|
===================================================================================
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:
30.01.00
....................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. There's just
24 hours to go before the report on decommissioning terrorist weapons in
Northern Ireland. I'll be asking the first minister David Trimble what
he plans to do if it does not tell him what he wants to hear.
Is the BRITISH Government
going to be forced to change its policies because of decisions taken by
the SCOTTISH parliament? I'll be talking to the Scottish Secretary John
Reid.
And whatever happened to
the ethnical dimension of Robin Cook's foreign policy? That's after the
news read by Fiona Bruce.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: David Trimble is facing
his most testing time as first minister of Northern Ireland. I'll be asking
him if he'll still be in the job a month from now.
What is OUR responsibility
to the suffering of other countries? We'll be asking if the ethical dimension
to Britain's foreign policy is being pushed to the margins.
And why is it becoming so
difficult to find out what our local councils are getting up to?
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first let's go to Scotland.
Not a bad idea, you're likely to have a better Health Service and a cheaper
university education if you do for a start. And that's not only because
the Scots have always had more money from the Exchequer than the English,
but now that they have their own Parliament they can pass laws that give
them other advantages too. The decision taken in Edinburgh last week to
do away with up front tuition fees for students has given the government
here in London an awkward problem: the Scottish tail wagging the British
dog. Well the Scottish Secretary is John Reid, he's in our Glasgow studio.
Good afternoon Mr Reid.
JOHN REID: Good afternoon John.
HUMPHRYS: Now then, the government
is going to have to change its policies because of what you're up to in
Scotland. Can't carry on like this can you?
REID: Well that's not quite
true John. The whole point of devolution was not to give us different objectives.
The objectives in Scotland are exactly the same as they are throughout
the United Kingdom which is to give greater access to people from low income
backgrounds. But the mechanics of it in Scotland can be different in order
to suit local circumstances, so in Scotland they've brought in a series
of measures, in England the fee system is working well. Indeed last year
there was more than five thousand additional students went to higher education.
During the week David Blunkett gave another eighty million pounds to encourage
mature students and those from a low income background to it. So the systems
are different but the objective is the same and because they are different
doesn't mean to say that one discriminates against the other. I mean anymore
than David Blunkett's eighty million additional spending to encourage those
from low income and mature students into higher education discriminates
against the Scots, it doesn't. That's the whole point of devolution. We
can do things differently and better respond to local needs, not only
in Scotland but also in the other nations of the United Kingdom.
HUMPHRYS: Well alright. Let's accept
for the moment that the system is different and not the policy. Though
most people say that clearly the policy is different. Do you think that
the government's policy, the Westminster Government's policy to save any
confusion, and system, on tuition fees is the right one, is right, do you
support it?
REID: Yes I do, of course
I support it.
HUMPHRYS: Well the other one's
wrong isn't it.
REID: No John, you seem
to think that if you have a common objective everyone must have the same
policy. I mean this is what amuses me, because people like your good selves
spend half your time telling us the government are control freaks who want
to control everything from the centre and the other half criticising us
when we allow people to do things their own way according to local circumstances.
Because things are different doesn't mean - or applied in a different way
- doesn't mean to say that's inherently wrong. That's in the nature of
the devolution settlement which is intended above all to modernise our
constitution. The most radical change for three hundred years and to replace
the attitude of a government which for the past twenty years under the
Tories was dividing and breaking up Britain precisely because they would
not pay attention to the feelings of those from the nations and the regions
within the United Kingdom.
HUMPHRYS: Well I tell you what,
if I had a University age child and I was living in England or Wales and
I had to pay a thousand pounds in tuition fees a year, three thousand pounds
for three years and then you came along to me, as a Cabinet Minister, one
of my Cabinet ministers 'cause you are in my Westminster government, and
then compared that with one of your own constituents who doesn't have to
pay that three thousand pounds in three years, I'd feel pretty cross wouldn't
you.
REID: Well let me tell
you about your hypothetical child John..
HUMPHRYS: ...there's nothing hypothetical
about it - there is about the child okay..
REID: ..about your personal
plight, that's what we're talking about. First of all your child would
be the beneficiary in England of eighty million pounds of extra expenditure
if he was a mature student or she was a mature student, or if they came
from a low income background. Secondly, if they happen to go to a Scottish
University they would not be discriminated against in almost forty per
cent of the cases 'cause they pay nothing and thirdly, if you had to pay
up front for your child, you would do so in the full knowledge that when
that child went out to work, he or she would not have to pay back the endowment
as Scottish students will have to pay back when they start to earn. So,
there are different mechanisms for applying the general policy in different
areas, that's the nature of devolution, but the objective at the end of
the day will be met in a way that is suitable for the English students
as well as the Scottish students and the facts and figures show that in
England there are some five thousand more students going into higher education
last year than the year before, so that system is working.
HUMPHRYS: Doesn't prove that they
like it. It doesn't prove that they want to pay these fees, it simply proves
how important people regard university education for their children but
the fact is they are going to have to pay the fee in England and Wales,
they are not going to have to pay it until many years later, maybe if they
are earning a certain amount of money in Scotland. That is manifestly unfair.
I don't see how you can suggest otherwise.
REID: John, with great
respect it is not manifestly unfair, if..well let me reverse the coin then.
Is it not manifestly unfair under the new system that students from Scotland
who go to a Scottish university will have to pay that money back when they
start working, when English students wouldn't. You can argue that is manifestly
unfair..
HUMPHRYS: ..only if they're earning
twenty-five thousand a year..
REID: ..and the reality
is that in both cases the objective from the point of view of the students
and the government, or in the case of Scotland, the Scottish Executive,
is to make sure that we get more students from a background where they
have been excluded from education under the previous government, indeed
for fifty years, that's people from low income backgrounds. That is working
in England, the fees system is satisfactory there, the numbers are increasing,
that is not the case in Scotland because of particular circumstances and
the Scottish Executive have decided to address those particular circumstances,
this was the purpose of devolution.
HUMPHRYS: But I mean the fact is
if this parent that I'm trying to describe - if it happened to be me in
England or Wales were not happy with the system here and said 'well I'd
like the Scottish system for my kids', you couldn't say, 'well alright,
as your Cabinet Minister, as a Westminster Cabinet Minister you can have
it because you don't live in the right part of the country'.
REID: No.... no, John,
I'm afraid you're dealing with a situation here where, if the people of
England wanted a particular thing they vote for a particular thing......
HUMPHRYS: But they never chose
to vote for the other......
REID: Well of course they
did, they vote for their own Members of Parliament the same way as the
Scottish MSP's are elected by Scottish people. I mean it really is an
absurd proposition to say that because you have different systems inherent
in devolution that somehow one must be better or worse than the other.
One must respond to the circumstances locally whether it is in Wales or
whether it is in Northern Ireland, whether it's in Scotland, whether it's
in England there are different local circumstances and what devolution
is about is in enriching the unity of the United kingdom, modernising a
new system of government for a new millennium, making sure that the United
kingdom stays united because it is seen to meet the requirements and the
needs of people in the regions and the nations. Had we stayed with the
old completely centralised system the break up of Britain would have become
almost inevitable and Mrs Thatcher and her government, whatever they said
about their commitment to the Union, by their actions divided and fractured
the whole of the United Kingdom region from region, nation from nation
as was patent from the destruction of industries, the impoverishment of
local communities. We are now modernising that and making sure thereby
that we will strengthen the United Kingdom.
There was a quote this morning
John - let me just say this because your question is timely - there was
a poll, a most significant and substantial poll carried out yet after devolution
which showed in Scotland that the Nationalists are now in crisis because
the demand for separatism and support for it for the break up of Britain
is at a record low this morning. The percentage of supporting....... people
who believe we will be part of the United Kingdom in ten years' time is
at a record high in Scotland. So devolution is uniting the United Kingdom.
It is marginalising the Nationalists, they are now not only choosing to
run but divided between those who want to be part of the United Kingdom
through devolution and those who want to divorce them from it.
HUMPHRYS: Okay. Well let's see
what happens in the next election but in the meantime the English and Welsh
may look at other things that are happening north of the border and saying
- they are better off than we are and if you look at health, just take
health as an example, a very big issue south of the border as you know
I dare say a much less important issue there because look at the difference
in spending. If you live in Scotland eight hundred and sixty pounds a
year is what is spent on your health by the NHS. If you live down here
it's seven hundred and six pounds per head. Now Donald Dewar your first
minister boasts that he is very proud of that. More consultants, more
GPs more nurses and all the rest of it. Are you proud of that fact as
well, that disparity?
REID: Let me take the two
aspects that you mention. First of all you say by implication that everyone
is healthier in Scotland.....
HUMPHRYS: No I didn't.........I
said they're getting a better deal.
REID: Okay. Let me tell
you about the need in particular areas of Scotland which may apply in some
areas as well but out of the twenty worst health areas in terms of health,
in terms of death and deprivation Glasgow alone has thirteen of them.
One city in Scotland has thirteen out of twenty and that is partly why
this money is put into Scotland because of the need. (both speaking at
once) Secondly let me tell you why per capita expenditure is higher in
Scotland rather than just on the basis of need. There is a second point
and that is because although Scotland has only eight point seven per cent
of the population it is thirty three per cent of the land mass of the United
Kingdom therefore expenditure per head in Scotland because of the sparsity
of population has to be greater. If you build roads for instance you have
to spend more per head......
HUMPHRYS: Well that's a separate
issue......
REID: Well it's not. it
is an element. Need is one element and the particular aspects of the sparsity
of the population and another. And finally Donald Dewar was not boasting
about how much had been...... Donald and I were reminding the Scottish
people of how much we gain from being part of the United Kingdom. We were
saying to those who would separate it, now at a record low in Scotland,
we were saying to them 'we benefit from being partners in the United Kingdom
as well as contribute towards it'.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Well you tell
me that thirteen out of the twenty, thirteen of the twenty most deprived
areas in health terms are there but I can point you to other areas of Wales
as you well know where the same situation applies but they don't get your
eight hundred and sixty pounds a head. They get the seven hundred and
six pounds a head. Now how do you explain that to them and then how do
you explain to them that Tony Blair promises that over a certain period
of time we will reach the European level of spending on the NHS. You are
already at the European level of spending on the NHS.
REID: All you're saying
to me John is that it's not sufficient to look at region as against region
or nation against region and I agree with that. There are areas of deprivation
in the north of England and in Wales and so on which ought to get more
money and indeed the government is putting through a social exclusion strategy,
our anti-poverty drive, putting money into them, we were criticised for
that....
HUMPHRYS: Doesn't say anything
about more money for the NHS..........
REID: I fully support what
is being done. Well you see health John is not just a matter of the NHS.
Health is a matter of social conditions. It is a matter of the causes
of ill health as well as the treatment of ill health and that is why the
Prime Minister said, only a couple of months ago and I entirely concur
with him that it is not sufficient just to say let us look at Scotland
versus Wales or one region versus another - we must look at the differences
within regions and within nations are there are some very prosperous regions
in Scotland, there are some very impoverished regions and I'm aware of
the difficulties in Manchester and Liverpool and the North east in terms
of the economy and of areas of Wales.......
HUMPHRYS: But if you average it
out, but if you average it out, you in Scotland are at the European level
of spending. Does that mean that, .....well hang on, let me finish the
question first, then you can give me the answer. Does that mean that
having averaged it out, you now say, because we are at that European level
of spending which the Prime Minister clearly thinks is terribly important,
Scotland shouldn't have any more money spent on its NHS because you're
there already.
REID: Well the reason I
was going to answer your question John is that I anticipated it. And the
answer to it is.....
HUMPHRYS: I could disappear altogether
then couldn't I?....
REID: .....we put the money
in ..... well.....we put money in on the basis of need. Now if there is
a factor which influences that apart from need it is of course the per
capita expenditure. And if you have a huge land mass with a low population
you obviously have to spend a little more per head to compensate for that,
that is the derivation of how we spend money, but within regions of course
you have to distinguish between particular areas within Scotland, within
Wales, and the social exclusion strategy and the poverty strategy is reflected
in the amount of money that we put in there as well. If you look at the
Department of Social Security, obviously the amount of money that goes
into any particular area is directly related to need because the claims
stem from need.
HUMPHRYS: .....alright, let's ......
REID: ...but the key thing
is to modernise this in a fair way and at the end of the day, the most
important thing from everyone's point of view is whether the United Kingdom
works, and under the partnership of Parliaments, with Holy Rood and Westminster
acting together, not as substitutes but supplementing each other, we have
a far stronger commitment now to the United Kingdom as that significant
survey shows this morning in Scotland.
HUMPHRYS: Let's look at one other
group of people then, who are most certainly better off in Scotland than
they are down here, and that's your MP's. They can vote. Westminster
MP's representing Scottish constituencies can vote on matters affecting
English constituencies and Welsh, English and Welsh MP's cannot do the
same for Scotland, now there is a disparity if ever there was one.
REID: Well, I know that
you won't mind if I correct your logic John, but actually, Scottish MP's,
i.e. me, I cannot vote on the matters that are revolved to the Scottish
Parliament any more than an English MP can vote for them. I'm deprived
of that right as well, because of devolution. We pass certain areas.
So there is no difference between an English MP and I, we can both vote
on the rest of the United Kingdom issues, and neither of us can vote for
issues that are passed to the Scottish Parliament.
HUMPHRYS: No, no, but you can vote
on matters to do, being an MP with a Scottish constituency, you can vote
on matters to do with the English NHS as it were. An English MP cannot
vote on matters to do with Scottish Health.
REID: Well, this, I mean,
all you are doing is saying there is anomaly here which has been identified
by the West Lothian question. I've never said that that wasn't an anomaly.
The whole British....
HUMPHRYS: So why don't you do something
about it?
REID: Well because the
whole of the British Constitution has had anomalies throughout it for centuries
John, the question isn't whether it is a perfectly logical constitution,
one of the benefits of our constitution is that it has been sufficiently
flexible to incorporate anomalies to answer the question - does it work?
And it does work, empowerment works. That is shown this morning by the
commitment now to the United Kingdom from people in Scotland, it is shown
by the devolution of power to Wales, and with the grace of God, to Northern
Ireland. We hope that continues. But also, to London, we've said we
will pass powers to London, there is a great deal of coverage of who will
actually implement those executive powers in London, the present, the Mayor
and the candidatures, but the reality is power has been passed down and
if the regions of England wish to have power passed down as well, they
will do it. Now, there will be inconsistencies, of course there will be,
because there are different conditions in different regions in cities in
the case of London and the United Kingdom - but the question is, does this
work? Does it actually give us the output? Is it a modernised constitution
for this new Millennium. And just as we are modernising the Welfare State,
and we're modernising the economy and the knowledge economy, this government
is undertaking the most radical transformation in modernisation of our
services and our constitution in three-hundred years......
HUMPHRYS: .......alright, as you
say......
REID: .......and it's proving
successful.
HUMPHRYS: Well, let's look at what
is not proving successful and that's the way in which it is operating at
the moment, in which politics is operating in Scotland. Now what you said
when you set up the new Parliament and all the rest of it, this would be
the model for the rest of Britain as to how things, and indeed the same
for the Welsh Assembly, as to how things would be done. No more sleaze,
no more incompetence, all that sort, and what we have actually seen is
a Parliament that appears to be riddled with incompetence of all sorts.
It is a shambles to use the phrase of Donald Dewar himself, disappointed
and dismayed at the events of the last few weeks. You cannot be pleased
with the way things are going in politics, can you?
REID: Well what we said
John, was that by carrying out the radical transformation, that we would
both reinforce the modern United Kingdom and would change the nature of
politics in Scotland and Wales and whoever.....
HUMPHRYS: ....changed it for the
worse, apparently...
REID: What we didn't promise
John is that we would change either human nature or human competence overnight,
or that we would establish a new Parliament which from day one would know
how to do everything. Now this is the most radical transformation for
three-hundred years. Of course there will be growing pains, of course
there will be teething troubles, but we are six months in, all the indications
this morning from that major survey are that people are supportive of the
new Parliament, what it's doing, we have only just started to deal with
the issues through that Parliament. The great issue of Land Reform, that's
never been tackled in Scotland, on Transport, on the Health Service, on
Employment, and what is the situation on the ground? The situation on
the ground is this - that we have the lowest employment in Scotland for
a quarter of a century, that we have lowest inflation rate for twenty-six
years, we have more jobs being created than ever before, the standard of
living is increasing, does that mean we have no problems? No, of course
we've got problems, we've got to tackle the Transport system, one of the
bills in the Scottish Parliament, we've got to make sure that the Health
Service is modernised.....
HUMPHRYS: Right, not a great list please,
we are just about out of time. But I take your point. John Reid, thank
you very much indeed.
REID: Thank you very much
John.
HUMPHRYS: Now, when Robin Cook
became Foreign Secretary he proudly told us that from now on there would
be an ethical dimension to Britain's foreign policy. So when he made an
important speech on Friday everyone looked to see what he'd have to say
about how it's going. They looked in vain. There was no mention of ethics
from start to finish. So what should we make of that? Paul Wilenius reports.
ROBIN COOK: Our foreign policy must have
an ethical dimension.
TONY BLAIR: We will fight for democracy
and civil rights the world over.
PAUL WILENIUS: In war, morality is one
of the first casualties. Ethics are swept away by fear, violence and killing.
But when Labour came into power, many MPs expected it would bring a more
caring foreign policy and hope to the oppressed.
OONA KING MP: I have stepped over bodies
that were piled high in Rwanda following the genocide. Much of that was
a result of arms that shouldn't and needn't have been in that area. That
area, the Great Lakes Region, continues to have, to be on the edge of genocide
in some respects and we are never going to break that cycle of violence
until we take responsibility.
GLENYS KINNOCK MEP: I would have to say that I
have felt some disappointment, some consternation even, at the fact that
we have, we have seen on so many occasions in the last few weeks a willingness
to sell arms in circumstances which I find completely indefensible.
WILENIUS: Robin Cook made his reputation
harassing the Tories over arms sales to Iraq. And when he came into office
he promised to bring an ethical dimension to Britain's foreign policy.
But now he's under attack from some in his own party for failing to deliver
on that pledge.
There were fanfares in the Foreign Office after the election, as Robin
Cook proudly unveiled Britain's new ethical role. The eager media were
told by Cook that arms sales to unsavoury countries would be cut back or
controlled and with his team he would help improve the environment and
the wealth of poorer countries.
ROBIN COOK MP: We are instant witness in
our sitting rooms through the medium of television to human tragedy in
distant lands and are therefore obliged to accept moral responsibility
for our response.
WILENIUS: But eventually, reality
caught up with the rhetoric. British companies have continued to supply
arms to countries like Indonesia, despite their human rights record. Fears
that the arms trade with such regimes was undermining the moral foreign
policy, has inflamed the passions of Labour MPs.
GLENYS KINNOCK: I do think that moral stands are
important and making a moral stand on an issue which so directly affects
people's lives and causes such terrible misery and suffering and tragedy
is something that people who make those decisions should look at very
very carefully indeed. And I know that there are some tensions between
ministers and I very much hope that it will be possible for those who believe
that those principles, those values, those moral stands should take precedence
over all the lobbying and the pressure that comes from manufacturers in
the arms industry.
KING: I think the idea
of having an ethical dimension to foreign policy is something that backbench
Labour MPs are absolutely passionate about. It's why I joined the Labour
Party when I was fourteen. The same goes for many other Labour MPs. What
we have to make sure is that we are able to continue some of the work we've
done. We've been proactive on many things. But we have to actually do
more. You could always do more you could always do better and Labour backbench
MPs will not stop pressing the Foreign Secretary.
WILENIUS: Ministers are facing
new pressure here at Westminster to toughen up their ethical foreign policy.
Next month four influential Commons Committees will call for tighter the
rules on arms sales. And many Labour backbenchers want the government
to go much further and to stop using taxpayers' money to support military
exports.
When Pakistani troops stormed the television station and removed the democratic
government, Robin Cook condemned the military take-over. But arms sales
have recently been resumed and this has put the ethical policy under further
strain. The British government now produces an annual report on arms sales,
but MPs are calling for greater openness and control over those exports.
DONALD ANDERSON: The assumption must be that as
part of this process of opening up to parliamentary scrutiny, what is done
in this highly sensitive field, the committee will call for greater transparency,
greater openness in terms of the categories, what is being sold by the
government, what quantities, and to which countries, so they can have a
real degree of democratic accountability.
BOWEN WELLS: I think it's absolutely essential
if we're to get any kind of control over the arms trade that we do get
greater transparency and greater reporting to Parliament and Parliament's
capacity to investigate each and every one of our arms sales.
WILENIUS: The recent move to sell
spare parts for British Hawk jets, like these, to Zimbabwe, appalled many
Labour MPs. Many exports are underwritten by the government's Exports
Credits Guarantee Department, so if the buyer fails to pay, the company
still gets its money. The government's now reviewing that system and sixty
Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion calling on Ministers to stop using
taxpayers' money to support arms sales.
KING: It's very important
that we shine a light on the Export Credit Guarantee's Department. Most
people in Britain have no idea what it is. What my committee, the Select
Committee on International Development, and we've done a report and what
we hope and also what the EDM was saying is that we need to ensure money
is not being used to underwrite arms sales.
GLENYS KINNOCK: I think we need to look at the
whole system of arms export guarantees and the fact that that department
in the Government is able to underwrite the sales and protect the arms
dealers, that certainly we need to look at and I would very much support
members of the British Parliament in the quest to have that happen.
WILENIUS: But it's not just arms
sales. Many MPs feel British policy must be directed towards helping the
development of poorer countries and to protect the environment. This ideal
is being tested over the plans to build a dam in South East Turkey. British
firms want to help build it and need the support of taxpayers' money. Critics
fear the flooding would damage the Kurdish way of life.
KING: I don't think taxpayers'
money or any other money for that matter should be used to underwrite projects
which will have a negative impact on development. That's been alleged for
instance with the dam. What I'd like to see are, you know, the most effective
environmental assessments, audits done so that we can judge this.
If it is proven beyond
a doubt that people are going to be, or rather that the benefits will not
outweigh the negative aspects then I don't think we should be pressing
ahead with it.
GLENYS KINNOCK: I don't think we should be backing
anything, dams or pipelines or anything else that is likely to damage the
environment and is not in the interests of the people where this is taking
place but is only in the interests of multinational companies. And their
power of course is enormous and certainly needs to be reined in by government.
WILENIUS: In a speech last week
Robin Cook failed to mention the ethical dimension, instead he stressed
Britain's national interest. The impact on industries like this is what
really worries the government. The arms business is ten per cent of our
industrial base and forty per cent of its output is exported. Four hundred
thousand jobs depend on this industry, which would be put at risk if orders
are lost.
MARTIN O'NEILL: There are people who campaign
against the arms trade per se. They don't want any arms sold to anybody.
The fact is that the export credit guarantees scheme doesn't finance arms
sales, it serves to underwrite potential debts, because if a big order
collapsed, people couldn't pay in the short term, then the folk would be
out in the street looking for work.
ALAN SHARMAN: Over strict ethical controls
of our defence exports would obviously lead inevitably to a considerable
reduction in the size of the defence industry and the impact of that would
be obviously a lot of jobs would be lost. We would have a serious loss
of technological capability because of our operation at the fairly high
tech end of the business and in the end that of course would have a severe
knock on effect on our own armed forces in terms of our ability to equip
them with the equipment that they want which our industry can make for
them to meet their special requirements and capabilities.
WILENIUS: But to some the importance
of arms sales for Britain's economy and jobs is over hyped. And some Labour
MPs feel the government must keep its eyes on the right target and stop
supporting arms sales.
KING: Job losses are a
concern that have to be taken into account. But they can't be, you know
it can't be the tail wagging the dog. The essential point is that we have
a foreign policy objective. We are trying to bring stability to a region,
for example, you couldn't possibly say, we're worried about job losses
here, but whoops we've sold them arms, conflict has escalated and now,
for instance in the future maybe there will be British peacekeeping forces
there and we've been in that situation before and to say, well we had to
sell them arms because we needed to sustain our arms trade would be completely
unacceptable.
WILENIUS: Tony Blair spent years
winning over big business. But a more ethical foreign policy will mean
the loss of orders and jobs in factories across the country. If he wants
to keep his new found friends in Britain's boardrooms, then there's little
prospect that the moral dimension will be at the heart of his policy.
GLENYS KINNOCK: I think many of us would wish for
far more principles to be in place rather than being prepared to be subject
to the pressures from the arms lobby. I think putting ethics first is
a very very important standard and it is something we should adhere to
as Socialists and as people committed to a peaceful and secure world. And
the fact is that arms actually contribute, they fuel the flames of war.
And in the end the taxpayer picks up the tab.
WILENIUS: So with Ministers placing
top priority on good relations with powerful figures across the globe.
Many in the Labour Party fear they will continue to drift further away
from their high ideals.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Paul Wilenius reporting
there. We did invite the Foreign Secretary Robin Cook to join us to talk
about that but he didn't want to.
One of the things
about local government over the years has been its openness. If you want
to find out what your council's getting up to, you just pop along to the
meeting. Well, that's how it is supposed to be. But more and more councils
are making it more and more difficult to find out how they arrive at their
decisions. As Terry Dignan reports, there's growing concern that local
government is becoming less accountable.
TERRY DIGNAN: In many regional and
local newspaper offices journalists say they're facing a new challenge.
How to break down secrecy in town halls. Here in Newcastle, the north-east
of England's biggest-selling paper complains decisions about the lives
of its readers are now made behind closed doors. And all because of New
Labour's drive to modernise local government.
ALISON HASTINGS: Why do you allow meetings to
be held in private, that's the bottom line, it's quite an easy argument,
don't have your meeting in private if you don't want to be accused of being
secretive.
DIGNAN: Newspaper editors
aren't the only ones complaining about growing secrecy in local government.
Many Labour councillors are also unhappy. While Tony Blair and his ministers
say all they're trying to do is to modernise local government, their critics
claim the policy is undermining local democracy by concentrating more and
more power in fewer and fewer hands.
All councils in England and
Wales will have to change the way they are run under a Government bill
now before Parliament. Up till now, decisions have been made by committees
of councillors meeting in public.
Under the bill an
elected mayor or cabinet - or a combination of the two - will be given
the power to make decisions. Most Labour councils aren't keen on elected
mayors - many have already decided they'll be run by cabinets instead.
Mayors and cabinets are allowed to meet in private, despite protests to
the Government.
We were allowed to film some of the proceedings of Newcastle City Council's
recently-formed cabinet. The council's committee system has been
scrapped and policies are now made here. Decisions of the members of the
cabinet are published but the discussions and debate leading up them are
kept private.
COUNCILLOR TONY FLYNN: Well, the government is allowing
the option of having the Cabinet meeting privately just as the Cabinet
does at national level. It's a one party committee and it has the opportunity
to debate things on a party political basis, then it makes its proposals
to the Council Committee where there's two members of the Opposition on
that committee and that is open to the press and public.
DIGNAN: Journalists at the Evening
Chronicle plan their coverage of the day's big stories in the north-east.
Increasingly they rely on leaks from councillors for information about
the local authority. The editor would like to send her reporters to cover
meetings of the council's cabinet because that's where important decisions
are reached. Previously they were made in committees open to the media
and public.
ALISON HASTINGS: You don't know where to go to
find out and to chase what's happening and decisions now are being made
very often by one member of the cabinet, who has a special responsibility
for that area and one paid council officer. That doesn't appear to me
to be a particularly democratic way of making decisions that affect, you
know, hundreds of thousands of people's lives day in day out.
DIGNAN: The Society of Editors,
which represents local papers, is pressing the Government to ban private
cabinet meetings. But ministers have turned down the request, arguing
that under the new system all decisions made by cabinets will see the light
of day.
HILARY ARMSTRONG: I believe that people will actually
see this is a move forward in terms of openness of information and not
a closing up. In future every decision whether it is taken in public
or in private will have to be recorded and will have to be published and
will also have to have the considerations that were taken and the options
that were looked at.
DIGNAN: But the flow of information
from these office blocks at Newcastle City Council is closing up, according
to some of the Labour members here. Only ten out of seventy-eight councillors
are in the cabinet. The remainder, now called backbenchers, are, like
the public, excluded from cabinet meetings.
COUNCILLOR DON PRICE: We need to hear the debate, we need
to hear the discussion, we need to hear what's being said by officers and
by members so that people can be fully held to account for their input
into the decisions and the reasons explained why particular decisions have
been, been arrived at and that needs all meetings open to the public.
DIGNAN: In this new system of local
government the role of our elected councillors is being transformed. The
Government says that instead of wasting time in endless meetings in council
chambers like this one, they'll be in their communities working on behalf
of the people they represent. They'll only have to come here to scrutinise
the decisions and policies of the council. But some Labour councillors
are warning there are worrying signs for local democracy that the system
just isn't working.
Time for play before the
day starts at Holy Cross school in London. And a chance for parents to
talk to their local councillor. But Brendan Bird no longer has all the
answers. He's on Labour-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham council, now
run by a cabinet consisting of a mayor and his deputies. They - and not
an education committee - now make decisions about schools. Some councillors
feel sidelined.
BRENDAN BIRD: You get asked things at governing
body about what is the views of the local authority on, say, Continental
day, say, asset management of schools, and whereas you probably would have
known if there was, when you had the training of a committee, now you don't.
You say, well, the best you could do is, well, I'll make a phone call,
I'll try and find out from the council and come back to you, and that weakens
your constituency role.
ANDREW SLAUGHTER: These are people who have chosen
to be publicly-elected representatives. They cannot any longer sit on
their backsides in committee rooms for hours on end possibly absorbing
information, but then what were they doing with that information? They've
got to be more proactive.
DIGNAN: Because a majority of councillors
under the new system are no longer involved in the running of a council
the Government has had to find a new role for them. They sit on panels
scrutinising closely decisions made by the cabinet. The idea is they hold
the cabinet or elected mayor to account for the way in which the council's
policies are carried out.
ARMSTRONG: There is a scrutiny process
which the council as a whole has responsibility for policy and they need
and will have the assurance that the decisions are being taken within that
policy framework but also they will then have the right to examine the
decisions.
DIGNAN: In Hammersmith, as in Newcastle,
cabinet decisions are scrutinised by panels of councillors. This is how
the Government wants all local authorities to be run. But some of those
who do the scrutinising claim it's a meaningless exercise.
BIRD: You don't have the
power to amend. All you have the power to do is to refer back to the mayoral
board, perhaps with a recommendation but not actually an amending power.
So, in many ways, review panels, scrutiny panels are toothless.
SLAUGHTER: Well I think the first thing
you have to say is, what scrutiny went on beforehand? And precious little,and
what it was of an uncoordinated and inadequate kind.
DIGNAN: So strongly did Keith Mallinson
object to the new system that he walked out of Hammersmith and Fulham's
Labour group. He's on his own now and he lobbies for better facilities
- such as improved play areas for his constituents. What made him go independent
was the transfer of power to a handful of people in a cabinet.
COUNCILLOR KEITH MALLINSON: I don't see how you can call it democratic
when you just have a bunch of seven dictating policy. There's no room
for discussion, there's no room for debate. The role of the council has
been basically downgraded to a meaningless talking shop. Yeah, motions
are still brought before it, but it doesn't have the same clout as it did
in the past.
DIGNAN: The Government says backbench
councillors, in carrying out their scrutiny role, should be able to criticise
any decision of members of the cabinet. But that doesn't happen often
in those Labour authorities where, it's alleged, the council leadership
controls the scrutiny process by deciding who will chair the scrutiny committees
or panels.
PRICE: In the Labour Group cabinet
members shouldn't be participating, for example, in the election of the
chairs and vice chairs of committees but they are up and down the country
and that's a significant problem. So that at the very start of the process
weakens the level of scrutiny. Chairs of scrutiny committees are dependent
on the leadership for their positions.
ARMSTRONG: We in the Labour Party are saying
very strongly that there will be no whipping on scrutiny panels and we
are also saying that the scrutiny chairs shouldn't be appointed by the
leadership or by the cabinet or the executive or the Mayor or whatever,
they should have a degree of independence.
DIGNAN: At Holy Cross primary Brendan
Bird's meetings with the head are one side of being a councillor. Scrutinising
the town hall's Labour administration is just as important. Backbenchers
can ask for cabinet decisions to be reconsidered. A power Labour members
appear reluctant to use.
BIRD: The Conservatives
have called in a hundred and sixty one items and the Labour non executive
members have called in just three in that time. Clearly Labour members
do not criticise their own side in public and as a consequence, the value
of scrutiny is very much devalued.
MALLINSON: The party members don't really
want to rock the boat. Many of them are looking for promotion themselves
and may be taking over the role of deputy.
DIGNAN: Local papers are joining
forces with growing numbers of Labour councillors. They're warning ministers
of the dangers of putting power into fewer hands without proper safeguards.
PRICE: We don't have any serious
allegations of corruption in Newcastle, we're delighted to say. But we're
talking about what might happen in the future if there isn't a higher level
of scrutiny by the political process. Unless there is an improvement in
the scrutiny function, both in terms of the decisions made by officers
and cabinet members, there is a greater potential for corrupt behaviour.
DIGNAN: Newspapers are demanding
that town hall cabinets open their doors. They're lining up with Labour
councillors who complain modernising local government is leading to more
secrecy and less democracy.
HUMPHRYS: Terry Dignan reporting.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Tomorrow the Canadian General
John de Chastelaine will produce a report that will have profound implications
for the future of peace in Northern Ireland. He will tell the government
what progress he believes has been made in decommissioning terrorist weapons.
Not since the peace process began has a report been awaited with more
trepidation. David Trimble, the first minister, has given his Ulster Unionist
Party a post-dated letter containing his resignation. When he signed it,
it was understood by many in his party that that resignation would take
effect if the IRA had not begun to get rid of its weapons. Mr Trimble
is in our Belfast studio.
Good afternoon Mr Trimble.
JOHN TRIMBLE: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: Can I be clear about
this, if the de Chastelaine Report tomorrow says the IRA has not begun
to get rid of its weapons, will you resign?
TRIMBLE: Let's put this into context.
Under the agreement the IRA and other paramilitaries should have started
decommissioning in June of 1998, two years ago. But even last November
they still hadn't done anything. But we decided to take a risk, we decided
that we'd go ahead, form the Executive, give them every opportunity, create
for them the best possible context in which to proceed and we did that,
it wasn't easy, but we did it and we gave the Republicans and others the
opportunity to respond. Now they knew when we did it because during the
Mitchell Review we said again and again to them and they
fully understood this, that our capacity to sustain the administration
with people in it who have not demonstrated a commitment to peaceful means
was extremely limited and that we expected to run out of road, after only
a month or two. Now that inevitability is coming. The means by which it
comes is less important, whether it comes as a result of the Secretary
of State intervening to suspend the institutions, ourselves walking away,
or indeed ourselves being taken away, that really doesn't matter. But what
is absolutely clear and was clear through the Mitchell Review was that
if we took the first step, others would have to follow, other people would
have to follow that, very quickly. But that unfortunately has not yet happened.
It's possible it still could happen and I hope very much that the Republican
movement realise that this best chance that they have mustn't be thrown
away.
HUMPHRYS: But it is not likely,
is it, you heard what Gerry Adams had to say this morning and what you
said in November, in that letter, a letter to your council, the next report,
tomorrow's report that is will indicate if actual decommissioning has occurred
or not. If it has not, then Sinn Fein will be deemed to have defaulted.
So, to be quite clear, no actual decommissioning means that Sinn Fein will
have defaulted. That is the position as you see it.
TRIMBLE: That was the very clear
understanding in the Mitchell process. That we would move first and would
given them the opportunity to follow, if they could, but if they can't,
then obviously we cannot sustain this system based on the assumption that
they are committed to peace, when they fail to do so. So I think that those
are the inevitabilities. But look, let's not just count things out until
we have reached that last minute. Let's just wait and see. It is still
possible that the Republicans could take the necessary action to demonstrate
their commitment to peace and democracy by beginning the process of decommissioning
because that is what people want, that is what people voted for. The huge
majorities in the referendum, the equally huge majorities in recent opinion
polls, people want a genuine peace, with an absence of paramilitiarisms,
with an absence of paramilitaries and their weapons. Now, let us hope
that even in this last hours, the Republican movement will live up to the
exceptions it created.
HUMPHRYS: Well two hours' ago,
Gerry Adams was holding out no hope for that whatsoever, that's to say
that actual decommissioning will have begun so in that event we assume,
do we?, do you?, that Peter Mandelson will suspend, and the Irish Government
of course, British and Irish Governments, will suspend the institutions,
the assembly, the executive in Northern Ireland?
TRIMBLE: Those were the undertakings
that Peter Mandelson gave to the House of Commons and to us.
HUMPHRYS: The effect of that
suspension then will be, and I quote Gerry Adams this morning, two hours'
ago, in that event decommissioning will never happen.
TRIMBLE: Well in that case, Mr
Adams is repudiating the agreement. And I hope that he will reconsider
that because he committed himself to that agreement. He committed himself
to decommissioning, he undertook a obligation to do it as soon as possible,
that was the outcome of the Mitchell review. There is an obligation upon
him. We implemented the agreement to give him every opportunity to do so.
The agreement cannot survive if it is not implemented by everybody. The
only thing left to be done is that which has to be done by Republicans.
So I hope that Mr Adams isn't going to walk away from the effort that we
have been engaged on over the last nearly two years now. But it's up to
him of course and his movement. If he can't get it to deliver, then that
tells us something about the nature of the organisation that he's been
fronting.
HUMPHRYS: If it happens, if suspension
happens, let me quote Mr Adams again: "a political vacuum will have been
created which would leave us all hostages". Now the implication of
that is clear, the implication of that is that we may go back to the worst
of the bad old days. Isn't that too high a price to pay?.
TRIMBLE: Well if Mr Adams and his
associates wish to inflict violence upon us, then that is their choice
and their decision. I don't actually think it is and I think you are reading
too much into those comments, because I know that there are no people that
I' aware, among the Nationalist community who want to see themselves
plunged back into conflict because of a handful of unreconstructed militarists
who won't accept the democratic choice. So let's not read too much into
this and let's not run too far ahead with these apocalyptic prognostications.
Let us take it step by step, as we have done, as we are continuing to do,
we know what was agreed, we know what the understanding were, we took the
risks, we took the risk, it really is time for the Republican Movement
itself to demonstrate its good faith and to take some risks also.
HUMPHRYS: But there is clearly
a great risk involved, clearly, in suspending everything in Northern Ireland.
What makes you believe that Peter Mandelson will face that risk and will
carry out the suspension. What undertaking has he given you?
TRIMBLE: He gave a promise to the
House of Commons. In our political system, in our democracy that is the
best assurance anybody can have. We all depend upon that. All of in this
process in this country of ours, we all depend upon the probity of our
leading politicians and the promises they make in the Commons to the people.
That's what we depend upon, that's what I've been depending upon when
I took the risk that I did in asking my party to stretch itself in a quite
remarkable way. We have taken the risks, we're not scared of taking risks
but what we're not going to do and I think people need to understand this,
we can't allow the democratic process to be corrupted from within by saying
that we're going to forget about the existence of a paramilitary organisation,
we're going to forget about the guns and the bombs that turned up in the
hands of militant Republicans a few days ago which were removed from an
IRA dump in Tipperary, we're going to forget about the intimidation of
Pommeroy at Carrickmore and all these undemocratic practices and pretend
that all is well when it's not - that would be taking an even greater risk
with the health of society and the future of everybody who wanted and who
voted and who worked for a genuine peace. So let us keep our clear mind
on the context and not let ourselves be influenced by the implicit threats
that come unfortunately from some elements in the Republican movement.
HUMPHRYS: But your problem may
be, everybody's problem may be how you define Mr Mandelson's approach to
Sinn Fein defaulting. You see he said, only as you know a couple of days
ago, 'what matters' and I'm quoting him here 'is the decommissioning is
on track and not going backwards', so clearly he doesn't share your view
that decommissioning must actually have started. That was a very modest
aspiration - 'on track and not going backwards'.
TRIMBLE: I think I would just advise
to wait and see. We know what we talked about both in the review with
Republicans, with the government, because the government was a party to
that review too and we talked to them and over the weeks of the review
we talked these things through at length and it is on the confidence of
the assurances that were given to me that I am proceeding and indeed it
was because of those assurances that I took the risk in the first place
and the expectations that were there were created not just by government
but by other parties as well. We took the risk, we demonstrated our willingness
to go more than just an extra mile and unfortunately what we've seen over
the last two months is virtually no movement at all. Now we can't sustain
a process like this and that's the reality. At the end of the day politics
have got to come back to the realities. The realities are that without
a response from the Republican movement this cannot be sustained and indeed
I doubt even whether it would be right to try to sustain it if the Republican
movement are going to let everybody down as comprehensively as your questions
assume. But I come back to the other point; I must come back to the other
point. Let us not write things off prematurely. There may be just a day
or two left but even in a day or two things can happen which will enable
us to proceed and there's still time for the Republican movement to demonstrate
whether or not they have sufficient good faith to enable people to continue
with it.
HUMPHRYS: But you will be satisfied only
with actual decommissioning. Do you really expect that to happen within
the next twenty four, forty-eight hours?
TRIMBLE: There was a senior Republican
who very early on in this process speaking not to me but to the British
government said that 'when we decide to decommission we can do it in half
an hour'. In half an hour - once they decide. So come on let them decide.
Let them do it.
HUMPHRYS: But Gerry Adams says
he gave you no assurances about that.
TRIMBLE: Mr Adams knows the basis
on which we proceeded. Mr Adams knows that we could only have sustained
it for so long. He was told again and again and again. Mr Adams gave
us assurances about the efforts that he would make and as to what he was
trying to achieve. Let us hope that he succeeds.
HUMPHRYS: But he's appealing to
you not to play hard ball and go to the wire as he put it this morning.
That's an appeal from him directly to you.
TRIMBLE: Well I think we can all
have our views as to who is playing hard ball and who's delaying things
and taking it down to the wire and who took the risks and who is hanging
back. Now let us just not run ahead of ourselves. There is still sufficient
time for this to succeed but we have done our bit. We've done all that
we can do.
HUMPHRYS: But to go back to my
question right at the beginning - if it doesn't happen are you still prepared
to resign? Is that still on the table?
TRIMBLE: There will be consequences
if the Review fails. That is obvious and as for me that's a minor detail.
As to whether I'm in office, out of office, leading the party, not leading
the party my own personal circumstances are irrelevant to me. What is
important is that we succeed if it is possible and that we make sure that
we don't corrupt the political process by trying too hard to succeed with
people who are patently not committed to peace and democracy.
HUMPHRYS: David Trimble, thank
you very much indeed.
And that's it for this week. Until the same time next week - good afternoon.
21
FoLdEd
|