==================================================================================== NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT 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: 12.12.99 ==================================================================================== JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Is the love affair between Labour and the Liberal Democrats about to come to an end? I'll be asking Charles Kennedy what he's going to tell Tony Blair tomorrow. The government says some of us should lose the right to be tried by a jury... but are the Lords going to let them? And if you're planning to have a baby you'll be able to take extra leave... but can you afford to? That's after the news read by Sian Williams. NEWS HUMPHRYS: She's expecting a baby... and the government's giving her and Dad the chance to take another three months off work... but will they want to when they count the cost? And the Lords are worried about the government's plans to stop some defendants choosing trial by jury. We'll be reporting on a potential revolt. And we'll be looking at the political events that have shaped our century. I shall also be talking to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy. JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first at the European Summit Tony Blair said he was happy to be isolated in Europe over tax. It all sounds rather reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher wielding her handbag. But Mr Blair says it's really not like that at all. Indeed the Tories say the Government is actually giving too much power away to Europe. They want an amendment to European treaties to allow countries to opt out of new legislation. The Shadow Foreign Secretary is John Maples. Mr Maples, you were terribly proud of standing alone in Europe, so why aren't you supporting Mr Blair at this stage in his trial. JOHN MAPLES: When Margaret Thatcher and John Major were standing alone they were achieving things for Britain, like the opt-out from the Single Currency or in Margaret Thatcher's case our rebate on the budget. The reason Tony Blair is standing alone is because his strategy has completely failed. I mean he has come away from Helsinki with none of the things he went there to get. He should have got the withholding the savings tax dumped, taken off the agenda completely. He should have got something done about the Arts tax, instead of which he's failed to get any of those, he's failed to get even beef discussed, put on the agenda. He's failed to get the threat to use qualified majority voting to implement the savings tax put in and he's opened up an agenda for the future of Britain which they are going to discuss extending majority voting and diminishing the national veto. So, none of the things he went there to achieve has he got. HUMPHRYS: You want a much more flexible Europe. You want to be able to opt out of future legislation that you don't like. What are you worried will happen if that doesn't happen? MAPLES: If that doesn't happen, then I think we are on the road to a sort of European state because the agenda that Mr Prodi, who's the President of the Commission wants and Mr Blair appears to be going along with, is to give up the National Veto in all sorts of areas, including tax and possibly defence, these are open to discussion... HUMPHRYS: ..he denies all that of course - just for the record. MAPLES: Well the question of discussing the veto on tax is on the agenda. It may not be on Mr Blair's agenda but it's certainly on Mr Prodi's as is defence. And in this conference which will take place next year, those things will be discussed and whether Britain will have any goodwill or negotiating clout left to stop those remains to be seen. But if you have got an organisation with, you know harmonising rules across everything, employment, social matters, tax, defence - you know it sounds to me very much like a state. Now we don't want that to happen. We believe there's an alternative vision which is of a much more flexible Europe where we all subscribe to common rules on free trade and free markets and competition. But outside that we let people go along with things if they want to and not if they don't want to. HUMPHRYS: So in other words if we don't have the flexibility that you seek we will be run by Europe, to use the slogan. MAPLES: I think so. HUMPHRYS: What you want means - to get what you want means an amendment, negotiating for an amendment to the Treaty of Rome. Now that is clearly a non starter. There isn't a single country in Europe which will go along with that. MAPLES: Well let me just say this to you. There is going to be a Treaty next year for amending the Treaty of Rome. Governments have set this agenda for an enlargement treaty in which... HUMPHRYS: That's rather different from what.. MAPLES: There will be a treaty there which will deal with this problem of how to make the institutions work with a membership of twenty-five or twenty-seven countries. Now clearly something has to change, you can't have the same mechanisms with that many people, that they had with six. One route is giving up vetoes, having more majority voting, enforcing the will of the majority on the minority. The other route is the route that we want to get, the flexibility amendment. Now, if we were to win the next Election, it is likely that that Treaty will have been finalised but not ratified, so there will be an opportunity for us there to say look: we're not going to ratify this Treaty unless we can get changes along the lines that we want. So I think there is an opportunity there to do it and I suspect that it's not going to be true that we're without friends when it actually comes to the crunch. HUMPHRYS: Well it certainly looks like it at the moment. We haven't come to the crunch yet admittedly, but at the moment you don't even have the support of your colleagues on the centre right. Look what John Bruton said "disastrous implications" - I quote "that the European Union". Wilfred Martins "we're concerned about their position" - your position. It doesn't sound very encouraging for you does it. MAPLES: If you talk to some of the parties in the applicant countries, the countries who are hoping to join the European Union, they won't say so publicly but they are very worried about having all these regulations forced on them because it will make them uncompetitive and I think what people like John Bruton and Wilfred Martins have got to focus on is that if the European Union keeps piling these costly regulations on business and the Americans don't do it and they don't it in South East Asia we are going to lose business to those people and jobs to them and at some point they are going to have to confront the realities of a world in which you know business is genuinely global. I know it's a type phrase that's trotted out but it is and investment can move from country to country and region to region and it will not come to Europe if we make our costs artificially high, that's what the commission is doing. HUMPHRYS: It's all very well talking about what the applicant countries, or some of them may or may not want but you would have to have every single country existing and applicant countries, those who join in the future, every single one of them supporting you and at the moment none of them does. MAPLES: Well they will all have to agree but we bring a lot of things.. HUMPHRYS: ..every one.. MAPLES: We bring a lot of things to this party, they do a huge amount of trade with Britain, we are the sort of fundamental of the transatlantic link, we run a trade...although they run a trade surplus with us. I mean I think there are people there who realise what is being talked about is right and important and I think that if we start to put some of these things to play...we are a big contributor to the budget. We pay in something like a billion pounds a month into the European budget and we don't get anything like all of it back. I think that we have some very strong cards to play in these negotiations and at the end of the day it requires unanimity, not just to do what we want but to do what they want. HUMPHRYS: Yes, but I mean all of that has always been true, we've always been since we joined anyway we've always been a very important player. There have been endless things that we have wanted and we have said are absolutely vital and they have told us to clear off because that isn't the way it works. It's impossible literally, I use the word advisedly to see what could happen that would have every single member of the European Union agreeing with your position, a fundamental realignment, a fundamental change of the European Union renegotiating the Treaty of Rome. It's just, one cannot see that...... MAPLES: Well it looks fundamental only in the context of what is currently being proposed, but I think Europe is at a crossroads where it either goes down this integrationist route of more majority voting or it goes down the flexibility route which is ours and it is now at the crossroads - this is not a crossroads that we passed some time ago, so this is relevant and it is essential to enlargement if twelve new members are going to be taken into the European Union - we have to cope with these issues. Now we are in a position to say we are simply not going to sign this Treaty unless we can get some of the flexibility that we want. Now flexibility is already there in the Amsterdam Treaty, there is flexibility for groups of countries to move forward at a faster rate than others so it is not an entirely novel principle, what we are saying is, let's have flexibility in both directions. If some countries don't want to go along with all the legislation about employment matters and regulations on business, they don't have to, but similarly, if other countries want to move ahead on this integrationist road much faster, if there is no huge British interest at stake we don't want to stop them from doing that. So we see a much more flexible community and I think there are advantages for them in that model as well as for us. HUMPHRYS: But if they don't wear it, and at the moment there is no sign that they would, you ulitimately would have to say this is not a Europe of which we could be a member. MAPLES: No I don't think we have to say that, because certainly we are not threatening withdrawal from the European Union. I think it's extremely useful for us, it's good for Britain, it's good for British business, that single market and the free trade........ HUMPHRYS: ........Sure, but you just said it would lead to .......the other, the other, the other avenue down which they might go would lead to a European state. You're not prepared to have a European State, therefore the conclusion must be: MAPLES: But we're in a position to stop that because it requires unanimity to go down that road, just as it requires unanimity to go down the road that we want to go down. HUMPHRYS: But you're leader says we are already going down that road, we are already moving toward much greater integration. MAPLES: Yes, I think we are. And if this agenda that they've set up for next year is completed we will be a long way down, but there will probably be an election in the middle of this process. We will be in a position to say we are not going to sign that integrationist treaty. We want a flexibility model. Now they can't go on down that road without us. HUMPHRYS: It would not though, whatever you do, would not stop some of the new legislation which is unacceptable to you, coming through. So ultimately, you would be in a position of having to say this is something up with which we cannot put. And the alternative there, well there is only one alternative... MAPLES: No, I don't think that's true. I mean, suppose we got our flexibility model and there was still legislation coming through that we didn't like, we've said, in the area of ....... HUMPHRYS: That is a huge supposition..... MAPLES: .....in the area of the single market........well, yes, but in the area where we are prepared to accept qualified majority voting, of how the single market works, we would never have got the single market off the ground without qualified majority voting, we are prepared to accept it in that. We'll get some of the things that we want, and they'll be other things we want that we don't get. But they are not hugely fundamental issues like whether or not there should be national vetoes over tax policies. Whether or not the European Union should have the ability to mount military operations, I mean, this is the road that it is going down. HUMPHRYS: So there are absolutely no circumstances that you can see today, or looking ahead two, five, ten years into the future that might lead to a Tory Government taking Britain out of Europe. None whatsoever. MAPLES: I can't see that, I really can't. And I think that it's hugely valuable to us to be in there, but we want to stop this integrationist, federalist, whatever you like to call it, this road that I believe is leading to a sort of single European state which sets our Tax policy, our Defence policy, our Foreign policy, our Social policy. We are not prepared to have that, but we are in a position to stop that happening, and that's what we will do. HUMPHRYS: Quick word about Steve Norris who wants to be Mayor of London and your Party doesn't want him to be. You must have been rather devastated, you in the Leadership, to see what the London party did to him. I know you will say democracy and all that, he says no, but it was a bit of a blow for you, wasn't it? MAPLES: Well, I was surprised, I think Steve would have been a good candidate, but I think there are some other good candidates in the short list, Joan Hanham and Doreen Miller. I am surprised they didn't choose Steve, but this is democracy and as somebody said, it doesn't always get it right, but we have left it to the local party in London to choose their candidate and these are the choices that they are making. HUMPHRYS: He says exactly the opposite. Unrepresentative, talking of the committee that booted him out, unrepresentative and undemocratic. MAPLES: Well, they are all elected by the party members and the different constituencies who then elect an area committee and executive to do this. HUMPHRYS: A dozen people? MAPLES: Well, you know, all these decisions at the end of the day are made by relatively small numbers of people at this sort of vetting stage, the final decision, every member of the party gets a vote. HUMPHRYS: Why do you have to vet somebody like Steve Norris? MAPLES: Well, there were fifteen people who put their names into being Mayor of London. They couldn't all go forward to the next stage. HUMPHRYS: Why not? Real democracy? MAPLES: Well, I think it would have been far too complicated to do that. So I think that what you are getting here is a democratic process, the people who made this decision are elected, as I said, I am surprised, but I think there are some good candidates still in there and I hope that one of them will win. HUMPHRYS: Does rather make you look like a party with a death wish, doesn't it? MAPLES: Oh, I don't think so. No. I mean, I think that we have just been talking about an area where we have an incredibly positive agenda and a vision for Europe. Totally different from the Government's. I don't think we have got a death wish at all. We very much want to be in a position to put that into action. HUMPHRYS: John Maples, thank you very much indeed. HUMPHRYS: Later, we are going to be looking at the new rights being given to parents to take time off work to look after their children. But now the government wants to take away the right of some defendants in England and Wales to choose trial by jury. There's been a great deal of criticism of that... and now, it seems, the House of Lords is going to start making waves. Lots of them of course are lawyers of one kind or another. As Leon Hawthorne reports, the government may face a revolt that could end up with the Bill being thrown out altogether. ACTUALITY: LEON HAWTHORNE: A first step into the criminal justice system. Every year, over two million criminal trials take place in England and Wales, and the wheels of justice turn slowly under the pressure. After the initial arrest, if charges are brought, you face a legal maze that's both confusing and frightening, especially if you find yourself locked up. Most of us have never seen the inside of a police cell, but if you do fall foul of the law, for serious crimes, you have the right to put your case to a jury of twelve ordinary citizens. However, the government is trying to restrict that right for a wide range of offences, imposing more trials by magistrates. But it's possible the government's plan could be scuppered in the House of Lords. BARONESS HELEN KENNEDY: I think most of us would agree that the best way of being tried is by a jury of twelve people, who are not case hardened and who come to the issues fresh, unlike judges and magistrates. And if you or I were to be in trouble in any form, or our children, that's how we would want the issue to be dealt with." LORD WILLIAMS OF MOSTYN: We're not undermining the right to jury trial. What we're saying is you shouldn't have the automatic right to trial by jury, if you're charged for instance with stealing a jelly or a banana from Tesco. That's completely different to a serious trial like murder or rape, or an allegation of theft where your livelihood and your reputation are at stake. HAWTHORNE: The former Labour Leader on Bedford Council, Mike Cotter is one man who's grateful for the jury system. Three years ago, he faced the threat of jail after he was charged with corruptly using his office to make money for himself. It turned out to be a very short journey from the council chamber to the courtroom. MIKE COTTER: Fortunately up to that time I'd not had too much experience of the legal system, only from a distance, but when I met with my legal advisers they were very keen to ensure we went to the Crown Court and the jury system because they felt the magistrates would not understand the complexities of the case. HAWTHORNE: The advice from his solicitor, Martin Oldham, proved invaluable. They opted for a jury trial and managed to show the weakness of the prosecution case. The judge instructed the jury to return a not guilty verdict. Oldham believes the result would have been different if they had opted for a trial by magistrates. MARTIN OLDHAM: If the case had come before a magistrates court, I've no doubt at all that the verdict would probably have been guilty. Had the verdict been guilty and given the charges that he faced, without a shadow of a doubt I suspect we would have been waving goodbye to him in a prison van. HAWTHORNE: This is the first view defendants have of the system that will judge them. Magistrates Courts handle ninety per cent of all criminal cases. Only the most serious crimes like murder automatically go to a Crown Court with a jury. Mike Cotter's case was what's called "either way", meaning he had a choice of magistrates court or jury trial. It's this right the government wants to scrap and introduce a system, similar to that in Scotland, where magistrates decide where people are tried. The Home Office estimates the proposed changes to the law will mean that twelve thousand people who want a jury trial in a Crown Court will in future be forced to have their cases tried in a magistrates court like this one. Instead of twelve jurors, a bench of three magistrates will decide on the defendant's guilt or innocence. The government says this will save both time and money. LORD WILLIAMS: It's about saving resource. It's very important that a jury trial is actually focussed on the important cases, looked at objectively; how is it right that someone shall wait in prison, on remand, for six or nine months waiting for trial. How is it right for me to say to a child, your case can't come to the Crown Court, because the system is clogged up with sixty per cent of people who opt for a jury trial and then plead guilty. LORD COPE: The government say it'll save a hundred and five million pounds which is actually not a large sum given the cost of the whole court set up altogether. It's well within the margin of error of what they expect to spend in any given year. Jack Straw, when he was in opposition and this matter was discussed a few years ago said that he thought the time savings were illusory and I think he was right then. HAWTHORNE: Not only did Jack Straw challenge the practical benefits of this idea when the Tories considered it, he condemned the very principle as unjust. JACK STRAW: Surely, cutting down the right to jury trial, making the system less fair, is not only wrong but is short sighted and is likely to prove ineffective. HAWTHORNE: Now they're in government, Labour believes magistrates should have the power the Tories considered. They claim this isn't going back on their word, because they've written into their proposal a right of appeal against the magistrate's decision. LORD WILLIAMS: Michael Howard's legislation didn't have the right of appeal to the crown court judge. I think that's critical and it's perfectly well known, I'm on record as saying this, I wouldn't have gone along with this change if there wasn't the right of appeal to the judge. HAWTHORNE: Those facing criminal charges often feel they can't identify with the mainly white, middle class, conservative minded magistrates. Many fear that simply because they've been arrested, magistrates will automatically assume they're guilty. In the early stages of Mike Cotter's case, he had various hearings at his local magistrates. From this, he got the strong impression they were biased in favour of the prosecution. COTTER: There seemed to be very strong leaning of the magistrates towards whatever the police said, they were very happy with that and didn't seem to be prepared to challenge it in any way. BARONESS KENNEDY: Certainly that's been my experience - is that because the magistrates are seeing, very often the same police officers, come regularly before them, they do tend to see police evidence as being by and large that which should be believed. HAWTHORNE: Experienced defence lawyers like Martin Oldham are reluctant to bring cases before magistrates because of this perceived bias. Also, when he goes for a jury trial, the prosecution is obliged to disclose evidence, not available at the lower court. OLDHAM: If Mike Cotter had pleaded not guilty before the Magistrates Court, without the kind of disclosure we were able to obtain, it's almost certain that before the Magistrates Court they would have convicted him. For example, in relation to some evidence, we were able to show he was not at a place where the prosecution alleged. That disclosure was vital and fundamental to the case that he faced. Without that, the chances are he would have been convicted. HAWTHORNE: Critics worry that more innocent people will end up behind bars. They also believe the proposed new system will also discriminate against the vulnerable because magistrates will be allowed to look at a defendant's "reputation and livelihood" before deciding where he's to be tried. LORD COPE: I don't think that the method by which somebody is tried for an offence should vary according to whether he's unemployed or whether he's got a good job or a bad job or no job at all. I don't think that should affect the decision on where a case should be tried and where justice should be done. BARONESS KENNEDY: This Bill really is an affront to liberty. I mean it is an erosion of citizen's rights but one of the things that's most awful about it is that it allows for choices to be made about those who have reputations that should be protected, those who are worthy of trial and those who are unworthy. And that's pretty despicable." HAWTHORNE: And some Peers are concerned the Bill will undermine the confidence of black people in the criminal justice system because of a belief magistrates courts discriminate against them. LORD WILLIAMS: I think the young black unemployed lad has a reputation and a prospect of livelihood, which to me is just as important as the white middle class middle aged person. And we've got the over-arch in the Bill that the court can take into account any relevant circumstance. So, I reject the proposition that black people or Indian people or Asian people will be discriminated against. I simply don't believe it. LORD ACKNER: I think the black community's confidence in our administration of justice, is at rock bottom after the Lawrence inquiry. And I think anything that removes from them what they consider to be an important protection, an important means of getting justice, will increase their hostility to the system, very understandably, and one would have thought in fact that a sensitive Government after the Lawrence case, would have not proceeded with this. HAWTHORNE: Despite recent reforms to remove voting rights of most hereditary peers, the government is still in the minority in the House of Lords, it has slightly more than a quarter of all members. So with a Labour back-bench rebellion brewing, a determined Conservative-LibDem attack and discontent among cross benchers, the Bill faces huge obstacles when it returns to the floor of the House, early next year. BARONESS KENNEDY: Many Labour supporters are appalled and outraged by this and indeed in the House of Lords, in which I sit, many Labour people are very anxious about it. Now, I suspect the whips will get to work, but they won't get to work on me and I suspect a number of other people will take the same view, that this is a step too far. LORD WILLIAMS: All I say to my friends and colleagues in the Lords is, why don't you actually open your mind occasionally and listen to the argument. Whether I'll succeed in that is a question that remains to be decided. HAWTHORNE: The row over this proposal comes at a time when a reformed House of Lords feels it has new constitutional legitimacy. Lords rarely throw out government Bills completely, but on this occasion, some are suggesting just that because - for them - this Bill has no redeeming features. LORD COPE: I don't believe that even if every amendment we put up was accepted by the government that it make the bill acceptable. They don't go to the principle. And so what we're trying to do is to get the government to withdraw the Bill and to forget the proposal, and if they do that then that's fine. If not, then we shall vote against the principle of it. LORD ACKNER: I will certainly vote against the Bill. I think there will be a majority and a significant majority, in the House who will do likewise. And as a result the bill will fail. HAWTHORNE: Today, Mike Cotter is a free man preparing to celebrate Christmas with family and friends. In future, the choice of trial by jury could be taken out of the hands of ordinary people. But the government faces a serious challenge from those Lords who fear our traditional rights are under threat and who want to ride to the rescue. HUMPHRYS: Leon Hawthorne reporting there. JOHN HUMPHRYS: And now whither the Liberal Democrats? Or perhaps more importantly... whither the relationship between them and the Labour Party. Paddy Ashdown was so close to Tony Blair that he told the tale in his diary of how Mr Blair had offered him two seats in the cabinet as part of a coalition. It would have been a dramatic change in the political landscape... a coalition of the centre-left designed to keep the Tories out of power for ever. It didn't happen, apparently because Mr Blair went cool on the whole thing. But co-operation continues and tomorrow Mr Ashdown's successor, Charles Kennedy, is going to Downing Street for his first formal meeting with the Prime Minister since he took over the leadership. Mr Kennedy I'm tempted to say 'why are you bothering because it really is the end of the road for that sort of co-operation isn't it? CHARLES KENNEDY: Well we'll suck it and see tomorrow if you like but there's quite a big legislative agenda in this Queen's Speech that we need to be in discussion with the government about; Freedom of Information being one, what's the next step, if any, in the reform of the House of Lords? We have ideas about that. European institutions particularly after the events of the past few days in Helsinki, the need for further reform there is fairly self evident. Now if we can maintain a constitutional worthwhile dialogue with the government I think that we owe it to our supporters and our voters to try and influence the government in a more positive way. We've got criticisms on all three of these broad issues so let's sit down and talk. If we can make progress, let's make progress. HUMPHRYS: I'll pick up on each of those in a moment if I may but look who you're taking with you tomorrow - Simon Hughes who is not exactly known as a great supporter of this sort of co-operation. It rather suggests that you yourself, choosing to take Simon Hughes with you, you yourself are a bit ambivalent about it all. KENNEDY: No, don't read too much into the cast of personnel. If you remember what Paddy did when he approached the joint cabinet committee was he had a fixed five individuals by and large who wen t to each one to deal with different issues. Now I'm taking a slightly different approach I'm fielding people if you like on our side depending on what the agenda is. Now Simon is now our new Home Affairs spokesman, we're discussing the new Freedom of Information legislation which is a home affairs bill therefore Simon is at the table putting the case for us so he should be. HUMPHRYS: Putting the boot in....... KENNEDY: Well I suspect putting robust critique of the government on the table which is what's needed. Bill Rogers our leader in the Lords is going to be there tomorrow, why, because we're discussing the future of the House of Lords. Margaret Jay I gather is going to be there as the government Leader in the Lords so it makes sense for Bill to be there. Next time round, if there is a next time round it might be a different cast of characters depending on the agenda. HUMPHRYS: Alright well let's look at this particular agenda: freedom of information. Now this is one of those areas that you've been talking about for two and a half years ever since they've been in power pretty much. What has actually happened during that time is that the government has moved further and further away from your position. You want to let it all hang out or at least much more than is hanging out at the moment as it were and they've gone in exactly the other direction from you. KENNEDY: Well I wouldn't quite buy into your terminology (both speaking at once) They are..... amongst consenting adults behind closed doors I'm sure it might get worse than that who knows. The position is that the government have certainly, first and foremost at least we've got freedom of information legislation introduced, the Conservatives were daft enough to vote against it this week saying that what they used to do in government was better than what this will be, now that's just for the birds. HUMPHRYS: Well I'm not sure that it is. One of your men, Mr Maclennan, he says that Labour has betrayed its commitment to openness so in a sense it isn't better that what went before. KENNEDY: Well Bob will be at the meeting tomorrow as well because he has been much involved and if you look at the excellent speech he made in the Commons this week on our behalf about the issue he highlighted quite clearly the significant areas where we want the government to move further. For example - what constitutes, if I'm the civil servant and you're the minister, what constitutes the factual information that I give to you as opposed to the personal bias if you like, the personal pitch I want to make about the policy issues? That's got to be clarified. Jack Straw..... HUMPHRYS: Clarified? It's got to be reversed. I mean they're going in the opposite direction from the way you wanted them to go. KENNEDY: Well look at what Jack Straw said, he said when he introduced the second reading that he was still open to persuasion on many of these kinds of issues. Well - we're there to try and persuade him. HUMPHRYS: But he believes that what he's doing is a huge contribution to freedom of information. You, and I've yet to find anybody outside the Home Office and the government who agrees with him on that, especially you. KENNEDY: Well indeed. We welcome the fact and it would be churlish not to do so that at last we've got a legislative opportunity in both houses of parliament, never forget that, the Lords has a significant role to play on this as on other issues, your report on jury trials being a good case in point, and that secondly, although we feel the government have moved away from some of the positions that they were moving towards earlier in the year none the less at least movement is the order of the day and we've got to try and push that movement back in a better direction and that's what we're there to do. HUMPHRYS: Maybe. Well let's look at Lords reform then. You want a fully elected second chamber because your party believes in democracy. There is no way at all that you are going to get that. KENNEDY: Well let's see, we haven't had the discussion yet. HUMPHRYS: Do you even think that's remotely possible? KENNEDY: Well what's the alternative from the government's point of view? HUMPHRYS: Tony Blair has made it clear that he has not the slightest intention of going down that road. KENNEDY: I don't think for example that this interim house will end up satisfying anybody very much and I'll tell you who it won't satisfy most of all in time to come in the course of this session - the government. Why? Because the Liberal Democrats now hold the balance of power in the reformed House of Lords and in fact the government even if there are more interim life peers appointed, we don't know the numbers yet there's speculation in the press about this, what will happen is that the government won't be able to win votes unless it's able to secure support beyond their own ranks. So in other words they're on a hiding to nothing in this interim house in terms of their own legislative programme and that I think will be an impetus for them to move forward to the next stage of reform. HUMPHRYS: And you yourselves in the Liberal Democrats, you could not vote ultimately for anything less than a wholly elected second chamber? KENNEDY: That's our principle position, that's the one we made clear from day one. HUMPHRYS: And there is no indication to you from Tony Blair that he is even remotely interested in that? KENNEDY: We've not had that discussion. That discussion will take place...... HUMPHRYS: .... Well he didn't give Paddy Ashdown it did he? KENNEDY: Well he didn't give Paddy Ashdown it no but then they were only going through the first phases of reform at that stage. We've not had that discussion yet. I'll probably be in a better position twenty four or thirty-six hour's time to answer that. HUMPHRYS: Well it would be great for you to be able to come out and say he's going to go down that road, there will be people fainting all over Westminster and Whitehall. Anyway, let's look at the big one from your point of view - PR, proportional representation. It is not even on the agenda, proportional representation for Westminster, it's not even on the agenda, it is not likely to be and some would say there is no way it's going to be in the next manifesto so what are you going to do about that? KENNEDY: Well let's work from the end of the question backwards. First of all if Labour are not able to reconfirm, as it were, a commitment to a referendum on proportional representation for Westminster I certainly don't see any future prospect for further constitutional co-operation between the two parties. HUMPHRYS: Ah so that's it, that's the breaking point. KENNEDY: I think that would be self-evident. Even if I didn't take that view and personally I do, as well as politically, I don't think I would be allowed to take another view by the membership of the Liberal Democrats. They would say the curtain comes down at that point, so I don't think there's room for manoeuvre there. It's appeared in one manifesto, there therefore would be no excuse for excluding it or excising it from our future manifesto. The second point about PR however, is I think we have got to be incremental about this and realistic. The thing about referendums, you could say the same about the EURO, you could have a PR for Westminster. The thing about a referendum, you can lose it and I would rather as a Democrat as well as somebody having a healthy eye on the bottom line politically, go a bit longer and win a referendum than have referendums tomorrow and end up losing them because there's a big persuasion case to be made for changing the voting system for Westminster, as there is for getting Britain to embrace the notion of the EURO. HUMPHRYS: I haven't noticed Tony Blair and his colleagues but trying to prepare the ground for that, trying to persuade us to accept PR when it comes, if it comes. KENNEDY: No indeed not, although I notice with interest Robin Cook was on another channel that better remain nameless earlier today, reaffirming his long held commitments so we have friends at court if you like, around that cabinet table who are firm adherents to PR: Peter Mandelson, Mo Mowlam. So it's not an isolated position but you're quite right, the case has got to be made from on high and again that's up to us to try and encourage the government in that direction. But there is, on an interim basis, there is another issue that we need to look at. The coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats has agreed in principle that there will be fair votes for local government in Scotland... HUMPHRYS: PR.. KENNEDY: PR - now it seems to me that once you apply the logic of that in Scotland, you already have it in Northern Ireland, you can't deny the logic any longer for England and Wales. There's a local government Bill going through Parliament at the moment in this session, there will be opportunities there to try and explore the scope for widening PR. After all, you know, the London Mayor is much in the news yet again today, for all the self-evident problems of the Conservatives this weekend, seems to be turning about with them, one weekend after the other, and if you look at that the London Mayor and the Assembly members around that Mayor, that involves a system of proportional representation. So they are even applying the logic in one part of England. So we would be arguing strongly this session that logic should now be applied elsewhere in the country as well. HUMPHRYS: Brief diversion, the way things are going, your candidate is going to be the best known candidate in this race? KENNEDY: Well at the moment, in the words of the old films, slightly adapted, it's Kramer-v-Who?. We've got Susan Kramer, she was selected as our candidate at the same time as I was elected as our leader and I can look you in the eye today, as the only party leader who could sit here saying this, not only have we got a candidate, democratically arrived at by all the members in London, but she has the full unequivocal and enthusiastic support of the party leadership. HUMPHRYS: Alright, but you say that you are moving towards PR, proportional representation for local elections in Scotland, the fact is, it is actually on hold at the moment, isn't it, that's the reality of the situation there. KENNEDY: Well they are looking at an independent commission... HUMPHRYS: Mmm. Exactly, which is a wonderful way of kicking it in, or hitting it into the long grass isn't it? KENNEDY: Well I think if you look at the machinations in Scotland that independent commission is certainly, the very fact that it's there and is taking evidence and is considering alternative systems, is creating a fair old fall-out within the ranks of the Labour Party in Scotland. So we're taking it seriously... HUMPHRYS: Has Tony Blair said it's going to happen then? Told you it's going to happen? Told anybody in your party it's going to happen? KENNEDY: Well no, what happens in Scotland, we must remember this is the whole point about devolution. That's a matter for the elected parliamentarians in Scotland.. HUMPHRYS: I'm sorry, has he given you any indication at all, or any of your people, any indication at all that it's going to happen in England? KENNEDY: No, not as of yet. No, it would be quite misleading to suggest that but it's something that we will again be discussing tomorrow. HUMPHRYS: You are in coalition in Scotland, it appears to be doing you no good at all because on the important issues and I'm thinking obviously of tuition fees where you made a very big promise and absolutely crystal clear promise before the election that it would be abolished if you have any hand in it whatsoever, you're not getting your way. KENNEDY: Well again, we are awaiting the Cubie Report which is the...another independent commission, there's a lot of independent commissions about these days.. HUMPHRYS: Oh well, it's a great way of putting things off... KENNEDY: It focuses minds, it focuses minds when they appear, it will appear I think before Christmas. Now we put in a robust submission to that, we reaffirmed our policy stance was we were against tuition fees, we want free access to tertiary education at the point of access and that's something I don't think that we would be remotely minded as a party to move away from. So it's got to be decided on the back of the commission, when it reports, what will happen next. Now let me make my position quite clear, it's not for me to call the shots here over Jim Wallace, it's a matter between Jim as our Scottish leader and Donald Dewar as the First Minister and their respective parties in the Parliament. But I think there is a genuine sense on both sides that we want the coalition to succeed because if it succeeds it's not just good for the governance of Scotland, it's a good advert for proportional representation and coalition governments, which has a bigger resonance than just within Scotland itself. HUMPHRYS: But it cannot succeed if, unless tuition fees are chucked out, you cannot continue to be a part of a coalition that continues to have tuition fees. KENNEDY: That ultimately has to be a decision that Jim and his colleagues will take but I think.. HUMPHRYS: But your advice to him would be, would it not, on the basis of what you've just been saying... KENNEDY: I absolutely disavow any opportunity to give Jim public advice because that's not my role. It must be for him to decision on devolved matters. That's what devolution is all about. HUMPHRYS: Would you not have a problem with them abandoning one of the first pledges your party has ever made? KENNEDY: I think they would have a problem too and all the evidence that I receive from colleagues in Scotland, including Jim, is that there is not any kind of appetite politically in our part to abandon what is such a major commitment. HUMPHRYS: Well, exactly, because if you did, nobody could trust you again, could they? KENNEDY: Well, I think that those things would be said. But coming back to your opening point about this co-operative arrangement in Scotland, actually you know, the opinion polls don't bear out this, that our support has remained steady, it is not sinking as a result of going into coalition government. HUMPHRYS: Well, you haven't abandoned any pledges quite yet. KENNEDY: Well, give it time, give it time. I think the more the coalition is seen to deliver, on what is it? The best part of four dozen of the Manifesto commitments of the coalition government are Liberal Democrat commitments. Now over a three or four year Parliament, if that is seen to work effectively, I think that will be a very good argument, not least for the next Westminster election. HUMPHRYS: Ah, well, let's look at that because under Paddy Ashdown, it was quite clear what the strategy was. He wanted to extend co-operation with the Labour Party as far as possible. Is that your policy? KENNEDY: No, I don't think at this stage in the Parliament, the second half of the Parliament, which has always got a much more competitive edge to it, because people are looking to the finishing team in the House of Commons, understandably so, on both sides. I don't think that there's an appetite either amongst the majority of Lib Dem MPs, or indeed amongst the majority of our activists and members to see us extending into great further areas, not least when the shopping list that we have rather blithely run through in this interview this morning is itself enormous. There is enough to keep us going there for the whole of the second half of this Parliament alone. You think of Lords, Freedom of Information, European Institutions, I mean that's a big agenda in itself, so I don't really see that there will be a great deal of scope for extending co-operation into domestic policy issues like welfare reform or like the future of the Health Service, I don't see that happening. HUMPHRYS: So therefore, Mr. Ashdown's ultimate objective, which was quite clear again, and that was to form a coalition as early as possible, very early indeed if we are believe what he wrote in his diaries, is not your objective. You are not here today saying, and you are having an important policy meeting this afternoon, you will not be saying this afternoon, brothers and sisters, we are about a coalition. KENNEDY: Well again, terminology, I wouldn't be using the phrase brothers and sisters, I don't think, to Liberal Democrats. There would be a mass walkout. HUMPHRYS: What do you call them then, friends? KENNEDY: Friends, friends, Romans and countrymen but the..I think the basic point is that any new leader of the Lib Dems, whether it was me, or whether it was anybody else, sitting here today, would have to say to you and would have to say to the membership and to the voters who support us and want us to do better, look, there is a great shot on the board here, I mean, the Conservatives are split down the middle over Europe, they can't even agree on a candidate for the Mayor of London, they are in a shambolic state. There is a case, and there is a cause, there is a big opportunity for a constructive coherent united Opposition Party, which can co-operate with the Government where it makes sense, but can actually give the most telling Opposition critique of the Government and an alternative view, where that makes sense as well. That is what we should be doing. HUMPHRYS: So tomorrow's meeting with Tony Blair could be the last one? KENNEDY: Who knows. I don't know. I mean, if we can make progress, and I think both of us are minded to try and make progress where it makes sense to make progress on both sides we will do so. But we will have to wait and see how it goes. HUMPHRYS: So if Tony Blair doesn't give way, and it would mean him giving way on those three important issues that we talked about, you would have to say at the end of it, well, nice to see you Tony, but that's it now until after the next Election when we will see what happens. KENNEDY: I suspect neither him nor myself operate in that kind of way actually, I think we are slightly more consensual individuals, and I don't see that sort of discussion unfolding. But I think what we will have is an honest, friendly, frank appraisal of where we've got to and where we go from here. HUMPHRYS: Politicians use the word frank, we know what they mean. Charles Kennedy.. KENNEDY: This was a frank discussion! HUMPHRYS: (laughter)Thanks Charles, thanks for coming in. JOHN HUMPHRYS: Here's a bit of good news if you're expecting a baby after Wednesday. You're entitled to an extra month's leave - both parents. But here's the bad news. You won't be paid for it. So, as Jonathan Beale reports, there may not be many takers. JONATHAN BEALE: A new life has started and with it comes new rights, rights that should allow a mother and father to see much more of their child growing up. Yvonne Griffin is five months pregnant. When the baby's born she and her husband John will each be entitled to thirteen weeks off work - unpaid. Matilda and Lars Bilk from Sweden already have another mouth to feed - Alice is one and a half years old. In their country parents have long enjoyed the right to share up to a year off work to spend time with their baby. And in Sweden it's paid leave. HARRIET HARMAN MP: I've been pressing the Government to step in and pay it to make sure that everybody has an equal access to this new right. WILSON STRUTTE: If they do paid leave and there's no compensation for the employer I think "Disaster". BEALE: Parents are being given new rights as a result of European Union legislation. But while many countries are offering paid parental leave, Britain is not. The Government is caught in a dilemma. It wants to be seen helping families cope with the competing demands of parenting and work, but at the same time it doesn't want to scare business which says will have to pay a price. ALAN JOHNSON: Some businesses aren't happy with what we've introduced. Some trade unions aren't happy with what we've introduced, but we've introduced what we said we would introduce. We've done it for the benefit of people at work with parental responsibilities and in the interests of family friendly policies. BEALE: John and Yvonne lead a hectic life. Both work full time. He's a manager for a company in Lancashire, she's a manager for a firm near Bradford. Yvonne is already planning to use her eighteen weeks maternity leave when the baby's born. But both would also like to make use of their new parental rights. YVONNE: It would be nice to have some time off work with the child when it's born wouldn't it. JOHN: Very convenient. It would be nice to spend as much time off as possible really. YVONNE: Yeah when we're starting a family. BEALE: But John's boss sees parental leave as another thorn in the side of British business. Wilson Strutte employs thirty-six people selling tyre maintenance and repair products. He says he can't afford to fill the gap if staff take time off, even if it is unpaid. WILSON STRUTTE: It's going to have a detrimental effect on businesses, particularly on the smaller businesses where employees are not lost in side offices and behind screens. You know when you've got thirty six people here, fifteen who work at head office, everybody counts. We are a team and if one's away, it's noticed because we're all doing a full day's job. BEALE: The Government has had to consider not just John and Yvonne, but also their employers. So Ministers have said that bosses will be able to negotiate with staff. They will only be guaranteed a maximum of four weeks off in any one year. More controversially the Government says the new rules only apply to children born after December the fifteenth. HARMAN: There is a strong argument that that is in breach of the European directive on parental leave. And therefore what they should do is say any child, even if it was born this year or last year or the year before. If it's under five the parents should be entitled to parental leave in respect of that child. ALAN JOHNSON: All countries introducing it under this directive have introduced it with a cut off date. And I think that's perfectly understandable and you know we took legal advice on this as well. We can see no case for any legal challenge. BEALE: The Government says it's listened to the concerns of business and so is applying the legislation with a light touch. But that has disappointed parents, trade unions and many of the Government's own backbenchers who believe it should be doing more to encourage parental leave. They fear that without any financial incentives to take time off work the new rules will simply become a perk for the rich. YVONNE: I couldn't afford to take time off work unpaid. JOHN: Neither of us could take time of work without pay. YVONNE: We couldn't afford to, not the way we live at the moment. RUTH KELLY: Unless it's paid I just don't think fathers are going to take advantage of it and I don't think the low paid are going to take advantage of it. Obviously they will do in crisis situations but we want to do more than that, we want to change the way that people view their workplace in its relation to their family. BEALE: The Government's own estimate suggests a small proportion of parents will use their new entitlement if it's unpaid. Only thirty-five per cent of women and two per cent of men. But in European Union countries where parents are paid the take up rate is much higher. In Holland, not everyone receives financial compensation, but most public sector employees do. In total forty per cent of women and nine per cent of men take time off work to be with their child. Sweden has the most generous arrangements - everyone gets paid by the state. Here ninety per cent of women and seventy-eight per cent of men take advantage of parental leave. Matilda and Lars Bilk receive eighty per cent of their salary when they take their parental leave. In Sweden, most families split it so that the father takes one month off, the mother eleven months. It's transformed the way men in particular view their role in family life: LARS BILK: I guess the Government wanted to push fathers to be more involved in their kids early years and the life in general I think that's the idea. MATILDA: To encourage both parents to be with their child, to really get this deep contact as I think the Government in Sweden found out is necessary for the children I think. BEALE: The Evidence from abroad shows that for parental leave to be a success it has to be paid. If it's not few parents will be able to afford to take time off work. And that would mean the legislation failing to deliver the social benefits it was designed for. Mothers have long been left at home holding the baby. And there was a time when the man was the only breadwinner. Today more and more mothers are going back to work. This legislation could be a boost for sexual equality as well as family life. But it could also cost the Government hundreds of millions of pounds. Many Labour MPs though believe fathers need an incentive. KELLY: There's evidence from Scandinavian countries and lots of other European countries that if you pay for parental leave it changes behaviour, that the culture at the work changes. That expectations change and that people see family as very important and they start to take that leave BEALE: But businesses say the consequences for them would be unacceptable. If the Government offers parents payment, more staff will be prepared to take time off work. STRUTTE: I just wonder what would happen if they have twins or triplets or quads, they wouldn't work at all. If they actually make it attractive for someone to take the time off then it will just add to the unemployment in this country. Because I don't believe smaller companies such as ours can survive that sort of thing. JOHNSON: Well even if the Government did contribute towards it that would still put a burden on business. What the government couldn't do is assist a small company, for instance, who would have to get someone in to replace that worker. So giving money to the person who's taking parental leave - even if that comes from Government still means that there's a burden on business here. BEALE: Tony Blair and his Government may say they're against paid leave, but his pregnant wife Cherie has spoken out in support of the principle. With such prominent advocates the Government cannot ignore the issue. This week it will set up an independent monitoring committee to review the take up rate. The argument is far from over. HARMAN: I think there's a lot of concern from the back benches that the government should really act to be a family friendly Government, to really support parents. I think there's a lot of commitment on that. There's a lot of commitment also that the Government stands for equality, it doesn't want things that some families could have and others can't afford. So I think those two things together do amount to a sense that parental leave should be paid. KELLY: When any policy is being implemented you should do it as carefully and sensitively as possible. But at the end of the day if the policy isn't delivering to families then that policy will have to change. YVONNE: Yes it will cost but in the long term there is great benefits to be had from it from families. BEALE: It may be the season of goodwill, but in the short term the Government is unlikely to be handing families money to make use of their new right let alone the kind of generous arrangements which have enabled the Bilks to enjoy more time with their daughter. But if the Government really wants British families to spend more time with their children it will probably have to take the risk of upsetting their employers. HUMPHRYS: Jonathan Beale reporting there. That's it, we'll be back on January 16th, don't forget you can keep in touch with us through our website, the address ought to be on your screen now and if you missed any of today's programme, you can watch it again there and get transcripts of all our interviews with the leading politicians. Have a good holiday and a Happy New Year to you all, good afternoon. .....oooooOooooo..... 23 FoLdEd