=================================================================================== NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY .................................................................................... ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE: 28.11.99 .................................................................................... JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. David Trimble says that the Unionists have done their bit and it's now up to Sinn Fein. I'll be asking Martin McGuinness how they intend to respond. And I'll be asking the Trade Secretary Stephen Byers why the government seems more concerned with free trade than ethical trade. And why should the Scots have the right to know more about what the politicians get up to than the rest of us? That's after the news read by George Alagiah. NEWS HUMPHRYS: Talks on the future of World Trade start this week. I'll be asking the Trade Secretary why Britain isn't backing a more ethical trade policy. And we'll be looking at why people in Scotland are going to be given better access to government information than the rest of the UK. JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first Northern Ireland. David Trimble summed it up in one phrase yesterday "We've done our bit Mr Adams, now it's over to you". It was not the outcome that many people had hoped for. True, the Ulster Unionists agreed to sit in an executive with the old enemy Sinn Fein, so at least devolution can go ahead, but - and it's a very big but - everything now rests on the IRA beginning to get rid of its weapons within the next two months, because the Unionist Council is meeting again in February and if the IRA have not delivered, well then it's over. Mr Trimble has written a post dated letter of resignation and handed it to his party. The chief negotiator for Sinn Fein is Martin McGuinness, he'll be one of the two Sinn Fein ministers in the new government and he's in our Derry studio. Good afternoon Mr McGuinness. MARTIN MCGUINNESS: Good afternoon John. HUMPHRYS: This is what you wanted? MCGUINNESS: Well obviously I am very pleased that the coming days will see the establishment, the creation of the power sharing executive, the all-Ireland administrial council and the All Ireland implementation bodies. I think that that is an important development. Now at the same time I think that I have to express my very grave and serious concern that over the course of the last eleven weeks myself and Gerry Adams and others within the leadership of Sinn Fein have been involved in detailed discussions with the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party and the two governments as to how we can break the impasse and move forward, and of course the result of that were the Mitchell proposals. What I heard emanating from the Waterfront Hall yesterday bears no relation whatsoever to the agreement that we made, so I think that it's important that everybody keeps their word and I think that we all must face forward, we're living in interesting and very hopeful times and I think it's incumbent upon all of us to move forward in a very positive and very constructive frame of mind. Tomorrow is going to be a very, very important day for all the people of Ireland and I believe that we can move forward to create the circumstances which will give us the justice, the equality and the peace that we have long since been denied. HUMPHRYS: So on Thursday the IRA will appoint somebody assuming he or she is not already appointed, but we will know the person who has been appointed on Thursday to liase with General de Chastelaine, who is in charge of the de-commissioning process? MCGUINNESS: Well, they have made a statement to that effect, that they will meet for discussions with General de Chastelaine and it is expected that that will happen in the aftermath of devolution on Thursday and will happen on Thursday yes. HUMPHRYS: And who is that likely to be, could it be you. I hear stories that it might even be you? MCGUINNESS: No, there's no prospect whatsoever of it being me. HUMPHRYS: Why not? MCGUINNESS: Because I'm not a member of the IRA. HUMPHRYS: So we will know the name will we on Thursday? MCGUINNESS: Well I don't know. That's a matter for the IRA. I think that that's really a matter between them and General de Chastelaine. I think we will all have to understand that as the result of the very great efforts of Senator Mitchell and the political leaders and the two governments in the course of recent weeks that we have actually ended up with an agreement, that this issue be given back to the person who should have handled it in the first place, General de Chastelaine, and of course both he and Senator Mitchell have been on the record in stating that the issue of dealing with decommissioning is a collective responsibility. It's a collective responsibility for all the political parties and the two governments. They've also made it quite clear that decommissioning cannot be imposed, that decommissioning must be a voluntary exercise by the armed groups and I think we have to ask ourselves the question whether or not the move made yesterday by the Ulster Unionist Party will make that more easier or more difficult. I tend to think it will make it more difficult. HUMPHRYS: In what sense. I mean are you suggesting that perhaps this process will not begin on Thursday as the result of that? MCGUINNESS: Well, I'm not suggesting that for one minute. I think that there is a sensible way to handle this issue of decommissioning and I believe that from the perspective of the political parties in the two governments there is a golden opportunity now for politicians to take control, to make politics work, to remove all of the injustices, the inequalities, the discriminations..... HUMPHRYS: Indeed. You made that point earlier, but I mean you also said - if I may just intervene, because you did make that point earlier, but you also said that what happened yesterday in Belfast at the Ulster Unionist Council made it more difficult. Well, in what sense more difficult. I mean what we are assuming is that the process will begin, the IRA will nominate somebody and the process will begin on Thursday. Are you casting any doubt on that at all? MCGUINNESS: No, I'm not casting any doubt on it, what I'm saying very clearly is that what happened yesterday at the Waterfront Hall is very clearly outside the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and is most definitely outside the terms of the agreement that we made with Mr Trimble and others in the course of recent days. Now all of that was a very carefully choreographed approach. It was a step by step approach and I think the people have seen this unfold between their eyes. Now, what we need to do as political leaders as we face into what is going to be a very, very important week in the history of this island and for all the people of Ireland, is be very cool, be very calm, very collected, very stoical about how we move forward. HUMPHRYS: So how... MCGUINNESS: .. we in Sinn Fein intend to do all of that, so we now need to see as a matter of urgency, and I expect we will see it in the coming days is the establishment of the institutions and politicians pressing on to implement the agreement that should have been implemented over eighteen months ago. HUMPHRYS: Right. Politicians pressing on, the institutions set up, yes, but how quickly do you expect to see the arrangements on decommissioning agreed between the IRA and General John de Chastelaine? MCGUINNESS: Well I fully expect that the IRA representative will be appointed next Thursday and as far as I am concerned that matter is then a matter between the IRA and indeed all the armed groups and General de Chastelaine. They should be left on their own. From our perspective as politicians, our job is to drive, be the engine of the political process. Our job is to show people on the ground that politics work. Our job is to create the circumstances and conditions which will make it possible for the armed groups to destroy their weaponry or decommission or whatever they want to do in a voluntary way. Now the difficulty about the Ulster Unionist approach is that we have seen over the course of the last eighteen months a very combative, very confrontational, full of ultimatums and demand approach which didn't work. Absolutely clearly did not work. Now the difficulty about the step taken yesterday by the Unionists is that it clearly was not in my opinion a decisive step forward, it was a jump forward to uncertainty. We need to remove that uncertainty, we need to know that there is going to be devolution, that the institutions are going to be created, that they are going to continue and that the politicians are going to work in an honest endeavour to create the conditions which will make it possible for the armed groups to decommission, that is what Sinn Fein is committed to. HUMPHRYS: And Peter Mandelson made it very clear this morning that he expects you and Mr Adams as leaders of the Republican movement to make sure that decommissioning does come about fully. MCGUINNESS: Well the Good Friday Agreement makes it absolutely clear that there is a collective responsibility on all of the participants. There is no singular responsibility on Sinn Fein to deal with this issue but we are absolutely committed to playing our part along with Mr Mandelson, along with Mr Trimble, along with all of the other political leaders to create the conditions which will make it possible for the armed groups to engage on a voluntary act of decommissioning. Now our job in the meantime is to press on with the political process. I think that we also have to consider over the course of the coming weeks and months whether or not it is beneficial raising this issue, this issue of decommissioning over and above all other aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. I think there has been a serious blunder, a serious mistake over the course of the last eighteen months that this issue was allowed to gain the dominant position that it gained. Our job over the coming weeks is to ensure the politics is working and the politicians are doing their job. That's what we're committed to. HUMPHRYS: And to making sure that all weapons are decommissioned by the end of May. MCGUINNESS: Well our policy in Sinn Fein is to remove all of the injustices, all of the inequalities, all of the conflict and all of the guns from Irish politics. Were absolutely committed to achieving that yes. HUMPHRYS: And you would expect to start, you would expect the IRA to start that by the end of January which is what the Ulster Unionists want, perfectly understandably. MCGUINNESS: I expect the Ulster Unionists to keep their word. HUMPHRYS: No, I'm asking you what you expect of the IRA because you are after all connected with the IRA. MCGUINNESS: No, I am not connected to the IRA... HUMPHRYS: Oh come on - you say you're not a member of the IRA fine, but I mean the idea that there is no relationship between you and the IRA is preposterous isn't it. MCGUINNESS: Well I mean this is the old debate, the old agenda. Let's not get into that.. HUMPHRYS: ..that's why I'm trying to get over it... MCGUINNESS: ..let's deal with the reality of what I expect over the course of the coming days.. HUMPHRYS: ..yes I am asking you what you expect, precisely. MCGUINNESS: I expect General de Chastelaine to do his job. I expect General de Chastelaine to be allowed to do his job. I expect David Trimble not to interfere in that process and I expect David Trimble to work with the rest of us to create the conditions which will make is possible for the armed groups to decommission under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement - that's our job. HUMPHRYS: Exactly, so you want, you personally as a leader of the Republican Movement, you want the IRA to begin decommissioning by the end of January. That is what you want? MCGUINNESS: Well I am committed to making the Good Friday Agreement work in all its aspects...... HUMPHRYS: So the answer's yes...... MCGUINNESS: Nobody...let nobody be under any doubt or illusion about all of that. The question for us is whether or not as political leaders we can accomplish that. We have seen eighteen months of failure. Now, I'm not into recriminating about all of that, I think that we are on the threshold of a far far more hopeful age in the history of the island of Ireland. HUMPHRYS: So do you believe you can accomplish that, that is to say the IRA beginning to decommission by the end of January? Do you believe that can be accomplished? MCGUINNESS: Well that's a responsibility, a collective responsibility for all of the parties. It's totally and absolutely wrong for people to put that question in terms of what Sinn Fein can deliver, in terms of what Gerry Adams...... HUMPHRYS: I'm asking whether you believe it will happen? MCGUINNESS: Our job collectively, Mr Mandelson, Mr Trimble, all of the other parties - our job is to create the conditions which will make it possible for the armed groups to decommission.. HUMPHRYS: ..so is it possible it won't happen? MCGUINNESS: Can we be successful? - I believe that if we implement in good faith the Good Friday Agreement that it is possible to achieve that objective but, you know, the jury is out on where the Unionists are at. I give them credit for the decision that they took yesterday but I think that people should not under any circumstances enter new elements into this that have not been agreed between us in the course of our discussions in recent days. HUMPHRYS: So there is a possibility, this is what you're saying to me, so I am quite clear, there is a possibility that is will not happen. Is that what you're saying? MCGUINNESS: No that's not what I'm saying. I am looking forward to success, to the successful implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement and I am working to that end. Now I believe that my primary responsibility at this time is to make politics work, is for politicians to seize control. I do think, and I think it is important to point out, that I think that the approach adopted over the course of the last eighteen months in dealing with this issue of decommissioning from the Unionist side has been detrimental to the objective they say they wish to achieve. So our responsibility I think is to point out to the Unionists that there's a sensible way to proceed here. Let's not fill this full of ultimatum and demand because if it does it makes our job all the more difficult. HUMPHRYS: Right, let me ask you, just a few seconds left if I may, are you worried about splinter group, people who have splintered away from the IRA over the years? The INLA, the Real IRA, Continuity IRA, some disaffected Provisionals - are you worried that they may get together and make trouble? MCGUINNESS: Well I mean it is well known that there are people who reject the approach that Gerry Adams and I and others within the Sinn Fein leadership have adopted over the course of the last number of years but the reality is that they don't represent anybody. The reality is that we can say without fear of contradiction that we in Sinn Fein and the SDLP and the Irish government do on this occasion absolutely represent the entire nationalist community on the island of Ireland. I believe that anybody who has intention whatsoever of usurping the democratic wishes of those people are making a serious mistake. HUMPHRYS: Martin McGuinness thank you very much indeed. HUMPHRYS: This weekend ministers from around the world are on their way to Seattle to talk about trade. Politicians from the world's richest countries tend to say that free trade is a good thing... full stop. But there will be many thousands of protesters in Seattle who believe there is a balance to be struck between FREE trade and ETHICAL trade and we've got it wrong. As Paul Wilenius reports, what is decided at the World Trade Organisation is crucial for the prosperity of nations and even the world's environment. PAUL WILENIUS: The tension is rising. The supporters of free trade are preparing to meet their opponents in a clash at the World Trade Talks in Seattle this week. Both sides are wary and nervous. The big guys are backing unfettered free trade, to ensure prosperity in the new Millennium. But the others fear it brings with it the evils of environmental destruction, labour exploitation and unsafe food. And a hundred thousand demonstrators will be there to watch the contest. JOAN WALLEY MP: I think there is going to be a big battle because I think that so many of the environmental organisations particularly are concerned about the way that so called free trade is going and they want to see a level playing field. ALAN SIMPSON MP: Civil movements, consumer movements, environmental movements, women's movements, the churches are coming together across national frontiers and confronting the Goliath. WILENIUS: Trade Secretary Stephen Byers is determined to fight for free trade in Seattle, as he sees it as a clear opportunity for Britain. He wants to make it easier for countries to trade with each other, with no barriers to business. But critics fear this favours big multinational companies and is bad for poorer countries and the environment. Trade is the lifeblood of the world economy, and it has grown sixteen fold since the war. These massive container ships arriving in Felixstowe show the business and prosperity it brings to Britain. The World Trade Organisation was set up in 1995 to establish global trade rules, by cutting tariff and other barriers to trade. RICHARD BATE: Free trade is important for countries around the world, it improves their prosperity, it improves their opportunities for their manufacturing industries to grow and expand and it brings in more money to the population of the country so it raises living standards for the population of the countries concerned. WILENIUS: But critics say something has gone wrong. Instead of lifting the prosperity of Third World countries, they argue that World Trade Organisation rules mean the big western multinational companies are overpowering poorer economies of the world such as the Caribbean banana producers . BARRY COATES: Some developing countries have done okay, but it's mainly the ones that have played the system, that have imposed some restrictions on trade in order to build up their domestic economy. Now, exactly those measures are being ruled out under the WTO, and what we see is that what's on offer from the EU at the World Trade Organisation talks is a recipe for more of the same; For the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, more power to multinational companies, and we're calling for the EU to change its position. WILENIUS: The frenetic activity here at Felixstowe shows the importance of global trade. But now many Western governments and powerful companies want more. A recent attempt to deliver an investment agreement ended in failure. But now it's feared they will use the trade talks to get new freedoms to invest in the Third World, and grab public contracts in the name of free trade. COATES: Now the previous agreement, called the Multi-Lateral Agreement on Investment or MAI , wanted to open up countries' restrictions, to mean that multi-nationals had a right of establishment, particularly in developing countries. And furthermore the governments couldn't impose restrictions on what multinationals could do in their countries. And we're very worried about this because the whole emphasis of this agreement is on new rights for multinationals and new protection for multinationals. WILENIUS: Some say there's an even darker side to free trade. Several countries would like to be able to ban products from developing countries where working conditions are poor and even include child labour. In the past, the Labour Party had promised to bring a social clause into world trade. But now Stephen Byers is trying to keep the whole thorny issue of labour standards well away from trade rules. WALLEY: I think everyone's concerned about child labour. It shouldn't have a part in a civilised society. It's obviously of concern to many people, obviously of concern to the United Nations and someone's got to tackle it. And it strikes me that if we can't address this through the World Trade Organisation at the time when we are setting ground rules for future trade negotiations, who else really does have the power to take this on board. SIMPSON: If the Seattle Round went ahead and excluded any addressing of issues about child labour, minimum labour standards, environmental responsibilities and health and safety obligations, it wouldn't be a disappointment, it would be a disaster. WILENIUS: One of the biggest battles in Seattle will be over the environment. In recent years the World Trade Organisation has overturned a number of attempts to curb trade that harms the environment. And the fear is, whenever there is a clash, green issues will lose out. Critics argue that the World Trade Organisation has a poor record on the environment. In the past it has backed free trade at the expense of measures to protect endangered species. Now many want environmental protection enshrined in world trade rules. When they're shopping, millions of Britons worry about what they buy, opting for eco-friendly goods. This timber sold is produced from sustainable forests, which means all trees felled are replaced. But these strict forestry standards could be threatened by a move from the Americans, who want the WTO to open up markets to more forestry products. HALL: What we can expect to see is governments with companies behind them lobbying to reduce tariffs and increase trade in forest products, such as plywood and paper for example. And we're concerned that this will lead to an increase in consumption of forests. We're also extremely worried that once forests are brought into the world trade organisation, that any measures that people or countries take to protect or promote sustainable forestry, such as labelling to tell you what kind of timber you're buying, will then be threatened by trade rules and could be challenged in the WTO. WILENIUS: Choosing between free trade and the environment will not be easy. British Ministers say they back green trade policies, but sceptics fear that business will win out over ecology. And not enough will be done to stop environmental agreements being undermined. Environmental campaigners are concerned they may have very little to take home with them, when the talks finally end. MAYBEE: Well the first thing the WTO should do to protect the environment is stop over-ruling environmental decisions, made by national countries and by international treaties. They're the experts, they're the ones who care about the environment, they should be responsible for decisions. SIMPSON: That's what the environmental movement, globally, is demanding out of Seattle, that we take the environmental commitments that we've made as fine sounding phrases and we turn them into binding obligations. And if we don't come out of the Seattle Round with that, and that alone, then it will be a disaster. WILENIUS: Perhaps the most hard fought issue of all will be agriculture. In the past it's been kept out of the trade talks. Now there's pressure to cut back European farm subsidies, but some fear this could deal a heavy blow to standards of animal welfare. The UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. The pigs on this farm in Suffolk are allowed to roam freely and to bed down on straw. They're reared by farmer David Barker. He's deeply worried that high animal welfare standards make British farmers uncompetitive in the global market place. He fears that imports of cheap pig meat from the United States could wipe out the already troubled British pig industry. DAVID BARKER: It costs us around eighty pence per kilo to produce pig meat, but when you look at the systems in America the large concrete farms, no straw , poor welfare, cheap labour, genetically modified maize and soya, they probably can produce that quantity at about sixty pence a kilo, they can undercut us to the tune of about twenty pence, because the differential is our higher welfare and our animal feed standards. WILENIUS: Many feel there is more to farming than pure profit. HALL: We certainly think that agriculture in the North and South is such an important function for human communities, that it's very important to provide support and incentives to promote the many different roles of agriculture. We don't believe that free trade in agricultural products would be a good idea and we don't think that it would benefit people or the environment. WILENIUS: But there is one area where the little guys have hit back at the large global corporation - that's on food. For decades the big multinational companies have been growing stronger, putting their opponents on the back foot. It's been an unequal contest. But now governments in the west are being forced to take more account of consumer power. New food products like this Genetically Modified oil seed rape have alarmed consumers in Britain. There's already been direct action against similar fields of GM crops and farmer Bob Fidiman is worried the crop trial on his farm near Hemel Hempstead in Hertfordshire could be ripped up by protestors. After BSE he understands consumer concerns. BOB FIDIMAN: We are all aware of how that affected our consumers and it is because of that, that it has given credence to the scare of maybe what are the public eating in their food. WILENIUS: Despite consumer worries, the WTO is determined to stop countries banning products like GM food as a precaution, unless there's hard evidence it's harmful. MAYBEE: One of the key reforms is to get the WTO to recognise what every other part of international law recognises which is the issue of the precautionary principle. It allows governments to say, this issue is not known about, we're going to take a decision to ban or stop something, in the safety of the public while we learn about its consequences. And learning about its consequences could take twenty years in the case of issues like releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment. WILENIUS: European governments believe that GM crops must be properly labelled when they are sold to the consumer on the open market. But there are fears the WTO could rule that even this is a barrier to free trade. COATES: There's a dispute that's likely to happen in the WTO very soon over the EU's requirement that the Genetically Modified content of food should be labelled as such. The US is saying this is a restraint on trade but I think consumers should have the right to know what's in their food. BENNETT: I certainly think that we should be making sure that the consumer has all the information they need on labelling. So I think it's very important that labelling, particularly of food products, particularly whether there are genetically modified ingredients in them, is clearly there so that the consumer can make absolute choices. WILENIUS: In this global contest, the critics of free trade are getting stronger. The demonstrators in Seattle are helping to put pressure on Western governments to develop a more ethical trade policy. BENNETT: The British government has to push for an ethical trade policy in which you take into account considerations other than just free trade. The world is far too important for us just to allow it to be run as a trading organisation. WILENIUS: So the problem for western governments is to show they can pursue an ethical trade policy. Because if they won't, they may find their own consumers and voters turning against them. Then the big global players like Britain may find the little guy really can hit back. JOHN HUMPHRYS: Stephen Byers, you should be arguing for fairer trade rather than freer trade shouldn't you? STEPHEN BYERS: I'd go along with that and I think when we get to Seattle the United Kingdom can play a very constructive role to bridge the divides that that film has just shown and there are many issues where I think we can be very constructive and we can take a lead. HUMPHRYS: Let's take child labour: Free trade means that a country can sell goods made with child labour, what we would define as child labour. You don't actually want to change the rules within the WTO to stop that do you? BYERS: Well we do and we'll be proposing the setting up of a new forum where we can involve both the World Trade Organisation and the International Labour Organisation that has responsibility for core labour standards. We believe by bringing them together we can look at trade liberalisation and core labour standards in the same forum, bringing the two together. HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but that's not saying the same as changing the rules within the WTO. You want a separate clause, you want a separate outfit to put this thing together which isn't quite the same is it? BYERS: Well there's a separate outfit at the moment which is the International Labour Organisation so we have these two bodies......... HUMPHRYS: ..... not as powerful as the WTO in this respect...... BYERS: .... Well there are two bodies - the World Trade Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. The two are quite separate at the moment. We recognise that greater trade liberalisation will have an impact on Labour standards so what we need to do is to get those two international organisations together. We're proposing a standing working forum which will do that so you begin to get people to discuss the implications of increased trade and the effect it may have on labour standards. Now the real difficulty we've got is that many of the developing countries see this development as potentially a protectionist measure to deny them access to the important markets in the West so what we need to do is to take them on board and we think by having this joint group it may be a way of doing that. HUMPHRYS: But a couple of years ago you were quite clear about this in your policy document that accompanied your manifesto, you said ,We will call for a social clause to be added to international trading agreements.' That's not what you're saying now it is? BYERS: Well the issue is how we can achieve that. HUMPHRYS: You were quite clear about it two years ago. BYERS: Well the World Trade Organisation operates on the basis of consensus with a hundred and thirty-four nations in membership. If any one of those objects then we can't go ahead with our proposal so it's not within our gift John to say there must be a social clause...... HUMPHRYS: ....It's your gift to argue for it..... BYERS: We are. We're the ones who actually have taken the initiative. We've got the European Union to agree the idea that the WTO and the International Labour Organisation can work together in this joint forum. We've taken the initiative to do that. HUMPHRYS: Yeah but the point is that some countries want it written into WTO rules, that's the important point isn't it? BYERS: Sure. But you only need one country to say no and the whole thing grinds to a halt. So on the one hand we've got people who are arguing a very fundamentalist position saying we've got to have a social clause in all trade agreements...... HUMPHRYS: ..... which was your position..... BYERS: .... Which was our position but we've got other countries, India particularly is arguing that that would not be appropriate so somehow we've got to bring the two together and the key role that I think the United Kingdom can play in Seattle is to be a bridge between those sort of fundamental positions. I think we can do it over core labour standards in the hope that we can achieve our objective which is to recognise that the two do go together and we can do it in other areas as well. HUMPHRYS: But it is backing away from your original much more hard line position. BYERS: No, it's how we can achieve it in practice and I think being in government shows there are practical means to achieve it, not gesture politics, the easiest thing in the world......... HUMPHRYS: Was that a gesture then in '97? BYERS: No. The easiest thing in the world...a statement of where we wanted to be.... The easiest thing in the world is to say that and continue to say it knowing full well that it cannot be achieved because people will walk away from the negotiating table. The initiative we've taken now bringing the rest of Europe with us to say let's get the two international bodies together in a joint standing forum, that is a way by which we may be able to achieve that objective. HUMPHRYS: Okay, well let's look at the environment. The way the WTO operates at the moment undermines efforts in all sorts of directions to protect the environment, that is the case is it not? BYERS: I agree with that. I agree absolutely. HUMPHRYS: So why therefore are we not taking a tougher line? BYERS: What we need to do, and we're going to be proposing in Seattle as well that we get on the agenda the effect that free trade will have on the environment. At the moment there's a real issue here which is there are these things called multi-lateral environmental agreements and there's the World Trade Organisation rules. I don't think that the rules of the WTO are clear enough in relation to the environmental agreements and one of the things that we want to get on the agenda at Seattle is a recognition that the WTO needs to clarify its own rules in relation to the environment, to be far more supportive and to recognise environmental concerns which do exist. HUMPHRYS: Well you say supportive. Should they not be subordinated, the WTO rules? Should they not be subordinated to international environmental agreements? BYERS: They don't have to be incompatible. I think we can have.......... HUMPHRYS: ...... they are, sometimes they are as you've acknowledged..... BYERS: .... Well at the moment they are and we've got a real problem with the way in which the rules of the WTO operate. I mean I think they're unclear to be honest in relation to how they impact on multi-lateral environmental agreements and one of the initiatives that we'll be taking in Seattle is to say - 'look we've got to recognise that the rules at the moment are not clear enough as far as the environment is concerned. Growing trade potentially could have damaging effects on the environment and so we do need to get it as part of the negotiations.' HUMPHRYS: So you're standing by your position which was, and I quote again from the document, 'we will call for international environmental treaties to be exempt from challenges under the WTO.' That is your position? BYERS: What we'll be saying in Seattle is we need to clarify the WTO rules. HUMPHRYS: It's not quite the same as what I've just quoted you is it? BYERS: If I can explain what we'll be doing this coming week. What we need to do is to clarify the rules of the WTO so that they are not, if you like, more powerful and they can't override the multi-lateral environmental agreements that may be reached as far as particular countries or particular projects are concerned. HUMPHRYS: Right so they will be, let's be quite clear about it, they will be subordinate to them? BYERS: No, I mean I can't predict how the negotiations will.. HUMPHRYS: But that's what you want. I mean of course in every case you can't make any predictions because as you say a lot of countries are involved but I'm looking to explore the British position and our position is that we want the rules to be subordinate to environmental protection. BYERS: I want a member country of the WTO, if they are developing their own environmental approach, to be able to say no to a particular proposal if it conflicts with their own environmental policies. Now we need to find a way of monitoring that because you could get countries using that for protectionist reasons and that's always the problem that we do face. HUMPHRYS: Ah but you see this is the point isn't it. That's exactly the issue here, whenever that comes up the WTO says: yeah, protectionist - can't have it. And the WTO tends to be, as it were, the supreme body in these matters. What you are saying is you don't want that to be the case. BYERS: I want to find a mechanism by which we can arbitrate whether or not there is a genuine environmental concern which then will need to be addressed as opposed to a country that puts up environmental issues but purely as a protectionist measure. Now we need to find a way of arbitrating between the two but the UK government's position is very clear - if there is a genuine environmental case which is made then that should not be overridden by the rules of the WTO. HUMPHRYS: Right, but so long as the WTO is allowed to rule on these issues it will rule in favour of trade won't it. BYERS: Well what we need to do is to ensure that when we discuss these in Seattle that we can make this clear distinction. If it's genuine trade then fine, provided people are not putting up environmental concerns for protectionist reasons but if there is a genuine environmental reason why a country is adopting particular policies, then that should be protected and it shouldn't be overridden by the WTO. HUMPHRYS: Exactly, it can't be left to the WTO because we know which way it would go. BYERS: Well no because what we need to do..this is the rules based approach, we need to change the way in which the WTO will look at these matters. HUMPHRYS: In other words, trim its powers in effect. Putting it very simply. BYERS: No, the important thing to remember about the WTO is that a hundred and thirty-four states are in membership. Any one of them can block a development, it works on the basis of consensus. It is unique in terms of these international organisations... HUMPHRYS: Some are more equal than others. BYERS: I think the big thing we will see in Seattle is a fundamental shift in global politics because for the first time the least developed countries and those developing countries have got their act together, they are going to be confident, they are going to be self-assertive and I think they will be arguing for their own particular policies. It will be the first time we've seen that. HUMPHRYS: Well let's look at how that might then effect food. I mean at the moment it is very difficult for a country, as we have found ourselves, to ban foreign food on safety grounds. I mean we don't like - Europe didn't like hormone stuffed beef coming in from America so we said we don't want that, a great row then with America, America goes to the WTO, the WTO says you can't do that, sanctions and so on. That's not right is it. BYERS: It's got to be a scientifically based approach and that's what we are arguing. And at the moment you are absolutely right again, I mean the WTO is not a perfect organisation and needs to change and one of the things I'll be doing in Seattle is arguing the case for reform and modernisation of the WTO. It's crucial that that happens and one of the things that we need to look at very carefully is the situation where there is conflict over scientific advice in relation to food safety. I mean what does happen for example if the American scientific advice is that something is safe, European advice is that something is not safe - there's a conflict between the two. At the moment the WTO has to arbitrate between those two opposites. What I want to see is a system where there is a proper dialogue and wherever possible consensus came be reached. And I think, in discussions that we have already had in the lead up to Seattle, that the Americans are beginning to understand that the position that they have adopted really in the last twelve months is not an acceptable one and there has to be far more give as far as the Americans are concerned. HUMPHRYS: Because it should not be possible for the WTO to overrule a country, a democratic country saying we have decided we don't want this stuff because we believe it isn't safe, it shouldn't be allowed to happen should it? BYERS: Well we shouldn't get ourselves into that situation and that's why what I am saying is that we need to have a mechanism where there is dialogue, and where there is discussion, where people then are content at the outcome. I mean this is the important thing about the WTO being a consensus body, they do need - the WTO does need to recognise that we need to take all one hundred and thirty four members together if Seattle is going to be a success. And I happen to believe that free trade can be fair trade and that all countries can benefit from it. HUMPHRYS: What I am saying to you is that the bias should be shifted away from free trade to fair trade, that's the whole point at the moment as you acknowledged right at the beginning. The bias is in favour of free trade, what I am saying is that it should be hugely tilted in the other direction. BYERS: Well I don't..the United Kingdom government doesn't support free trade at any cost. What we need to have is a rules based system which can benefit all our people and that doesn't just mean the people in the United Kingdom. It means people across the globe. I mean free trade is actually an engine for economic growth, but it's got to be economic growth and prosperity which we can spread around the world and we will be taking a number of initiatives in Seattle to try and break the deadlock which exists at the moment and as we sit here today, there isn't going to be an agreement in Seattle anyway because there's what thirty-five pages of draft script, seventy-seven paragraphs, all of them in square brackets because agreement has not been arrived at. And what I want to do is for the United Kingdom to build a bridge and to try and ensure that we can have a successful Seattle which will be for benefits of all countries and not just a few big ones. HUMPHRYS: So under the changes that you would like to see coming in, let's look at our pigs. Now we British farmers are forced, quite rightly most people would say, to produce pigs in a humane, a relatively humane manner. The United States produces pigs in a less humane manner, they want to sell their pigs to us, we should be able, should we not, to say no we don't want those pigs (a) because they are not produced in a humane manner and (b) because they will drive out of business our pig farmers who cannot compete on that basis. Are you saying, we should be able to do that, to say to the United States, under the WTO rules, no, none of your pigs. BYERS: We want to get animal welfare as one of the issues which will be on the negotiations post-Seattle. Seattle is setting the agenda for three years of negotiations and items animal welfare is one of them - is an issue that we want to be on the agenda for those negotiations, for the reasons that you have mentioned John. HUMPHRYS: So, you will be very disappointed, this government will be very disappointed if we are not able, putting it very crudely, to keep American pigs out. BYERS: We want to get to a situation where at the end of the Seattle talks, in a week's time, we will be able to say that animal welfare is one of those issues that can be discussed as part of the negotiations. Now once again I can't predict the outcome of that, but let's at least get it on the agenda. Now the Americans don't want it on the agenda, the Americans want a very narrowly focussed set of trade negotiations to occur. We want a broad and comprehensive set of trade negotiations because we believe the time is right to address these issues, whether it is animal welfare, whether it is core labour standards, whether it is concern for the environment, that should be part of the WTO agenda. HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but the trouble with that is that what you're going to be talking about over these next few days is actually liberalising the agricultural market, so it's going to go the other way isn't it, it's going to go in the direction we don't want it to go? BYERS: Well, it can go in the direction which would be of benefit. I want for example, and this is one of initiatives that we're going to be announcing on Tuesday to try and overcome the deadlock which exists at the moment, is that for the forty-nine least developed countries in the world, and this is in particular relation to agricultural subsidies, for those forty-nine countries they should have their goods, agricultural goods in particular, should have access to all markets with no tariff being imposed upon them. Now that will fundamentally change not just the prosperity in those countries, but will change the way in which our own markets will operate as well, and we need to take those sorts of initiatives. And that is trade liberalisation, but I think that's liberalisation which will benefit the globe and not be a disadvantage. HUMPHRYS: But the other side of that coin is that they, the poorest third world countries then have to open their markets, their investments and all the rest of it to the rest of the world. Enormous damage can be done to them, we're seeing an example of that now in all sorts of different places. BYERS: We are, and the proposal which I'll be announcing on Tuesday will in fact be said unilaterally not part of a deal, that we're doing this because it's the right thing to do, but for those forty-nine least developed countries they should have access within the period of round which is three years, to our markets with no tariffs being imposed on those goods. HUMPHRYS: Yes, but the point I was making was that you want them - what is happening at the moment is that they will be under the present system forced to open up their markets to us, which may sound equitable, but in fact is desperately unfair on them because the big boys will gobble them up. BYERS: But no, I'm not saying that. Because I was saying it was not part of a deal. I'm saying that in order to show those forty-nine least developed countries, and we're talking here about Ethiopia, about Sudan, countries in desperate need, our markets will be opened up not as part of a deal that they must open up their markets, but we'll open up our markets, no tariffs at all being imposed upon their goods. That will make a huge difference in terms of their economic prosperity. The European Union, three-hundred-and seventy million people, a market opened up to them with no tariffs, so...... HUMPHRYS: So you're saying you don't want them then, to open up their markets to us for investment. For instance in the Namibia I think it is, where foreign tourism is a terribly important part of their ..., part of their national income. People are saying, the Americans are saying, : we want to get in there now and we want to be able to run their tourism if we so wish, if we could you know, invest in their - they say : we don't want that. Are you saying they should not have to have that happen to them? BYERS: Well as far as investment is concerned I actually want investment to be part of this round. Investment is already taking place in many countries and there are no rules attached to it, and it really is a race to the bottom and we've got to get away from that. I think the WTO can have investment as part of this round but investment which actually has rules attached to it. Now if Namibia don't agree with that they can block in the WTO, you know, any one country can say no, and that will be the end of the matter, but I think most people are beginning to recognise that investment is one of those issues that it's actually worth having as part of the round. HUMPHRYS: So you are going to Seattle today to argue for fairer trade, not necessarily, though it may part of it as well but not necessarily fair trade, Fairer trade is where the bias should be? BYERS: We'll be arguing for extending liberalisation of trade but within a context which recognises that fair trade, social justice and wealth creation can be part of the same agenda. That's what we're aiming for in Seattle and I hope that we'll be successful. HUMPHRYS: Stephen Byers, thank you very much indeed. HUMPHRYS: I was talking to Mr Byers a little earlier this morning. Now the government is going to bring in a new law on Freedom of Information. We are told by ministers it will enable us to find out much more than we can at the moment about what's going on, in particular how our politicians reach decisions on our behalf and what happens behind the scenes. But as Terry Dignan reports, there's a good deal of scepticism about that. It's not only other countries who have greater freedom of information than we do, even Scotland is on the verge of offering a system that's much more open. TERRY DIGNAN: Searching for information the Government isn't keen for you to have requires perseverance. Yet often it takes too long for the truth to be revealed as in the case of the BSE crisis and the arms to Iraq scandal. But will Labour really shed light on the world of Whitehall, from where ministers run the country, through its Freedom of Information legislation? Here at Westminster,Labour is promising the right to know more about what's going on in our schools, hospitals and councils. But we won't be able to force government ministers to tell what they're really up to. In countries such as Ireland the public now has that power - Scotland is planning a similar law. It's left Labour MPs at Westminster complaining they're being asked to support a weak and watered down Freedom of Information Bill, ROBIN CORBETT MP: We should not treat electors with what I regard as that kind of contempt and that means that unless there is extremely good reason for not releasing information in these areas the presumption must be that it will all be out and available for the citizen to get hold of.. MIKE O'BRIEN MP: There's always going to be a tension between the, those who are Freedom of Information enthusiasts who want everything to be available and those on the other side of the argument who think that there are rights of privacy - many of your viewers will not want information held by Government about them to be available to a journalist, rights of company confidentiality, for example. DIGNAN: In Edinburgh, the Scottish Parliament will pass its own Freedom of Information law. It will apply to areas the Parliament controls, for example health and education. Westminster's law will affect the rest of the UK and in Scotland subjects not devolved to Edinburgh, such as social security. It's argued that the Scottish Parliament here in Edinburgh could put the Labour Government at Westminster to shame over freedom of information. That's because Jim Wallace, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland's coalition government, is promising really tough and radical freedom of information legislation. JIM WALLACE MSP: It's not our intention to put one over the Westminster Government or anything like that. It's to try and get a regime which is in tune with our approach in Scotland of a much more open, accessible Parliament. DIGNAN: Scotland and Westminster will each set different tests for turning down requests for copies of official documents. All that UK ministers will have to show is that harm or prejudice would be caused. In Scotland the prejudice would have to be substantial for ministers to say no. WALLACE: Public bodies in Scotland will have to establish that if they're going to withhold information that that, that the disclosure would have led to substantial prejudice occurring and even then, even if they say 'Yes, there is going to be substantial prejudice,' they've then got to apply the further test that even allowing for that is it still nevertheless in the public interest that that information should be disclosed. O'BRIEN: They propose a substantial prejudice test, we propose an ordinary prejudice test. What they say they mean by substantial prejudice is prejudice which is actual, real or of significant substance. We say that our prejudice test means actual, real or of substance. The only difference between the two definitions of what these phrases mean is the word significant and, quite honestly, I don't think the word significance has any great significance. DIGNAN: Ministers won't let you take a peek at the files held by Government departments if they want them kept secret. That will continue even though many Labour MPs want the release of factual information used by ministers in making policy. In Scotland this information will see the light of day WALLACE: It is our view that the factual information, to say the, the facts, figures which are there to inform policy, that that should come under the Freedom of Information regime and indeed it should be into the public domain. TONY WRIGHT MP: Take the whole string of measures announced in the Queen's Speech just recently. I mean, for each one of those, you know, whether you're talking about jury trials, or fur farming or transport safety or whatever, what you want to know is, on what basis has the Government decided to legislate? I mean, what is the, the information available to Government that has led it in this direction? In knowing that you can then evaluate the legislation. You don't have to take it from the word of ministers there are reasons why you do things. O'BRIEN: Some critics have said just because the legislation does not require Governments to disclose all the background information, therefore they will not. That is untrue. The Government has made it clear that we would intend that background information should be available and ministers are best, in the position, to decide when any information should not be able to be disclosed. DIGNAN: If you know what you're looking for but the minister at Westminster says you can't have the document, there'll be a right of appeal to an Information Commissioner. Under the bill, though, the Commissioner will only be able to recommend that the minister should re-consider. GILES RADICE MP: Because we have a particularly secretive sort of system, a secretive kind of government, I can see occasions on which civil servants and ministers might actually want to block the recommendations of Commissioners and might feel they could get away with it. I think they need to be told that they can't really get away with it. DIGNAN: They can't get away with it in Dublin. Here ministers in Ireland's capital city can be compelled to hand over documents by the Irish Information Commissioner. Ireland's freedom of information legislation came into effect last year and many Labour MPs in Britain want to emulate it. In recent months members of the UK Parliament at Westminster and the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh have been looking closely at the impact of the legislation passed here by the Dail, Ireland's Parliament. Labour MPs at Westminster have been so impressed by the Irish experience that a hundred and fifty of them have called on Jack Straw to give the British Information Commissioner powers similar to those held by Ireland's Commissioner. Kevin Murphy wields his power from an office a stone's throw from the Dail. As Irish Information Commissioner he believes it's crucial he's able to do more than just make recommendations to ministers to release documents. MURPHY: I've no doubt that lots of decisions I've made, if I was just recommending, they probably wouldn't accept. I think there is a positive approach to freedom of information in the Irish public service, but I mean the real test of commitment comes when some very embarrassing information is going to be released, either embarrassing to the minister or embarrassing to the department or, or the, the public servants, and, and they're the ones where, you know, the power of making a binding decision is the all-important factor. CORBETT: A minister in a government of any party shortly before what looks like being a very close general election, let's say, is going to say, 'We must not on any account release this because it might damage our chances of winning the election.' That is perfectly understandable in a political world and wholly improper in a democracy and I want the Information Commissioner to have the authority to order the release of information where it is refused. DIGNAN: The Irish Commissioner can also order ministers at the Dail to release the background factual information they use in policymaking. The use of this power is said to be changing attitudes in Dublin. MURPHY: The old culture was that nothing was releasable unless it was authorised to be released. Now I think it's beginning to, to change and it's early days yet It's beginning to change into well, let's get as much information as we can into the public domain. O'BRIEN: Our traditions here in the UK are somewhat different. We've decided to strike perhaps a different balance between the, the needs for individual privacy, commercial confidentiality and, and proper running of government as against the, the interests of freedom of information. DIGNAN: In Edinburgh the Scottish executive has decided to go further than the UK Government but not as far as Ireland's. Scotland's Information Commissioner will be able to compel ministers to hand over all but the most sensitive papers. WALLACE: We took the view that in trying to strike a balance which did tend more significantly towards openness then to give that, to give the Commissioner that extra power to require disclosure was one which, you know, we in the Scottish executive thought was appropriate. DIGNAN: By the time work is completed on a permanent home for the Scottish Parliament, Scotland's voters may find they've got more access to official information than the rest of the UK population. Does that mean Westminster's Labour Government will come under pressure to liberalise its own right to know legislation? CORBETT: Well, the straight-faced answer on that is that this is what devolution is about and different parts of the United Kingdom are perfectly entitled to come to different conclusions on the same topic. The reality, however, is not as simple as that. The reality is that if the Scottish Parliament does things substantially differently in a much more open way from the United Kingdom Parliament, I think this Government's going to end up with egg on its face. DIGNAN: The hunt continues for signs of an unwillingness to reveal Whitehall's secrets, to the irritation of ministers. O'BRIEN: Some of our critics have almost indulged, it seems to me, in the old arguments of angels dancing on a pinhead. They're trying to find very tiny technical reasons why this won't be adequate for them. Well what I'm saying is, is that many of the changes we're proposing are enormous changes. They will bring this Government into a greater degree of openness in Britain than we've ever seen before. WRIGHT: This is a chance for Parliament to ensure that it gets the kind of Freedom of Information Bill that it wants. That's what the issue's about. And I think the, you know, the issue's about what it does for the party battle - much less important. That's a roundabout way of saying, yes, I think we do have a serious argument to be had here. I think Labour MPs have got a good way to go before being convinced that the Home Secretary has yet moved far enough. DIGNAN: Shedding light on the corridors of power is what freedom of information is meant to be about. It's happening in Ireland. It's being promised in Scotland. It's what many Labour MPs at Westminster want. Ministers say they've struck the correct balance between the right to privacy and the right to official information. In the months ahead critics of the Bill say they hope to prove them wrong. HUMPHRYS: Terry Dignan reporting and that's it for now. I'll be back next Sunday at the same time. By the way if you're on the WEB and you want to keep in touch with us let's just remind you about our website, and there it is. Good afternoon. .....oooOOooo..... FoLdEd