|
===================================================================================
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:
06.02.00
....................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. There
is less than a week to save the Peace Process in Northern Ireland. I'll
be asking the Sinn Fein Chairman if it can be done.
The first minister
of Wales faces a no confidence motion this week. Will he survive? I'll
be asking him.
And David Blunkett
once told us: "Read my lips ... no selection in our schools". Is that
what he still says? That's after the news read by
Sian Williams.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: The government's against
grammar schools ... or so it says. But is it changing its mind about selection
in education?
And Tony Blair's heading
for another battle with our European partners, Brussels wants more power
but Britain's saying NO.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first ... Northern Ireland.
By Friday the British Government will have the power to suspend the fledgling
government in Belfast. It could be the end of the assembly, the executive
and all the other bodies that were set up as a result of the Good Friday
Agreement. If that does NOT happen, then the Ulster Unionists will bring
it down. UNLESS, that is, the IRA can be persuaded to begin the process
of getting rid of its weapons. The statement it issued yesterday fell far
short of what the Unionists and the government want. So where now? The
chairman of Sinn Fein is Mitchel McLaughlin and he's in our Fail studio.
Mr McLaughlin, what needs to be done now, to save the peace process?
MITCHEL McLAUGHLIN: Well I think people should
actually work the political structures to solve the outstanding problems.
I think collapsing them is, you know, a totally counterproductive approach.
HUMPHRYS: The IRA statement said
the issue of arms needs to be dealt with and I quote "in an acceptable
way, this will not be on British or Unionist terms". That means, doesn't
it, no chance of anything happening this week.
McLAUGHLIN: Well I think we need to be
careful why we are talking about it this week, because in fact we are giving
ourselves a much different timetable to deal with this and we agreed a
much different timetable. The crisis is not about the decommissioning issue,
with respect, it's about the fact that there is a unilateral threat to
walk away from the political process and in response it appears the British
government is prepared to enter into default of the Good Friday Agreement
to give cover, if you like, to David Trimble, I think that's where the
crisis is coming from.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but it's arisen
because the IRA have not even begun the process of getting rid of weapons
and we all know that the deadline of getting rid of all of them is May
22nd. That's why we have a crisis and that's why the Ulster Unionists are
saying, look something has got to be done.
McLAUGHLIN: Well if people want to tear
up the political agreement because you know we should remember the wise
words of George Mitchell, only in November last, when he said that the
one guarantee and no commitments were given as IRA made clear, but the
one guarantee that was available to us all is that if we do not have the
political institutions there will never be decommissioning. Now not even
Peter Mandelson can pretend that this legislation is going to solve that
problem of decommissioning, will actually make an already difficult problem
an impossible problem in my view.
HUMPHRYS: So, to be quite clear
about this. If the government is looking for, and this is the expression
it uses: 'certainty and clarity' by the end of this week, it is looking
in vain, it is not going to happen in your view?
McLAUGHLIN: John, I am trying to draw attention
to the course of action that Peter Mandelson has set and the very huge
implications that has for ever resolving this issue. If we commit ourselves
and we all have done so in the Good Friday Agreement to solving these problems
through the political process, then we have to protect, we have build up
and we have to develop confidence amongst each other that these political
structures will work. Now we have only had them for eight weeks and you
know everyone recognises that there was default even in setting them up,
but to expect after eight weeks that we would have resolved those problems,
some of which have been around for many, many generations, that we could
solve them in eight weeks is na�ve in the extreme. We should keep our patience,
we should keep our nerve and keep working through the political structures
and demand of those, including Sinn Fein, we have a mandate that we deliver
on all of the expectations.
HUMPHRYS: But let's be quite clear.
In your view, if it does not happen by the end of the week, if the British
government doesn't get this clarity and certainty that it's talking about,
then that's it. I mean there is not going to be that clarity and certainty.
No question about that by the end of the week, in your view.
McLAUGHLIN: Well I mean I think there is
going to be clarity in one respect and I think the IRA have actually stated
their position very clearly. The British government have acknowledged that
there is no default by Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein have made it clear and I think
we need clarity from Peter Mandelson, is he consciously, is he deliberately
taking the government, the British government outside the terms of an international
agreement because if that is the case, then could there be a more disastrous
or negative message sent back in to those constituencies who actually have
guns, that have control over guns and we have been trying to convince should
actually surrender those guns, should consider destroying those guns in
the interest of a democratic settlement? The British government, I think,
are making a very, very serious mistake under the blackmail of effective
withdrawal by the Unionists and that really is where the crisis is coming
from, because we all understood that we needed longer to sort that this
very, very difficult problem of disarmament.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, so it's not
going to happen by the end of the week, you make it quite clear. Now, if
the Unionists could be persuaded to carry on because as you say, you use
rather stronger language than this, but as you say the government is under
a certain amount of pressure because of the Unionist views - I'm not debating
their views for the moment. But if they could be persuaded to carry on
with the Assembly and the Executive and all the rest of it, until May 22nd,
which is when decommissioning is supposed to have happened, supposed to
have been completed, do you believe that by May 22nd, decommissioning will
have happened. Put aside the end of this week as a deadline, think of May
22nd, will it have happened by then?
McLAUGHLIN: Well I can't give that guarantee
which I think is the implication of your question, I can only give this
absolute commitment..
HUMPHRYS: Your view?
McLAUGHLIN: My party will work strenuously
to meet that deadline. We have committed ourselves to working towards that
deadline but of course the Good Friday Agreement commits all of the participants,
it doesn't say Sinn Fein should do this, so I think there is a difficulty
compounded for instance by the fact that it took us nineteen months out
of a two year period to set up the political institutions in the first
place. Now we have to try and do in five months what we originally gave
ourselves twenty-four months to do. But Sinn Fein remains committed to
attempting to achieve that deadline and we will work strenuously to achieve
it.
HUMPHRYS: Do you believe it will
be achieved?
McLAUGHLIN: I think we are under extreme
pressure time wise and that was obvious when we had the November review
but Sinn Fein remains committed to attempting to achieve that and we hope
the other parties are also.
HUMPHRYS: What if you had a few
extra months. What if somebody said: alright we'll take account of what's
happening. We take your point that a bit more time is needed. What if
they added on a few extra months?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well John, Sinn Fein have actually
reiterated over and over again, our conviction that we can actually achieve
decommissioning. Decommissioning in our view is an essential part of
a successful peace process, and you will notice that the IRA acknowledged
and supported that statement yesterday, so let's accept that this is a
political problem, that should be sorted out through political parties
engaging in discourse within the new and developing political structures.
Stepping outside of them, collapsing them, actually sends the message
back again that we will continue to experience a failure of politics which
gave us the conflict and the division in the first place.
HUMPHRYS: If they are collapsed,
if that does happen by the end of this week, which it will if nothing is
given by Sinn Fein, will you still, will Sinn Fein still use your influence
on the IRA. Many people say that that's a silly question because they're
one and the same, but put that aside for the moment. Would you still use
your influence on Sinn Fein to try to bring about decommissioning even
if there are no structures, none of these bodies, the assembly and the
executive in place?
MCLAUGHLIN: Yes. I think people should
reflect on the fact that we started this work when the war was raging around
our heads, when our members were being shot dead, with collusion involving
British security forces and the Loyalists. We started then (INTERRUPTION)
we have developed ..... if necessary we'd go back onto the drawing board
and start over again. Our hands are being tied behind our backs when
people are making demands that can't be delivered in the present circumstances
or are going to take away the new political structures and give us no arguments
whatsoever to point the alternatives.
HUMPHRYS: Well, let me ask you
that question again, and I repeat that many people were being blown up
and shot dead, and many innocent people as well, which is why we're in
the mess we're in today. If the structures are collapsed, if the assembly
and everything else is suspended, what will Sinn Fein's attitude be towards
bringing influence to bear on the IRA?
MCLAUGHLIN: We will go back to the work
of building up political structures and then demonstrating through making
the primacy of politics clear to everyone, that that is how we can resolve
the outstanding problems. That's our conviction. We are wedded to that,
and we will not be deflected from that, we will not walk away from that,
we will not threaten to resign, we will deliver on the electoral mandate
that we have John, and if that is respected in the British political system
and in the British media and they understand that we represent people here
who have a commitment to peace, then we will work this out eventually,
but the people who are threatening the political process at the present
time are the pro-British Unionists and the British government, and I think
we should be very clear about that if people want clarity.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, but my question
was whether you will - you say you'll still strive to get the institutions
back and working. My question was whether you would bring pressure to
bear, assuming that you're doing so at the moment as you say you had been
doing, will you continue to use your influence on the IRA to begin to disarm,
even though the institutions are not in place, even if they have been collapsed?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, there's our analysis,
and I think it's a shared analysis: unless there are political structures
John, then we are wasting our time.
HUMPHRYS: So the answer's no is
it?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, sorry, it is a very
important question. We will continue to argue that we have to have space
for the politicians to think their way through this, to talk their way
through this, to negotiate their way through it, and that space would be
denied if conflict re-emerges on our streets. So Sinn Fein will continue
to use our influence, and the same influence and the same analysis that
gave us the IRA cessations tells us that we have to rebuild this. We
still need the same space and we would use that argument and we would use
that influence to the benefit of the peace process.
HUMPHRYS: So what you're saying
is that yes, you would continue to use your influence on the IRA, but you
do not believe it will be successful. Is that what you're saying?
MCLAUGHLIN: Not if the British Government
willy-nilly will would collapse international agreements and formal negotiated
commitments that they had with ourselves, but if we can rebuild that, if
the British insist on doing it and acknowledge that it can't be done outside
those formal negotiated political structures, then we can all work together,
because it becomes a common crisis. It's not a crisis for Sinn Fein alone,
and we will use our influence, we would hope others would use theirs, but
of course if Peter Mandelson were to consider the serious implications
of this action that he proposes to take next weekend, then maybe we wouldn't
have to face that crisis at all. We could go back to the existing political
structures and address the outstanding problems as sensible and adult people
should do.
HUMPHRYS: Mitchel McLaughlin, many
thanks.
HUMPHRYS: The government has always
had a problem with Europe. Mr Blair wants to be right at the heart of
the European Union, respected by all his continental colleagues, but at
the same time he's nervous of the political reaction at home to the merest
hint that he's giving away more power to Brussels. And Brussels says:
unless we do get more power there's no way we can expand the union and
still make it work. As Paola Buonadonna reports Mr Blair's in a real bind.
PAOLA BUONADONNA: Europe faces one of its hardest
challenges this year...After four decades its institutions need to move
on and reform to allow 13 more countries to join. It needs to become more
efficient -- and more accountable. Here at the European Parliament democratically
elected MEPs from all the 15 countries of the Union meet to give their
opinion on legislation, and they can modify or reject some bills.
ANTONIO GUTERRES: It is obvious that the way the
Union is ruled today, the way it works it would no longer be possible with
about 30 or probably even more that thirty countries in the Union so we
have to reform the institutions.
BUONADONNA: The Commission is the Union's
executive body. Its 20 members, drawn from the 15 states, initiate legislation
and implement it once its been approved. Recent corruption scandals have
done nothing to improve its popularity. But its here, in the Council of
Ministers that the real power lies ... representatives from the 15 countries
gather in this building to discuss every policy, from farming to finance.
In the most sensitive areas each minister still has a veto. Their new
task of reforming the institutions, will take at least a year. They will
have to fight their own corner on a painful series of compromises.
MICHAEL BARNIER: Any negotiation involves compromise,
and I don't reject this word - it doesn't mean that anyone is going to
be humiliated. Each party gains because everyone gains. We have a serious
and historic responsibility, this is why I call it 'the moment of truth'
for the European Union.
BUONADONNA: The negotiations are called
the Intergovernmental Conference or IGC. It will be in this room that
ministers and diplomats will begin the IGC in a week's time. For Britain
it's a moment of truth. Next week the government will present its plans
for the IGC. It will have to tread a difficult line between the requests
of its partners who want a deeper more integrated Europe, its own desire
to be at the heart of Europe the danger of giving any ammunition to Eurosceptics
who will challenge any concessions made to other countries.
FRANCIS MAUDE: Well, Tony Blair's got to
start standing up for Britain. For two and a half years now he's just gone
with the flow, everything they've proposed he's gone along with, he wants
to give up power all the time apparently in the vain pursuit of influence.
Well he, Tony Blair has got to understand that leadership is about standing
up for what Britain's interests are - that you gain influence by having
power, you don't gain it by giving power up.
BUONADONNA: The Labour government has been
trying to agree a common stance on Europe with the Liberal Democrats -
in May last year they agreed an initiative on defence. This week they've
come out with a document setting out a joint strategy on the IGC.
CAMPBELL: There's always a trade-off
for British governments between domestic considerations and taking a proper
place in Europe. It's part, I think, of the British psychology that this
should be the case. But there's an opportunity here. There's an opportunity
for a Prime Minister with a majority of a hundred and seventy nine, who
still stands astride the British political stage. Mr Blair can and should
show leadership in Europe, it will be in his interest and in the interests
of the people of the United Kingdom as well.
BUONADONNA: But out in the negotiating
arena the European players face some tough challenges. The first is the
suggestion that more decisions should be taken by a substantial majority
rather than a unanimous vote when ministers tackle issues in the Council.
Both the European Commission and most member states want this to happen.
The UK accepts this but Tony Blair says he'll block any moves to give up
the veto on any aspects of taxation, defence, border controls or social
security.
BARNIER: I don't think there is
any reason to be afraid of the qualified majority if it enables us to decide
on certain policies together. You ask me what are the limits: the limits
as far as issues of taxation are concerned is that we propose only to decide
by qualified majority on taxation on areas linked to the efficient functioning
of the internal market. All of us, the UK, France , Germany and all the
other member states have agreed to the creation of a single market in the
interest of the companies, employees and consumers. Where there are taxes
directly related to the efficient functioning of the rules of competition
between us we propose to get rid of the obstacle of unanimity.
BUONADONNA: Britain has come under pressure
from its partners around the European table to introduce a new tax on savings
which would upset the City. The government has been relying on its power
to veto any tax changes. But even some government supporters concede that
for other aspects of taxation the veto could be removed.
MARTIN: We say enlargement should
continue to require unanimity and certain sensitive issues like aspects
of taxation and social security should require unanimity but beyond those
sort of core issues then everything else should routinely be done by not
a simple majority but a qualified majority vote.
MAUDE: I think losing the veto
over tax matters would be quite wrong - I mean I don't think we could contemplate
that for a second. Because when you think about it, in a democracy the
most vital link there is between legislators and the public is tax.
BUONADONNA: Another controversial set of
reforms involves freezing the number of Commissioners - there's already
a team of 20 and there'll be more when Europe is enlarged. At the moment
big countries have two commissioners and they're willing to lose one, provided
they get more voting power in the Council of Ministers, to reflect more
realistically the size of their population. Small countries are willing
to give up some votes in exchange for keeping their one commissioner in
the team. But there is even a suggestion that no country would be guaranteed
a commissioner and the positions would instead rotate between the 15 members.
BARNIER: That option means that
you would have a stable number of commissioner, 20 commissioners, who each
perform their functions based on a system of rotation under which each
country would be on equal footing with the rest. There could be times when
a particular country did not have a national representative on the commission
but perhaps that would be better than having a weak commission.
MAUDE: We want to have a smaller
commission, but I think it would be quite unacceptable, at any rate for
the five countries that currently have two commissioners, not at least
to have one Commissioner permanently.
BUONADONNA: The country currently in the
driving seat in the Council of ministers is Portugal. This former imperial
power does not rule the world these days - but for the next six months
it has the Presidency of the Union and will be in charge of the Inter Governmental
Conference.
The Portuguese Government
wants an ambitious agenda for the negotiations. The Socialist Prime Minister
Antonio Guterres is a friend of Tony Blair but he has a much bolder vision
of what Europe should be about. Like the European Commission, he wants
to use this opportunity to push ahead for faster and deeper with integration.
ANTONIO GUTERRES: I think we will need not only
changes in the bodies themselves, the institutions themselves, but also
in the decision making process, making it more easy to have decisions by
qualified majority and more easy to allow a group of countries to go deeper
in European integration if, even if all will not be ready to do so.
BUONADONNA: The way Portugal and other
member states hope to win that is by reinforced co-operation or flexibility
- where a group of countries can decide to push ahead with further integration
even if other countries want to put the proposal on ice and opt out - just
as with the single currency. Last year eleven countries joined the Euro
leaving Britain and three others behind. The danger for Tony Blair is
that flexibility could mean Britain finds itself further sidelined as the
core Euroland countries move ahead in other areas.
GUTERRES: The British Government
is doing a lot in order to have a very positive role in the European construction,
we fully appreciate it. In my opinion when a country is interested in belonging
to a Union and at the same time is interested in preserving some specific
areas I think it would be much easier to accept a reinforced co-operation
or a mechanism of flexibility than to accept a decision-making process
with a qualified majority, because if there is a qualified majority of
course all countries will be forced to do according to what is decided
by the majority if there is a reinforced co-operation it means it will
allow some countries to move forward but will allow others to be out,
as it is now the case for Britain with the Euro.
DAVID MARTIN: The only reason that I can
imagine the British government worries about flexibility is that they accepted
the argument that sooner or later Britain always signs up for European
initiatives so they are worried if nine or ten countries go ahead and create
a new policy on their own that sooner or later Britain will join. Again,
I don't fully accept that argument - either we'll join because it is in
our interest to join and then good news, that we allowed the other nine
or ten to be the pioneers in this, or if it doesn't become in our interest
we won't join, I think there is unnecessary caution here on the part of
the British government.
BUONADONNA: It's not just Tony Blair's
allies spurring him on - the new Shadow Foreign Secretary, Francis Maude
has already assured Commissioner Barnier that the Conservatives welcome
flexibility. But they interpret it as allowing countries to pick and choose
which new rules they're prepared to accept. Conservatives hope flexibility
will eventually lead to a looser, shallower Union.
MAUDE: Tony Blair has this absurd
view, he says there's only two ways, two types of relationship with Europe
- one is to accept everything - Social Chapter, the Euro Army, the Single
Currency all of that, to go with the flow on all of that; and he says if
you don't do that, if you don't buy the whole super state package, then
you must want to be out of it altogether - and that's ridiculous. The moderate,
mainstream, common sense approach is to say you can be in it, without having
to accept everything that comes out of Brussels and without having to be
run by Europe. And you know, that's the common sense approach and flexibility
will be crucial to that.
BUONADONNA: The Conservative view of flexibility
has found little support so far in Brussels. Those influential with the
Government argue it shouldn't be frightened to embrace the European concept
of flexibility.
GRANT: I think the Conservatives
maybe like the idea of flexibility because they do not want Britain to
be part of many European projects for integration, they want Britain to
be left out, so they're very happy to have flexible structures that allow
Britain to stay out. I understand why the Government's against that because
they don't want Britain to become a semi-detached member of the European
Union. I'm taking a more positive view on flexibility. I think flexibility
could be a good idea not because Britain should stay outside but because
some of the new countries in Eastern Europe won't have strong enough economies
to actually take part in all the EU policies.
BUONADONNA: These fundamental reforms in
Europe put Tony Blair in an awkward position at home. The year-long negotiations
will inevitably generate a stream of negative stories on Europe, which
will be seized upon by the opposition. And the conclusion of the process,
when the hard decisions will have to be made could come uncomfortably
close to the date of the next general election.
MARTIN: There are two ways of dealing
with that - one, you could wish it goes away and try and play it as low
key as possible but Europe never ends up being a low key issue, or you
can say let us prepare public opinion now, let's have the debates now and
let's explain to the public what we are trying to achieve through this
process. And I would very much urge on the Prime Minister the latter course,
we should be going public now on what the IGC is about.
CAMPBELL: Right at the beginning
when he went into Number Ten Downing Street, Mr Blair sought to emphasise
the commitment of the Labour party to Europe. The Liberal Democrat commitment
is long standing. But from time to time Mr Blair has seemed to be a little
less warm towards Europe than his earlier statements might have suggested.
The Liberal Democrats want to encourage him to show leadership in this
matter, not to be timid and not in any way to be deflected by sections
of the popular press here in the United Kingdom.
BUONADONNA: Europe must move on the reforms
and fast - its own credibility is at stake in this process. Every country
will have to accept some painful compromises. The challenge for the British
government is to persuade the public that the reforms are not just another
plot from the corridors of Brussels to grab more power.
HUMPHRYS: Paola Buonadonna reporting
there. And we did ask the Foreign Secretary Robin Cook to talk to us about
Britain's European policy be he didn't want to.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The government got a bloody
nose in Wales this week. While Tony Blair was wandering around the west
country telling people how good life is in rural Britain, the voters of
rural Wales were pushing the Labour candidate into a humiliating fourth
place in a parliamentary by-election. It could get worse this week because
the First Secretary in the Welsh Assembly, Alun Michael, faces a vote of
no confidence. His opponents say he is a Blairite poodle and he doesn't
fight strongly enough for Wales. I talked to Mr Michael earlier this morning
and I asked him if he thinks he'll survive.
ALUN MICHAEL: I believe so because I think
right is on our side. Plaid Cymru have put forward a challenge based on
an allegation that we haven't won the money for Objective One, which of
course is going to be very important in transforming the economy of Wales.
Whereas in fact Labour has won Objective One, we have put the money in
the budget for the coming year and I'm confident that in the spending review
we will have the finances for the future years so there's no reality in
the challenge that they've put forward.
HUMPHRYS: Well let's just explain
for people who may not know what Objective One means which is that there's
a great pot of money in Brussels, one point two billion pounds over the
next seven years and we can get it for Wales if we match that money from
London. In other words if Gordon Brown puts in the same amount of money
more or less, I know there are complications attached to it but nonetheless
vaguely that's what it means. Now the fact is..... no go on....
MICHAEL: Firstly, we have to complete
the negotiations with Brussels and we're well on with that. We're actually
ahead of other countries and of the other regions of the United Kingdom
that has Objective One status. Secondly, we have to have the money in
our baseline, I know this is getting technical, and we've achieved that
for the first year, for the year that starts in April and we have the spending
review which will go through the next few months and end in July which
is where we will decide the details of spending for the future years.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah but what they're
saying, putting it as simply as we possibly can is that there is all of
this money on offer over the next seven years - one point two billion pounds
- and you are not fighting for Wales in the sense that you are not saying
'I'm going to go to London. I'm going to bash Gordon Brown's door down
and say "You balance that money so we can get all of that one point two
billion dollars... pounds for Wales or you are in trouble', that is what
you are not doing, that's the allegation against you.
MICHAEL: Well the allegation is
that I haven't achieved it. Actually as I say we have achieved it for
the coming year which Plaid Cymru also don't seem to understand and secondly
the process of negotiations of course takes a period of months, that's
been laid down by the UK government. We've made very clear both publicly
and privately, what we need in terms of money both for public expenditure
and for match funding in order to be able to draw down fully the one point
two billion pounds that you rightly say will be available during that period
and we're absolutely confident of doing that and it's been done in a strong
and a determined and a clear way but I think shouting through megaphones
from one end of the M4 to the other is not the way to do it. But what
Plaid Cymru has done is put a vote of confidence down this week on an artificial
deadline which has nothing to do with achieving the outcomes they say they
want to see and one has to question their motives and ask what they're
trying to achieve.
HUMPHRYS: Yes. But you see the
reason they say you've not achieved it is because - yes there is a wee
bit of extra money knocking around but that isn't..... no... no... let
me finish the point so that people will understand what we're talking about
but it is not in addition to the money that Wales would normally get.
You've taken a wee bit of money out of the budget, out of the money that
Wales would normally get and said 'now match that...' and they've matched
that so there is a wee bit of extra money coming from Brussels but it isn't
this dreadful word "additionality". It isn't in addition to the money
that Wales would have got in the normal way. That's the thing that they're
concerned about.
MICHAEL: I think as from the beginning
there have been a confusion of three technical things: Public expenditure,
additionality and match funding John and we've struggled with this over
months because it is technical, it is complicated but it's also very clear.
What we have is the money that is necessary to satisfy the public expenditure
requirements and the match funding for the coming year. The additionality
element is something that's dealt with at a nation state basis and the
UK government has never failed to achieve that so there isn't a problem
in any of the three tests that are being set. I would put it much more
simply than that. We have put in the budget for the coming year the money
that is necessary to draw down the maximum that we think can be spent in
the first year and indeed we've set a challenge to people, to business
and local government and the voluntary sector - if you spend more than
that in the first year we will achieve what's needed, there's not a problem
in that regard. But that is the challenge that Plaid Cymru have set.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah but that's the point
isn't it - the maximum that can be spent you say which is not the same
as saying the maximum that is available and the point Plaid Cymru is making
is a) that there is a lot more money available if only you would fight
for it and b) that by golly Wales could certainly do with that money when
you look at the state the Valleys are in, you look at the state West Wales
is in - by golly they could do with that extra money.
MICHAEL: Yes. Neither of those
things is true. The money is available to us according to a programme
that is agreed with the European Union. We've put forward that profile
and nobody has disputed it including Plaid Cymru. We're in the process
of negotiation with the European Commission, I was there last week and
met the Commissioner, Commissioner Barnier who confirmed what I've been
saying all along - that the process of negotiation is satisfactory and
what's needed actually in the finances John is not the profile of commitments
but the profile of actual expenditure. We have not got a problem with
any of this.
HUMPHRYS: Well alright, let's be
quite clear what you're saying then that over the next seven years you
have had an undertaking from Gordon Brown, assuming you're there for seven
years of course but..., that he will stump up the extra and I stress extra
one point two billion pounds out of the Treasury to match the one point
two billion pounds that is available from Brussels and that is absolutely
clear. All you've got to do is come along and say 'look we've got the
projects now, we want to do this in West Wales, that in the Valleys, the
other thing somewhere else' and the money will be there, absolute guarantee
- one point two billion pounds extra from Gordon Brown on the button.
MICHAEL: John, in the question
there are a number of misapprehensions which it would take time to unpack
but let me put it this way. In order to draw down the one point two billion
pounds to transform the economy of Wales we also need to draw in match
funding. I am absolutely definite on the point that we have the money
in the budget this year, money for future years is never dealt with long
in advance, it will be dealt with in the spending review which ends in
July. I am absolutely confident that that will give us the finances that
we require and to jump ahead of that deadline..
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but I'm sorry to
interrupt you, but the important thing is 'in addition to' and that's what
you're not telling me. You're not saying this money is in addition to,
you are saying this is money out of the budget, out of the money we would
normally get.
MICHAEL: No, that is not the case
John. I have said all along that it is absolutely clear that we need to
get additional money into the Welsh budget and that is what we will be
discussing through the spending review. In the case of this year you can
judge me by actions because I won extra money from the Treasury, that money
is in the finances this year. That is why we are able to say with such
confidence that we have the money for the first twelve months from April
the First, the first year of the Objective One period of Wales. The job
is done on that, I have achieved that.
HUMPHRYS: So given that that is
the case and that's disputed, certainly the amount is disputed by Plaid
Cymru but you will be challenging Mr Brown, fighting Mr Brown, you say
you don't like megaphone diplomacy done the length of the M4 but nonetheless
people expect you to be in there fighting for Wales and you will be fighting
and saying "and we want that for next year, we want more for next year"
because the amount you got this year is relatively small.
MICHAEL: I promise you that nobody
could possibly be more vigorous than I have been and will be in making
sure that we get the best deal for Wales. But can I say the amount in this
year is not relatively small, it is a large sum of money and it fits with
the profile and the predictions of expenditure that come both from our
experience with structure of funds previously. The experience of Objective
One expenditure in areas around the UK that have had it before and the
profiles of expenditure in Europe. And as I say this is in discussion with
the European Commission who want to be satisfied that we will be able to
do everything at the time that the money needs to be spent and it's very
clear that we are succeeding in that.
HUMPHRYS: Let's look at somebody
else who desperately needs money and that's farmers. Obviously all farmers
say we need money, but in Wales there is a disproportionately high number
of hill farmers who desperately need money. I mean their plight is, I'm
sure you will acknowledge, their plight is absolutely desperate. Now again
there is money available for them in Europe, a very complicated business,
I hope we don't go into that in detail, but again the argument is that
you are not fighting to get the matching money that is needed out of the
Treasury to help those hill farmers.
MICHAEL: Well again, the fact is
that we have been successful in getting extra money into the economy in
Wales and into hill farmers this year and last year. Indeed, I was in the
position of negotiating with colleagues at the Treasury and the Department
of Agriculture a few weeks after becoming Secretary of State for Wales,
the day before I was about to visit a hill farm in North Wales. And those
were vigorous and protracted negotiations but they were successful. I think
this year, to some extent farmers and the farming unions have tended to
act as if money was going to become available this year, automatically
because it had been in previous years and that's not the case. There were
very difficult negotiations, but we've brought that money in. Now I acknowledge
entirely that there is a tremendous problem facing farming, both immediately
and in the longer term and that's why we've been working very closely with
the farming unions, with food processors and food manufacturers on getting
added value in to Wales. Things like the All Wales Livestock Co-operative,
things like the three foods strategies. Things like putting money into
organic farming, things like putting money into .. which of course will
protect the environment of Wales as well as assuring the future of farmers.
HUMPHRYS: You got absolutely hammered
in the Ceredigion parliamentary by-election, you were in second place
last time around, you are in fourth place this time. it couldn't have been
very helpful could it that Tony Blair was wondering around places like
Cornwall, very similar in some ways to West Wales, telling them that farmers,
or at least rural Britain has never had it so good. That wasn't very smart
was it?
MICHAEL: Well the coincidence of
saying things that need to be said and a particular by-election always
cause difficulties. But I would point out in Ceredigion, what happened
basically was that the Liberals did well, took votes off Plaid, we were
squeezed..
HUMPHRYS: ..I'd say..
MICHAEL: ..in the past in by-elections
we've been successful in squeezing other parties, as in the Vale of Glamorgan
and in the Monmouth by-election for example.
HUMPHRYS: But Ceredigion wasn't
exactly a one off was it, I mean you had terrible results in the European
elections, you had terrible results in the Assembly elections. I mean really
Ceredigion was just a symbol of the way things are going.
MICHAEL: No, I don't think it was,
I think by-elections are moments in time. I think it should be remembered
that in the Assembly, despite the fact that we put in a system of proportional
representation which gives a much stronger representation for the other
parties, we still represent twenty seven of the constituents, twenty seven
out of forty of the constituencies where people are elected directly and
of course, the additional numbers are meant to help the smaller parties.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but the fact is
you don't have a majority there do you and that is why you are going to
have one heck of a job winning your confidence vote this week - in fact
- you won't win it unless one of the parties, one of the other big parties
votes with you - so what are you going to do, are you going to try and
do a deal with the Liberal Democrats or what?
MICHAEL: Well, firstly, can I say
that the arithmetic is absolutely right. If we don't have a majority it
means that the other parties - if they wish to, can vote us down, that's
true at any time and it's..if you like, can introduce a degree of stability.
It depends whether the parties work in the way that was intended when
devolution was voted on and the intention was that parties would work together
for the good of Wales. Now we've sometimes seen that in the Assembly,
we've particularly seen it in the committees which I think are developing
and maturing in a way that over the perspective of a few years when people
look out, will be seen as one of the great successes. There is less evidence
of that at the moment, but that's because, as I say, Plaid Cymru have put
down an artificial deadline with an artificial challenge and said come
and vote with us. The challenge to the other parties is do they say we're
not going to go along with this because it's not in the interests of the
assembly, or do they say well we can't be seen to be outdone or place less
importance on the challenge that Plaid Cymru have put .....
HUMPHRYS: All of which suggests
that you are going to lose it, so what are you going to do then, are you
going to stand again and say you've got to have me because I'm it and you'll
make them as your party nominate you again, put you up again?
MICHAEL: Well it isn't about me
can I say John and I don't....
HUMPHRYS: Oh it is, I mean it is
a vote of no confidence in you, specifically.
MICHAEL: In the first secretary
and it's a vote of confidence if you like in the leadership of the Labour
Party, which, if I may say so, I think has been particularly good in the
difficult first months of the Assembly.....
HUMPHRYS: Well, with great respect,
you would wouldn't you, but I mean they don't seem to think so, so what
are you going to do, are you going, are you going to run again if they
vote you down, are you going to run again, that's the question?
MICHAEL: Yes, indeed I am.
HUMPHRYS: You are, and again, and again.
MICHAEL: Can I make the point
John, that in other assemblies, whether you look at the Scottish Parliament
or the situation in Northern Ireland, their present problems aside, or
in other places where there's change as when there was major change in
South Africa, the early months and even the early years of a new parliamentary
institution are difficult and they require a great deal of effort on the
part of everybody to make them stable. I'm working very hard at that, but
it needs everybody to work hard.
HUMPHRYS: But the effect of it
is ...whether they like you or not, they are stuck with you because that's
how it's going to be?
MICHAEL: Well, yes that's... I
lead the Labour Party and the Labour Party has the largest number of seats,
albeit not a majority and I think the challenge is to the others. If you
don't want the leadership of the Labour Party in the Assembly, what are
you going to offer in its place, so far we had a resounding silence on
that question.
HUMPHRYS: Alun Michael, thank you
very much indeed.
MICHAEL: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: I was talking to Mr Michael
a little earlier this morning.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: David Blunkett won himself
a great round of applause when he told a Labour Party conference before
the election how strongly they felt about comprehensive education. "Read
my lips" he declared, "no selection in education". But that was more than
three years ago. What's happened since the election has led many Labour
supporters to wonder if he really meant it. As Jonathan Beale reports,
those who want to get rid of Britain's last grammar schools feel they're
fighting an uphill battle.
JONATHAN BEALE: In a year of primary school your
future can be decided in a matter of minutes. Testing is designed to pick
out the brightest pupils for academic success. It's also been seen as
divisive and damaging for those children who fail:
DAVID BLUNKETT: Let me say this very
slowly indeed. In fact if you can watch my lips. No selection either by
examination or interview under a Labour Government.
BOB MARSHALL ANDREWS: I think selection is a process which
fails many children and as such of course I would favour a Government that
had grasped this particular nettle and said that selection will cease.
DEREK WYATT: We need a system for our children
that is representative of the needs of our communities. And it is divisive
to divide children at ten. I cannot find a single educational philosopher
or educational professor to say it is right to separate children at ten.
JOHN BERCOW; We not dealing here with machines.
We are concerned with the future of individual children and its to these
individual children's needs that education should be tailored. That must
involve having some degree of selection in our education system, and that
must mean some academic selection in our education system.
BEALE: It already exists in many
state schools. Even comprehensives are choosing a proportion of children
purely on academic ability. But for the moment eyes are focused on schools
that exclusively cater for the brighter children: Grammar Schools have
been the battleground of British education for nearly half a century. This
Government has inherited Labour's traditional hostility to the 11 plus.
And it will be judged by many on whether it allows such a clear cut case
of academic selection to continue. The history of Labour's opposition
to selection is unequivocal. As long ago as 1955 it said the 11 plus should
be scrapped . There were once more than a thousand Grammar schools ..now
there are just a hundred and sixty four. It's their future that's still
to be decided:
BERCOW: Grammar schools are beacons
of excellence in our education system. They are renowned for their academic
results, for their sporting prowess and for their cultural achievements.
It is mad, literally mad, in a country that needs to raise its level of
educational attainment, to talk about abolishing some of the finest state
schools in the country.
WYATT: I went to the grammar school
and my brother and sister failed the eleven plus. It marked them and still
marks them. It's a terribly iniquitous system. You cannot fail seventy
five percent of your community at ten.
BEALE: Hopes were high that this
Government would open the door to equality - the same learning opportunities
for every child To many that meant getting rid of the old academic elite.
But despite David Blunkett's promise the 1997 election manifesto mentioned
nothing about scrapping the grammar school system.
ERIC HAMMOND: They don't say they want
grammar schools abolished. They say they're providing the means where parents
can abolish them. It's a bit of a coward's corner I think.
BECKY MATTHEWS: It would have been much better
had they gone into government and say 'this system is dead in the water;
we will change it where it exists.'
BEALE: Instead the opponents of
the 11 plus are having to do some complicated sums. First they must find
enough parents to sign a petition before they can trigger a vote. Twenty
percent of parents eligible to vote on the future of grammar schools must
sign the petition.
MATTHEWS: In Kent to ask twenty
percent of eligible voters to sign a petition - and its not a simple signature
- there are actually nine boxes that each person has to fill in. In Kent,
in the recent Euro elections I think less than twenty percent went down
put a cross in the box. So we don't underestimate the difficulty of the
task
BEALE: Opponents of the 11 plus
in Kent will need more than forty-five thousand signatures to force a ballot.
Some believe it's a figure that they will never reach..
MARSHALL ANDREWS: I think that the Government set
out deliberately to make this a very difficult process . Now that is because
I think that philosophically possibly the Government is not wholly committed
to an end to selection.
HAMMOND: The way I read it politically
is that it's really a bone that was thrown to the old unreconstructed left
in some long forgotten decision in the Labour Party Conference annuals
and they felt this was the best way to do it, that no grammar school was
going to go under - or maybe one on the fringe where they are on their
own - and so honour would be satisfied. I think it's very dishonourable
actually.
BEALE: So far only one group of
parents in the entire country has reached their target for a ballot. That's
in Ripon where the debate is over just one school. In Kent this is just
one of 33 Grammar schools. The Government is watching from the sidelines
while parents line up against each other to settle the future of Grammar
Schools. But Ministers are acutely aware of the dangers in taking sides
on the emotive issue of a child's education. Not least because parents
expect politicians to practice what they preach:
BLUNKETT: Watch my lips. No selection
either by examination or interview.
BEALE: Supporters of academic
selection are swift to point out that 12 members of the cabinet since
1997 have been products of the Grammar school system. But they are more
likely to be judged by how they choose to educate their own offspring.
Tony Blair says he'll be the first Prime Minister to send all his children
to state schools. But he's attracted criticism for choosing the London
Oratory for his sons. A school that selects after interviewing both prospective
pupils and parents. Harriet Harman - the former Social Security Secretary
- has been accused of more blatant hypocrisy. In the case of one of her
children, she snubbed local schools in favour of a Grammar School ten miles
away.
BERCOW If a parent who is a Labour
Member of Parliament sends his own children to a selective Grammar School
- and that is what a Grammar School is, a selective institution - but then
does not support the right of other parents to do the same , that is hypocrisy.
MARSHALL-ANDREWS: I would have found it uncomfortable
if I with my strong views on selection had at the end of the day sent my
children to a selective school. I would have found that really very difficult
and very uncomfortable
BEALE: Tony Blair appears to be
more concerned about the bigger picture. Like making sure New Labour's
policies appeal to a wider audience. Many of the Grammar schools left are
in former Tory strongholds like Kent. And Labour doesn't want to see its
marginal seats here wiped off the map:
BERCOW: Before the election it
became clear that there were substantial numbers of parents in marginal
seats around the country who were pro Grammar schools and whose support
for grammar schools would stop them voting Labour if they thought Labour
would abolish Grammar Schools outright.
WYATT: I think New Labour came
in with a promise that it would not unduly unpick middle England; and there
are parts of middle England that are grammar.
MARSHALL-ANDREWS: I would be very sorry if the
Government's motivation was an electoral rather than an educational one.
BEALE: Critics say it's not measured
up to expectations on grammar schools. Nor has the Government clamped down
on the selection policies of other schools. In fact it's allowing comprehensives
to apply general ability tests for a proportion of their entrants. Those
championing all-ability schools say the system is still loaded against
them:
CAPERSON: I think a lot of educators
actually felt that if there were a Labour Government there would be a clean
break with the selective past and it would be the opportunity finally to
produce the benefits of comprehensive education to the whole of the country.
And I think many of us are disappointed that that hasn't happened yet
WILLIAMS: We are pitting professional
against professional. Up until now grammar schools and high schools and
comprehensive schools have worked well together with the ultimate aim of
improving the academic standards of all our youngsters. I do not wish to
spend time debating this issue for a moment longer than is necessary. Let's
go back to working together to improve education for all youngsters.
BEALE: New Labour's education
policy bears little resemblance to the old. Labour's fundamental opposition
to selection has now been transformed. And all the apparent inconsistencies
have been carefully covered up:
Like art, the Government's attitude to selection can be interpreted in
different ways. First it was no selection. Then it was no more selection.
And most recently it's being interpreted as some selection but only by
aptitude:
BLUNKETT: "Watch my lips - no selection".
POWELL: Certainly this government
is encouraging certain forms of selection. It's fostering a specialist
schools policy which is leading to the establishment of a large number
of secondary schools which can select a proportion of their students by
aptitude. Now there is significant debate about whether you can select
by aptitude or whether that's not a covert form of selecting by ability.
BEALE: It is, according to the
Government, an entirely new formula. There are now nearly 500 schools
which can select ten percent of pupils by aptitude. The fully comprehensive
system of the 60's and 70's is seen as an experiment that failed.
MARSHALL-ANDREWS: The type of selection which I
think is worth considering is something which the Government are now actively
promoting - and I think it's a very good piece of government policy -
and that is specialists within schools. So you have beacon schools, for
instance, for languages, for sport, for mathematics, for engineering.
BERCOW: The government seems to
be in favour of selection by aptitude and yet it is opposed to selection
by ability. It's happy to have people selected because they're good at
playing a musical instrument or because they have a facility for technology
or because they're adept at sport or because they're skilled in languages,
all of that's alright as far as this government is concerned but if you
happen to be generally academically able, that apparently is a sin the
Government can't forgive
BEALE: Labour though is speaking
a very different language to the one it spoke in opposition. And it's still
not clear how its core supporters will react. True the new words are far
more soothing to many middle class voters. But it will be difficult to
please both sides:
BERCOW: They're not quite sure
what to do so it's mix and match: it's say one thing and do another; and
indeed it's say different things to different audiences in different places
at different times for different purposes This is chameleon politics.
BEALE: Do you think this Government
wanted to get rid of grammar schools?
WYATT: That's a hard question to
answer.
BEALE: The answer may well satisfy
these grammar school children. The odds are that their school will be
preserved. But it's unlikely to satisfy those Labour supporters and parents
for whom selection is a lingering injustice.
HUMPHRYS: Jonathan Beale reporting
there. I'm afraid there was no minister available to talk about selection
in education. That's it for this week. A quick reminder of our Web-site
where you can find all my latest interviews. 'Till next week, good afternoon.
....ooooOoooo....
21
FoLdEd
|