes, I'm guilty, and you say that because
5:08
Speaker 2: they promised you two years in prison rather than twenty years,
5:13
Speaker 2: or they promise you a fine of one hundred thousand
5:17
Speaker 2: dollars instead of a million dollars, or whatever may be.
5:19
Speaker 2: The deal deal always differs depending on the circumstances of
5:23
Speaker 2: the person concerned. Now, Mike was not prepared to do that.
5:27
Speaker 2: Mike was an honest, decent, straightforward man. His whole life
5:33
Speaker 2: had been spent in being, without doubt, the probably the
5:40
Speaker 2: most remarkable figure in the software industry and the whole
5:46
Speaker 2: of Europe, only in Silicon Valleic if you find people
5:52
Speaker 2: who would compete with him in his abilities. And he
5:56
Speaker 2: wasn't going to say he was guilty because he knew
6:00
Speaker 2: he wasn't. Ultimately, the British came and, in a charmingly
6:07
Speaker 2: informal but still firm way, took him to the airport
6:13
Speaker 2: and accepted the extradition. Now, during all this time, people
6:18
Speaker 2: who knew the case were fighting it not only in
6:21
Speaker 2: the courts but in the public arena. And I, for example,
6:27
Speaker 2: raised it again and again in all sorts of ways,
6:32
Speaker 2: and I'm ashamed that Home secretaries did not say, look,
6:36
Speaker 2: this is just not true, it's just not sensible, and
6:40
Speaker 2: It wasn't just because we felt strongly about Night, although
6:43
Speaker 2: of course one's friendship matter lot. It was also because
6:47
Speaker 2: the Americans are already using their power to get advantage commercially.
6:56
Speaker 2: What they do is to threaten things like me so
7:01
Speaker 2: that people are afraid not to do what they want.
7:06
Speaker 2: They use it to extend American commercial interests. America pretends
7:13
Speaker 2: to be the great free enterprise economy, but of course
7:17
Speaker 2: it is one of the most protective protectionist economies there are,
7:24
Speaker 2: and it's protectionists in two ways. It uses all sorts
7:27
Speaker 2: of excuses to stop people buying businesses in the United States.
7:32
Speaker 2: You can't buy an airline, for example. You can't buy
7:35
Speaker 2: most but very large runners of things because it's called
7:39
Speaker 2: national security. And if it's not there, you are told
7:43
Speaker 2: that you can't export into America for some kind of
7:49
Speaker 2: health reasons. So, for example, no one who grows lemons
7:54
Speaker 2: can export into the United States into any state which
7:59
Speaker 2: is contiguous to a state that grows levels. Now what
8:05
Speaker 2: more protective and protectionist system could you have? So America
8:11
Speaker 2: uses its own internal laws and also its outstretch through
8:16
Speaker 2: tax and through every other way of using laws beyond
8:20
Speaker 2: its own rights to protect its businesses, because in the end,
8:26
Speaker 2: it believes that somehow or other, globalization is actually the
8:31
Speaker 2: extension of American agemony. And so what has happened here
8:36
Speaker 2: is just one example of that. And many of us
8:38
Speaker 2: felt that using the extradition rules in order to powel businesses,
8:46
Speaker 2: which is what it was about, howing the business and
8:51
Speaker 2: Mike thought it. Now, I have to say I had
8:55
Speaker 2: very little hope that he would win, because with those
9:01
Speaker 2: sort of figures last ninety how should he have won.
9:07
Speaker 2: And he won because the case was so clear, it
9:12
Speaker 2: was so clearly proved, and he was so clearly honorable
9:19
Speaker 2: and honest that the jury said that on no single
9:25
Speaker 2: one of the fourteen counts eult aha, dug up, no
9:32
Speaker 2: one of them was he guilty. Now, the sad thing
9:36
Speaker 2: is that Hewlett Packard, we understand, will try to proceed
9:43
Speaker 2: beyond the grave. If you can think of anything more
9:48
Speaker 2: unpleasant or anything that further underlines what I've said about
9:55
Speaker 2: the way America uses these things. So I have three
10:00
Speaker 2: very simple desires. So first of all, to get the
10:04
Speaker 2: law change. We can't go on like this. This is
10:07
Speaker 2: not acceptable. We are a sovereign state and we certainly
10:14
Speaker 2: didn't take back control by a stupidly leaving the European Union.
10:17
Speaker 2: But the facts of the matter is, we do believe
10:20
Speaker 2: that we make our own decisions, and they is no
10:24
Speaker 2: position for a non reciprocal arrangement with anybody. Secondly, there
10:31
Speaker 2: should be no provision with a system which plays into
10:35
Speaker 2: the American legal system, which just isn't like ours. And
10:40
Speaker 2: I'm saying that in the most delicate way, but it
10:43
Speaker 2: certainly isn't like ours. And the third thing is that
10:48
Speaker 2: I hope people will realize that Ulett Packard is not
10:52
Speaker 2: a company with whom one which is to deal, because
10:56
Speaker 2: it's clear that what really happened was that Hewlett Packard
11:01
Speaker 2: bought this company having sorted, as I say, not that
11:04
Speaker 2: it was offered to them, that they wanted it, and
11:07
Speaker 2: then they mucked it up. And that, I'm afraid is
11:11
Speaker 2: one of the problems with some kinds of businesses. They
11:15
Speaker 2: know they can't do it themselves, so they buy something
11:19
Speaker 2: and then they impose on that build business the ways
11:23
Speaker 2: which they run things, and very often those are the
11:27
Speaker 2: very reasons why they've not been able to do this themselves.
11:31
Speaker 2: And I fear and I begin to sound rather anti
11:34
Speaker 2: American I'm not at all, but I fear that American
11:38
Speaker 2: companies are very often like that. Some are not. I've
11:42
Speaker 2: got a very good example where I must cause has
11:45
Speaker 2: brought a business near where I live, and it's been
11:50
Speaker 2: absolutely remarkable. It has recognized that it was a really
11:55
Speaker 2: good business. It has allowed it to continue as it was,
11:59
Speaker 2: but it will provide I did the money which was
12:02
Speaker 2: necessary for this expansion, which is exactly how you should
12:06
Speaker 2: deal with these things. But I'm afraid Purreit Packard, in
12:11
Speaker 2: order to save the face of senior management, decided that
12:15
Speaker 2: they would pursue Mike Lynch in particular. Now, Mike Lynch
12:24
Speaker 2: had a few days literally of release and relief, relief
12:30
Speaker 2: from his terrible audience just a few days, and was
12:35
Speaker 2: then dropped. I have to say that if I were
12:40
Speaker 2: running Purit Packard, I would understand perfectly well that this
12:44
Speaker 2: is the moment in which you remove yourself from this
12:48
Speaker 2: whole side. And if they don't, then I for one
12:55
Speaker 2: will never buy anything from them.
13:00
Speaker 1: Indeed, I think you've made your position clear on that,
13:04
Speaker 1: and I think there's a number of things to pick
13:06
Speaker 1: out from that sort of opening statement. Just to go
13:11
Speaker 1: back to the way in which the law could or
13:14
Speaker 1: should be changed. Of course, you're talking about the extradition
13:16
Speaker 1: at two thousand and three, which was effectively crafted by
13:20
Speaker 1: the then Blair government. To what extent do you consider
13:24
Speaker 1: it the case that, in fact the sort of nine
13:27
Speaker 1: principles by which any situation should be judged were simply failed.
13:33
Speaker 1: And I think the two I'm really thinking of our
13:36
Speaker 1: excessive delay, because of course this took place twelve years
13:40
Speaker 1: after the deal had effectively gone through, and then also
13:43
Speaker 1: forum in that if justice could be served by a
13:47
Speaker 1: trial in the United Kingdom, then it should have done.
13:50
Speaker 1: And so is it a case that the law should
13:54
Speaker 1: be done away with and reinvented, or simply that what
13:57
Speaker 1: is written down should actually be adhered to correctly.
14:01
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think that this is a law between equals,
14:08
Speaker 2: and I think what you've just said shows that the
14:12
Speaker 2: truth is that when push came to show, the British
14:16
Speaker 2: government was not prepared to enforce those two principles. And
14:22
Speaker 2: I fear that British governments very often aren't. Because the
14:28
Speaker 2: Americans bring pressure to bear unconnected with this particular agreement.
14:35
Speaker 2: What they do is to remind Britain about the special
14:38
Speaker 2: relationship on military matters and all sorts of other things.
14:42
Speaker 2: They constantly use the strength of the mightiest country on earth,
14:51
Speaker 2: and people give way. So I fear that whatever you
14:57
Speaker 2: do to the act in order to make it more
15:02
Speaker 2: likely that governments will stand by those elements, the more
15:08
Speaker 2: that you have to doubt whether they will be brave enough.
15:12
Speaker 2: And so I come back to the matter of principle.
15:16
Speaker 2: I'm in favor of reciprocal arrangements for extradition, but they
15:23
Speaker 2: have to have two elements. First of all, they have
15:26
Speaker 2: to be reciprocal, and secondly, the rules have got to
15:32
Speaker 2: be of a sort that mean that neither side is
15:36
Speaker 2: prepared to lean on the other, because otherwise it will
15:40
Speaker 2: cease to be a reciprocal arrangement. In other words, you
15:46
Speaker 2: can keep things like those elements you raised if the
15:51
Speaker 2: United States knows that not only would we insist on
15:57
Speaker 2: it as far as our people concerned, but we wouldst
16:00
Speaker 2: on it as in terms of our relationships with them.
16:06
Speaker 2: So they would then put themselves into a position in
16:09
Speaker 2: which they would have to use the same things when
16:14
Speaker 2: we asked for reciprocity this way. But you see, they
16:17
Speaker 2: wouldn't we know, they wouldn't So my answer is no
16:22
Speaker 2: recip no agreement with that reciprocity. We both to it. Now,
16:26
Speaker 2: the awful thing is that the Americans said they couldn't
16:30
Speaker 2: give reciprocity because their constitution did not allow it. Well,
16:37
Speaker 2: what the places are we doing having reciprocity with a
16:40
Speaker 2: country that won't do it with us on the basis
16:43
Speaker 2: that their constitution, in order to protect the freedom of
16:47
Speaker 2: its people, doesn't allow it. Well, if their constitution doesn't
16:52
Speaker 2: allow it, our unwritten constitution shouldn't allow it.
16:57
Speaker 1: Absolutely fair enough, and I think beyond that really, from
17:01
Speaker 1: certainly from the way you've described the situation at the start,
17:04
Speaker 1: in actual fact, it looks much more like the leavers
17:07
Speaker 1: really are being pulled by corporations rather than governments. So
17:11
Speaker 1: even if there were reciprocity, what by what mechanism are
17:17
Speaker 1: corporate interests checked as it were in the within political
17:22
Speaker 1: sort of circles.
17:24
Speaker 2: Well, the truth is that Britain has many faiths, but
17:29
Speaker 2: in general corporate interests are much less powerful, and in
17:36
Speaker 2: America corporate interests are much more powerful. And you see
17:41
Speaker 2: that very clear. First of all, you see it in
17:45
Speaker 2: the way in which corporations engage in elections. Never be
17:52
Speaker 2: allowed to use your money in the way that Elon
17:56
Speaker 2: Musk is using is now in the American elections in
18:00
Speaker 2: the United Kingdom. And secondly, you know it when you
18:03
Speaker 2: see a company like x On Mobile, which managed by
18:07
Speaker 2: using money to hold up the battle against climate change
18:11
Speaker 2: for some twenty years, even though its own scientists that
18:16
Speaker 2: this is after all public knowledge, its own scientists had
18:20
Speaker 2: shown that climate change was happening and that it was
18:26
Speaker 2: the use of fossil fuels that were making it. For
18:29
Speaker 2: twenty years, they kept America from taking the steps that
18:35
Speaker 2: it ought to take, which is the reason that it's
18:37
Speaker 2: going to cost us a great deal more money, be
18:40
Speaker 2: very much more painful in order to battle for our
18:43
Speaker 2: own existence because of x On Mobile. That is what
18:48
Speaker 2: happens in America. So the reciprocity becomes not only a
18:53
Speaker 2: lack of reciprocity with the government, but it means that
18:57
Speaker 2: we have a non reciprocal region with American big business.
19:03
Speaker 2: We're very interested in protecting their own position.
19:09
Speaker 1: And just to sort of go back towards Mike Lynch
19:14
Speaker 1: and what he became subsequently involved in, which which was
19:18
Speaker 1: at least from the funding point of view and advisory,
19:21
Speaker 1: Dark Trace which deals with cyber security in the AI dimension.
19:27
Speaker 1: Now that the setup and the continuing conduct of that
19:32
Speaker 1: company is very very closely aligned with the intelligence and
19:36
Speaker 1: security architecture of the United Kingdom, how do you perceive
19:41
Speaker 1: that relationship in terms of its correctness? I suppose, for
19:45
Speaker 1: want of a better term.
19:48
Speaker 2: Well, I am not as familiar with the post arrangements
19:55
Speaker 2: that I am with the ones we have been talking about.
20:00
Speaker 2: I merely say that dark Trace owes a huge amount
20:06
Speaker 2: to that brilliance that we've now lost. That the contribution
20:13
Speaker 2: to British economy as well as security that Mike Lynch
20:19
Speaker 2: as an individual made was absolutely outstanding. And even if
20:27
Speaker 2: we hadn't lost a friend, even if we hadn't lost
20:31
Speaker 2: somebody who was economically valuable to us, we've lost somebody
20:35
Speaker 2: who's led the British software industry and our understanding of
20:42
Speaker 2: modern technology in a way which no one else hath
20:45
Speaker 2: So we've lost somebody who made one of the biggest
20:49
Speaker 2: contributions to our nation of anybody in the last thirty years.
20:55
Speaker 2: So we all stand up for him and the way
20:59
Speaker 2: in which he was Bye organizations like that praise or
21:05
Speaker 2: to be looked at the lyperfully because they owe everything
21:11
Speaker 2: to him, just as Hewlett Packard could have owned a
21:16
Speaker 2: great deal to him if they'd known how to run
21:20
Speaker 2: that business.
21:22
Speaker 1: Absolutely, no, something that's rather more sensitive. But I think
21:29
Speaker 1: it must be asked. Given the circumstances that you've described,
21:33
Speaker 1: the backdrop too, and the situations surrounding the deaths of
21:40
Speaker 1: first of all Stephen Chamberlain, then Mike Lynch and associates
21:45
Speaker 1: aboard the Bayesian coincidence, it must be said, does seem
21:50
Speaker 1: like the least lausible explanation. What do you think about that?
21:58
Speaker 2: Oh? Well, I have a few that says that fate
22:03
Speaker 2: sometimes deals the most amazing of BTh. You really don't
22:08
Speaker 2: have to go very far into district to see the
22:10
Speaker 2: most amazing things happen. People avoid wars via a whipstitch,
22:18
Speaker 2: create wars by the tiniest of decisions. I think there
22:23
Speaker 2: is nothing to say that this is anything other than
22:27
Speaker 2: a coincidence. But it is a verifying and terrible coincidence,
22:32
Speaker 2: And of course it leaves deeply wounded people behind. And
22:39
Speaker 2: what an awful thing to happen to the daughter who
22:43
Speaker 2: had just got into Oxford, who had a beautiful future
22:49
Speaker 2: ahead of her, was a lovely girl, as well as
22:53
Speaker 2: somebody who had another thirty or maybe forty years even
22:58
Speaker 2: of the contribution to Britain, and those other people who
23:05
Speaker 2: were on that boat too, who were people who were
23:10
Speaker 2: making real contributions to life. I feel very deeply sad,
23:16
Speaker 2: and of course for the dead, but even more so
23:20
Speaker 2: for those who are now living and have to live
23:23
Speaker 2: with what has happened. But I think what happened was
23:26
Speaker 2: genuinely a coincidence.
23:30
Speaker 1: And just to sort of tie that off, to what
23:33
Speaker 1: degree do you have confidence in any investigation into death
23:37
Speaker 1: on both sides of the well, sorry, both sides of
23:42
Speaker 1: the Mediterranean, I suppose, I should say, but the UK
23:45
Speaker 1: and indeed the Sicilian investigation.
23:50
Speaker 2: Oh, I've seen no reason to be other than sure
23:54
Speaker 2: of the British one, and I think the Italian one
23:57
Speaker 2: is probably likely to be perfect butt of no reason
24:01
Speaker 2: to criticize that. I'm not somebody who goes around being
24:08
Speaker 2: suggesting that there are all sorts of hidden businesses at work.
24:15
Speaker 2: I know which ones are at work. This is why
24:18
Speaker 2: I quoted a number of them. Those are real objective
24:22
Speaker 2: throbn things. I don't think we need to get into
24:27
Speaker 2: any kind of view of hidden hands to deal with
24:35
Speaker 2: this case. There are no hidden hands. I think there
24:38
Speaker 2: is the absolutely direct hand of American business determined to
24:43
Speaker 2: get what it wants at any cost of anybody. And
24:48
Speaker 2: that is not a thing that we should have in
24:51
Speaker 2: this work, and it's not a thing that Britain should
24:54
Speaker 2: be complicit in. And that is why I blame two
24:59
Speaker 2: home sect are not actually saying no not here, And
25:05
Speaker 2: particularly when we had had a case in Britain of
25:10
Speaker 2: someone prosecuted and found guilty of dangerous driving driving with
25:17
Speaker 2: that duke kept I think dangerous driving in fact, who
25:21
Speaker 2: managed just to sit in the United States and saying
25:23
Speaker 2: she wasn't coming. We knew from an absolutely clear example
25:31
Speaker 2: which had meant the death of a young man. We
25:34
Speaker 2: knew that this agreement was entirely one sided and entirely unacceptable,
25:42
Speaker 2: and we should have chosen used any opportunity to make
25:47
Speaker 2: sure that it didn't mean that Mike was exported to
25:52
Speaker 2: America the stand.
25:53
Speaker 1: Trial absolutely no. Tell me then, with all this in mind,
25:58
Speaker 1: how do you push your campaign forward on the extradition front.
26:02
Speaker 1: What is your plan in the immediate future to deal
26:05
Speaker 1: with this?
26:06
Speaker 2: Well? Hoping to liaise with David Davis and the House Commons.
26:11
Speaker 2: He's been extremely good in the House Commons. It's a
26:14
Speaker 2: thing that both houses will have to try to put together.
26:18
Speaker 2: We have tried to try to use as much of
26:21
Speaker 2: our efforts as possible. It's not going to be easy,
26:25
Speaker 2: because the moment that a government thinks of doing it,
26:31
Speaker 2: then all those pressures are turned on them. I mean,
26:36
Speaker 2: after all, we went to war in Iraq when it
26:41
Speaker 2: should never have been because a government speared saying to
26:48
Speaker 2: the United States we won't. I've always honored those prime
26:57
Speaker 2: ministers who have stood up and said no. We were saved,
27:01
Speaker 2: after all from being at war in Vietnam because a
27:05
Speaker 2: British prime minister said no. And I voted myself against
27:12
Speaker 2: the war in Iraq, and it was quite clear that
27:18
Speaker 2: all that was happening was that Tony Blair was proposing
27:22
Speaker 2: something because it was what the Americans wanted. I think
27:26
Speaker 2: if he had said no, first of all, there would
27:31
Speaker 2: have been no parliamentary backing for it because his party
27:35
Speaker 2: would not have been whipped. And I think if you
27:40
Speaker 2: said no, there might well never have been that war
27:43
Speaker 2: in Iraq, which was so disastrous and left us with
27:46
Speaker 2: a mess which we are still having to clear up.
27:51
Speaker 2: So we have to be willing to be.
27:53
Speaker 1: Independent, and no, we are there a generation away from
27:59
Speaker 1: that time, with the width of conscription and talk about
28:04
Speaker 1: national service in the air, with the apparently looming threat
28:09
Speaker 1: from either Russia or Iran or goodness ans, where else
28:13
Speaker 1: do you see that there is a realistic chance of
28:16
Speaker 1: becoming involved within a kinetic action in the next couple
28:20
Speaker 1: of years.
28:23
Speaker 2: Well, I think one of the problems that we've now
28:25
Speaker 2: got is that we have a situation in which is
28:28
Speaker 2: the American If the American election goes one way, then
28:33
Speaker 2: the United States will be saying things which are quite
28:37
Speaker 2: inimical to a proper association between US in Europe. And
28:45
Speaker 2: then it seems to be perfectly reasonable for futative presidents
28:50
Speaker 2: to talk about the world in a way which we
28:53
Speaker 2: would not be able to because of our relationship with
28:57
Speaker 2: the United States. So I think we're in a very
29:01
Speaker 2: difficult position at the moment, let's put it. At the
29:04
Speaker 2: very least, they're in a very difficult position, and we
29:07
Speaker 2: must hope that the United States does recognize how important
29:11
Speaker 2: it is not to go down the false ways of
29:16
Speaker 2: pretending that that the battle in the Ukraine isn't a
29:22
Speaker 2: battle for freedom of all of us, pretending that climate
29:25
Speaker 2: change isn't happening and therefore you don't have to do
29:28
Speaker 2: anything about it, Pretending that you can have a relationship
29:32
Speaker 2: with Russia which condones they're manifestly militaristic and imperialist intentions.
29:44
Speaker 2: That is an impossible position, it seems to me, for
29:47
Speaker 2: the United States to take up. And yet there is
29:49
Speaker 2: one candidate who seems to think, but that's how it
29:51
Speaker 2: should go forward. So we must pray that that doesn't happen.
29:56
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean, I think you know, we'd all be encouraged.
29:59
Speaker 1: There was great effort going into talks of or the
30:03
Speaker 1: pursuit of peace, but we seem to be where we
30:07
Speaker 1: are at the moment. I just we're sort of closing
30:11
Speaker 1: down in terms of time. But what I do want
30:13
Speaker 1: to just deal with, because you've now referred to it
30:16
Speaker 1: a couple of times, and of course until last year
30:18
Speaker 1: you were the chairman of the Climate Change Committee, it
30:23
Speaker 1: is still despite the sort of prevalent narrative, it is
30:27
Speaker 1: still a contentious topic. And I think the particularly the
30:31
Speaker 1: fundamental underpinning of the particularly the pursuit of what's called
30:38
Speaker 1: net zero, and indeed the focus on emissions of carbon dioxide.
30:42
Speaker 1: So what I would ask is is, how do you
30:46
Speaker 1: explain the proposition that approximately three percent of overall emissions
30:54
Speaker 1: of carbon dioxide which are anthropogenic, can affect the climate
30:59
Speaker 1: in such a way that ninety seven percent of biogenic
31:03
Speaker 1: emissions seem not to be able to Well, it's very fact.
31:08
Speaker 2: First of all, I don't say that as for almost
31:11
Speaker 2: every scientist in the world, Every single major scientific institution
31:18
Speaker 2: says that's the first thing. Secondly, historically, we can go
31:24
Speaker 2: back a million years into the ice and you can
31:27
Speaker 2: see that there has never been a time in which
31:32
Speaker 2: the temperature has risen as far as it passed since
31:36
Speaker 2: as it has in the last one hundred and fifty
31:39
Speaker 2: two hundred years since the Industrial Revolution. So, first of all,
31:42
Speaker 2: this is a non analogous situation. Thirdly, if you think
31:48
Speaker 2: about how it is, we know that the earth became
31:52
Speaker 2: cool enough for first of all reptiles, then mammals, then
31:59
Speaker 2: human beings to him, it was because the bushes and
32:03
Speaker 2: trees that also emerged earlier on took out of the
32:06
Speaker 2: atmosphere carbon and laid that carbon down as they died.
32:11
Speaker 2: In what became over the millenniare oil, coal, and gas.
32:17
Speaker 2: No one, no one at all denies that if you
32:21
Speaker 2: then use that and put it back into the atmosphere,
32:26
Speaker 2: it wouldn't be surprising, would it if the atmosphere heats up,
32:30
Speaker 2: given that it got cool when you took it out.
32:33
Speaker 2: So Thirdly, it is quite clear from our scientific understanding
32:38
Speaker 2: of history that this is happening. And the fact of
32:41
Speaker 2: the matter is, no serious scientist now denies climate change.
32:49
Speaker 2: And as you look across the world and see the.
32:51
Speaker 3: Effect of climate change, and you know it never happened
32:56
Speaker 3: before except when we put this carbon into the air,
33:01
Speaker 3: then you be.
33:02
Speaker 2: Frankly, absolutely ridiculous to suggest anything other than this. There
33:10
Speaker 2: is no evidence that counteracts the fact that we are
33:15
Speaker 2: creating climate change. We have to stop doing it, and
33:20
Speaker 2: when we do, we will take a long time to
33:23
Speaker 2: reverse the damage that we are doing. And the terrible
33:27
Speaker 2: thing is that we who have grown rich from what
33:31
Speaker 2: we've done, are giving some of the poorest people on
33:35
Speaker 2: Earth lives which are intolerable because of what we're doing.
33:39
Speaker 2: So there is a battle that's on and I shall
33:42
Speaker 2: go on fighting that battle till my dying day, because
33:46
Speaker 2: I've got ten grandchildren and the sort of world we're
33:49
Speaker 2: leaving them is a world which in which they will
33:54
Speaker 2: find it very difficult to live. And those who suggest
34:00
Speaker 2: that we should not take these steps are the people
34:03
Speaker 2: who are really betraying them. And I've just finished while
34:07
Speaker 2: they're talking about a wonderful comment once which was made
34:10
Speaker 2: to one of these major deniers by Tristan Garel Jones
34:15
Speaker 2: and minister. He said, Look, if those who deny climate
34:21
Speaker 2: change are right, all we've done is to clean up
34:25
Speaker 2: the atmosphere. If they're wrong, we bugger up the future.
34:34
Speaker 2: There's no doubt about where the precautionally principle takes us.
34:38
Speaker 2: But we don't need to do it because of the
34:39
Speaker 2: precautionally principle. We should do it because of the facts.
34:45
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean I would have to agree to disagree,
34:50
Speaker 1: and certainly I would push back on the assertion that
34:52
Speaker 1: all scientists believe the same thing.
34:56
Speaker 2: Well, ninety seven percent of the those who are qualified
35:02
Speaker 2: support what I have said. I'm sorry, you can't say
35:06
Speaker 2: that and be taken seriously. You really can't. I'm not
35:10
Speaker 2: prepared to. So this is not a sensible position.
35:14
Speaker 4: When the head of every single scientific equivalent to the
35:20
Speaker 4: Royal Society says one thing, you are not in a position.
35:24
Speaker 2: To say the opposite and be taken seriously. You can't
35:28
Speaker 2: be taken seriously. And if your organization doesn't see that,
35:31
Speaker 2: then you join the group of people who only don't
35:35
Speaker 2: take it seriously because it's inconvenient. There is no case
35:40
Speaker 2: that you've got. There's nothing else in science that is
35:43
Speaker 2: as sure as this, So really don't expect to be
35:47
Speaker 2: taken seriously.
35:49
Speaker 1: Well, I think I will still continue.
35:53
Speaker 2: Well, I'm very sorry. I mean, it's like it's about
35:59
Speaker 2: a serious position of suggesting, well, something much as that
36:04
Speaker 2: the Hiatians we were eating pet dogs which they were stealing.
36:08
Speaker 2: You've got yourself into that position if you're saying that,
36:11
Speaker 2: you really do, and it's it's not a sensible position
36:14
Speaker 2: to be here.
36:16
Speaker 1: The fundamental question of how a three percent contribution outweighs
36:21
Speaker 1: that of a ninety seven percent contribution to emissions is
36:25
Speaker 1: something that I haven't really heard satisfactorily resolved.
36:27
Speaker 2: Well, you can go to any scientist who is a
36:32
Speaker 2: climatologist and they'll go through it with you. The fact
36:35
Speaker 2: that you are not a scientist of any of that amount,
36:38
Speaker 2: and you say that as it's another of the excuses.
36:41
Speaker 2: It's the one they each one, one by one, they
36:45
Speaker 2: are destroyed. This one has been destroyed. I don't want
36:47
Speaker 2: to go through the total details of it would be
36:49
Speaker 2: a back to us. But the fact of the matter
36:51
Speaker 2: is no serious scientist supports what you've said, and therefore
36:56
Speaker 2: it's look no you. In the end, you have to
37:00
Speaker 2: look for the best advice. And if I want to
37:03
Speaker 2: mend a motor car, I do not ask somebody who
37:08
Speaker 2: sells newspapers or dreams houses, or is an expert on
37:15
Speaker 2: archaeology to tell me how to mend a mentor car.
37:17
Speaker 2: If I want to find out about climatology the climate,
37:21
Speaker 2: I ask people who are experts in the climate. I
37:24
Speaker 2: know of no respectable expert in the cart climate who
37:29
Speaker 2: will support.
37:29
Speaker 1: You for technical reasons beyond the control of either of us.
37:33
Speaker 1: The connection with Lord Debon was lost at that point,
37:37
Speaker 1: and I must make it very clear that it certainly
37:40
Speaker 1: had absolutely nothing to do with the divergence of views
37:44
Speaker 1: towards the end of the conversation. So it just remains
37:47
Speaker 1: for me to thank you the audience very much for
37:50
Speaker 1: joining me, and also thank you to Lord Deban very
37:54
Speaker 1: much for a frank exchange of views and certainly a
37:58
Speaker 1: terrific insight in to the state of play with regard
38:02
Speaker 1: to extradition and in particular the relationship with the United
38:07
Speaker 1: States and indeed the wider corporate interests and influences. There
38:13
Speaker 1: will be notes posted alongside this interview with links at
38:18
Speaker 1: ukcolumn dot org. Thank you very much for watching