|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: So John Prescott, the Labour
Party has changed, clearly. You - I think it was you - that coined the
phrase 'Traditional values in a modern setting' that was yours wasn't it?
JOHN PRESCOTT: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: But the worry has got
to be that by trying to be all things to all people, you can't really assert,
you can't shout from the roof tops those traditional values that have got
you to where you are today and that's got to be a bit of a worry hasn't
it.
PRESCOTT: I don't accept that.
If our traditional values, the ways that have provided people, dealt with
the problems at the beginning of the century - mass unemployment, squalor
and no housing, slums kind of situation, access to education and health.
They are still the traditional values that I talked about which Keir Hardie
had in his manifesto, was largely implemented by that Labour Government
in 1945 and that's why we saw public provision so important, for education,
for the Health Service and even the housing estates, we just didn't convert
to them, we did that to get people out of slums into decent housing. Now
in all those senses health, education, housing are still in our manifestos,
they are in our little card that I run around the country with. So those
traditional values are there but sometimes in the providing of them you
do it within the modern setting, though with education and health we are
clearly putting bigger resources through public facilities, through the
taxpayers' payment to provide those things that are needed for the equality
of opportunity and for the securing of social justice, of which the Labour
Party is about at the beginning of the last century and indeed the beginning
of this century.
HUMPHRYS: But perhaps the big difference
is this. As you say those problems existed then, they exist today, many
of them to a much lesser extent, clearly, they have to be paid for. The
old Labour Party was quite clear about it, redistribution was the way to
tackle it, Richard Crossman..Tony Crossman used to talk about it and that
was what you were proud of standing for. Now, is that something the Labour
Party still believes in - redistribution from the rich to the poor.
PRESCOTT: Well it wants to see
that equality and the equality of opportunity and reducing the disparities
between the haves and the have-nots but we also emphasise that we are the
party of the many. Let me deal directly with the point, if you take housing
for example, a very important consideration, we have taken five billion
pounds of money that was held in local authority accounts, now to begin
to rebuild and redo housing that had been allowed to go into decline. That
didn't require any more money from the government, it did a different form
of priorities. The forty billion pounds now, that Gordon Brown has got
into health and education, shows again our priorities for those two areas
which are about the quality of life - health, education and jobs - because
of prosperous economies. And prosperous economies are an important point
of that. We have got something like eight hundred thousand more people
back in work, so if we want to talk about equality of opportunity we want
to talk about the quality of life, having a job is crucial, living in a
house, access to education and health are crucial parts of Labour's manifesto
and we still do it. Now, as for the redistribution and dealing with the
poverty industry, which I think is a very important matter, we have of
course minimum wage which Keir Hardie called for and it's Tony Blair's
government's that's actually implemented it so fair pay, out of poverty
pay is an important part.
The way that we have dealt
with the pensions, the Family Income Allowance, the Family Allowances,
the Workers' Family Credit, now which will guarantee at least ten thousand
in work. That is the way we are making sure that people are not driven
into poverty pay and meets the kind of equality of approach to be fair
in a society.
HUMPHRYS: But the old way of doing
it was to make it necessary, to make the rich a bit poorer so that the
poor could get to be a bit richer and old Labour accepted that if that
had to be done with direct taxation then so be it. But when you came into
power, you not only accepted your predecessor, the Conservative Party's
direct taxation levels, you actually set about reducing then. So that proves
doesn't it, that you are nervous. You are desperately nervous of this concept
of direct redistribution.
PRESCOTT: Well no, I think what
Gordon Brown did do of course, as you suggest, he reduced the lower level
ten p. We reduced the basic tax, it was a commitment that we gave in the
election, it takes into account the new circumstances we find ourselves
as a political party and indeed the global economy we operate in.
HUMPHRYS: And the rich are benefiting
as well as the poorer..
PRESCOTT: Well that's true, you
could argue that case of course and in fact what we have seen is we are
providing the money for public services on a scale that we haven't done
before quite frankly, both in health and the education. More needs to be
done, but we are doing that. We have also found new ways of raising resources
for the public private partnerships in our public facilities like the Underground
or the areas of public service industries which were largely dependent
on the taxpayer for the investment and it failed to get the best of the
provision of that investment. So all these things are a different way of
doing things but our traditional values are still there, heavily at the
heart of our manifesto programme which is about equal opportunity, it is
about social justice and distinguishes very much from the other political
parties.
HUMPHRYS: Right, but the approach
is different. Let me quote you what Tony Blair - Tony Wright (Freudian
slip) Tony Wright said in that film and it rather suggests that he's whistling
in the dark, bearing in mind what you've just been saying: 'I'd like to
see Tony Blair saying we are trying to tax in new ways to raise the money
we need. That taxation is a civic responsibility' - that's the important
one - 'taxation is a civic responsibility because if you don't do that
you've got every party in the land simply following a tax cutting agenda
and that's the end of the party of the left'. He has a point there doesn't
he.
PRESCOTT: Well he has a point
if you traditionally define it in that way. The tax burden we are talking
about is the direct one and there's direct and indirect taxation systems,
there are new ways of raising money which I have been referred to on the
public private partnership. The Underground for example wants seven billion
pounds, it doesn't come from that. So it's the balance of expenditure,
government's expenditure and it's government take from tax, or indeed an
increase in wealth in society, it's balancing those and provided the outcome
is improving it for the many in this country, I think that's justified
and if it gives the priorities to provision of health and education and
homes, I think that shows the social justice agenda.
HUMPHRYS: But it's goodbye to redistribution
in the sense that the Labour Party has always understood it.
PRESCOTT: Well you redistribute
in different ways, whether it's through greater accountability on power,
or whether it's in different forms of..
HUMPHRYS: I did qualify the question
by saying..
PRESCOTT: ...narrow interpretation..
HUMPHRYS: ..well in the way that
the Labour Party always accepted it.
PRESCOTT: Well taxation has its
part to play, it's still a progressive taxation, it could be more progressive
you could argue but..
HUMPHRYS: ..indeed I could..
PRESCOTT: ..it is a progressive
tax system but I think what we try to do is to find different ways and
forms of financing..
HUMPHRYS: Stealth taxes comes to
me of course...
PRESCOTT: Well that is the rhetoric
that is used on these occasions. All governments have been involved in
different forms of taxation and they will still continue... We still believe
in a progressive taxation, they will argue about the levels and indeed
we do, between the political parties and within parties, but it's a lot
better and the Labour Party now finds itself in a stable economic situation
where the creation of wealth is far better. The growth in our economy is
good and we'll reduce the amount of debt so we don't pay as much in interest
and we transfer that money to pay for things like health and education.
That is redistribution in the true term of the word.
HUMPHRYS: All of which of course
needs, you'd be the first to acknowledge, much more money in the years
to come, a greater health and education and all those other .......
PRESCOTT: Better than keeping people
in mass unemployment. It will all bring them opportunities of jobs so
you're not putting the money into maintaining...
HUMPHRYS: You don't actually have
a commitment to full employment do you, not a commitment, it's an aspiration
not a commitment.
PRESCOTT: Well, I don't know what
you call it. It's the highest level of employment that we've secured here.
HUMPHRYS: But it is not a commitment...
PRESCOTT: It's also eight hundred
thousand more than when we came in, and we're moving to more and more full
employment.
HUMPHRYS: But the old part y had
a commitment to full employment didn't it?
PRESCOTT: Well, the old party produced
full employment, but they were very much in a controlled national economy.
We're in a global economy which is much more considerable, considerably
different for those circumstances, but there's no reason why we can't believe
that people should have a right to work and help to provide the full employment
as they did in forty-seven, as we do now.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, the right to work
of course is very different from an absolute entitlement to work, as a
result of the commitment which you are not prepared to make and have never
made..
PRESCOTT: Well, at these levels
of employment we've got at the moment it's highly difficult to define....
HUMPHRYS: ........the principle
- we're talking about principles here.
PRESCOTT: I know, I can remember
when it was full employment John. They used to argue whether two-and-a
half per cent unemployed was the amount of money that you had when you
balanced inflation and the rest of the economy, but what is true - eight
hundred thousand more people in work - it's the highest level of employment,
less spent on unemployment, more people into work. That's equality of
opportunity.
HUMPHRYS: And that is one of the
ways...
PRESCOTT: That's where we make
the difference.
HUMPHRYS: And that's one of the
ways in which you spend less money, so therefore you will have more money
to spend on things like the public services, like bringing the NHS up to
the standard that one of your values demands that it should be at. But
that isn't happening, not happening yet because you are afraid to raise
the money, the sort of money that Tony Blair admitted himself a few weeks
ago was needed. He talked about - I know you told us you're putting more
money in - everybody puts more money into the National Health Service.
He said we need to put much more money in still to bring it up to the
European level. Now, you're not going to that because you're afraid to
raise taxes, as would have happened under the old Labour system.
PRESCOTT: You must wait and see
because the amounts of money that go into the public sector or the private
sector are a matter of distribution from a government's point of view.
If it wants to put more in health as Gordon Brown has done - over twenty
billion pounds, however he raises that...
HUMPHRYS: ... It's not.....quite.
PRESCOTT: Over a three year period.
I mean we're negotiating the next three years. There is the highest
investment going into the Health Service, there are thirty more hospitals
being built, so we've started, and we've only been in two and a half years.
Now as to whether more resources are needed for the health, that's a very
important point. People live longer, twice as long now as they did when
Keir Hardie was talking about it. It means the demands on the Health Service
has not, as Labour first thought if people are healthier there'd be less
demand to put money into hospitals. No, no, medical science advances,
people live longer, so it does demand more money. That's exactly what
Tony Blair is saying.
HUMPHRYS: And when he was challenged
on that, and when he said yes, all those things that you've just said,
of course it demands more money and will continue to demand more money
he backed away from a commitment. The impression he gave in that interview
that you'll remember as well as I was that it was a commitment, a real
promise, a real pledge, a real commitment, it turned out not to be any
of those things, it turned out to be a hope, an aspiration.
PRESCOTT: No. We've made it absolutely
clear we would continue to try and find more resources for health.
HUMPHRYS: ... will you find..
It's a commitment.
PRESCOTT: Well, it's a commitment
for a Health Service which was our creation. Let me make this clear to
you John. We created a Health Service, not as Beveridge recommended when
he talked of how we deal with the evils like disease. He had an insurance
system. The Liberals wanted an insurance system, the Tories wanted an
insurance system.
HUMPHRYS: I'm not, not talking
of any of that.
PRESCOTT: I know, but there's an
important point here. We created it on a Socialist principle, that is
treatment based upon need and not your ability to pay. That means that
we have to find the resources to meet that ever-increasing demand. Now
one of the controversies I'm involved in is whether you can find money
from the private sector for investment in public services rather than going
to the Chancellor and asking for his money. If in fact we can do that
whether it's the Underground, whether it's Nats, what I'm choosing to do,
I'm trying to persuade others of, that that kind of priority in public
expenditure relieves the Exchequer of resources, not to invest in trains,
underground, but to put it into hospitals and education. It is a re-prioritising
if you like, of government expenditure within the total amount of expenditure.
HUMPHRYS: It is of course a lot
more than that. I mean some people would argue of course in one sense
it's mortgaging the future, but you see, one of your core...
PRESCOTT: Everything mortgages
the future. If you buy a house you mortgage the future.
HUMPHRYS: Not if you pay for something
immediately then you haven't. But...
PRESCOTT: Don't just move off that.
Thirty hospitals now are being used on private financing, right. That
means you get the hospital now instead of waiting with an old decrepit
hospital for twenty years. You just asked me first of all what the public
want, and there's no doubt they want that, and secondly if you want good
quality public services that is the way we find new ways of financing,
it's traditional values in a modern setting.
HUMPHRYS: In a modern setting -
as we kicked off with. I knew you were going to say that. But let's look
at this hugely important question of ownership. Now, you were proud of
public ownership many years ago. You are now so embarrassed by the very
notion of public ownership that you run a mile from it. I mean that is
not just a hundred-and-eighty degrees, that's if it's possible more than
a hundred-and eighty - you've gone away - even, even if, even if - let
me finish the point - even if the public appears to want it, as is the
case with the London Underground. You've run away from it.
PRESCOTT: Well, I haven't run away.....
HUMPHRYS: Because you're embarrassed
by public ownership.
PRESCOTT: No, I'm not embarrassed,
in fact - but wait a minute. The London Underground is actually remaining
in public ownership. Can I say that? It's not got shares, it's not set
up to be privatised. It is owned by Londoners. All I've done is to say
that when it was publicly owned Treasuries never ever found enough money
to put the investment, that's why it's creaking and groaning. They never
give more than two years. On this proposal we will be able to get the
investment guaranteed well over twenty years, we will modernise the system
and the assets once modernised, like a mortgaging facility come back to
London. It's not privatised.
HUMPHRYS: Well, you'd better tell
all this to Frank Dobson because he's now running away from this notion.
He seemed to be on board with it, but now he seems to be running away
from it.
PRESCOTT: No, what he said is that
he wants to ...
HUMPHRYS: He wants to have another
look at it.
PRESCOTT: No, all he's said is
he wants to make sure it's the best value for money. No, wait a minute...
HUMPHRYS: Well, he was convinced......
PRESCOTT: I know, ... no, no.
When Frank was doing hospitals he was doing precisely that. I am required
by parliament to be able to produce a price for a product in this case
which is best value for the taxpayer and the community. If I can't prove
that then it would fall. Some hospitals fell because they couldn't prove
it was best value, but don't run away, it's still publicly owned, publicly
accountable, run by Londoners, and they'll get a modern system back, and
that's why I'm critical of the public ownership. Public ownership never
ever gave investments, so actually were water, electricity or Underground
more than two years. I want to break out of that, to make sure we get
the best of the public sector and the best of the private sector working
in a partnership.
HUMPHRYS: And you've explained
all that to Frank Dobson. Presumably that's what you're going to tell
Ken Livingstone when you meet him this week.
PRESCOTT: ...no, no, no, no, no,
no
HUMPHRYS: What are you going to
say to Ken Livingstone, look, I'll do some of the things that you want.
PRESCOTT: No, no, look, look, the
public/private partnership was in our manifesto. Ken says he supports
manifesto. It's not....
HUMPHRYS: ......no concessions
to him than at all
PRESCOTT: ......wait a minute,
wait a minute, it's passed in legislation, Ken voted for it, I voted for
it, Frank Dobson voted for it.....
HUMPHRYS: What's the point of meeting
him them.
PRESCOTT: Well, I'm not meeting
him to discuss that. I wear my Deputy Leader hat, and I'm talking to him
about the party considerations, and I hope Ken, who signed up for the manifesto,
who signed up to agree the election result, will now reflect on this position
and not join those who walk into the wilderness. It was Ken who said,
I was born Labour, I'll die Labour, and I hope that's what Ken will do,
come back, join, make sure he sticks with us and get behind Frank Dobson.
I'm not discussing any manifesto commitment, I can't change the manifesto
any more than he can. Party members decide our manifesto.
HUMPHRYS: So it's back off to Ken
Livingstone, back off, or else.
PRESCOTT: Well it's nothing to
do with the tube, it's to do with....
HUMPHRYS: ...no, no, I'm saying,
what you're saying to Ken Livingstone is knuckle down....
PRESCOTT: .....I'm saying, Ken,
you've always said you are a Labour man, you wrote up and said you would
sign the election of this, you'd accept this election result, you signed
up for that, you signed up to say you accept manifesto commitments, all
those now have been decided, why are you not now joining with us to fight
the Tory candidate and ....
HUMPHRYS: .......doesn't seem a
lot of point
PRESCOTT: .......and make sure
we have a Labour man.
HUMPHRYS: Doesn't seem a lot of
point in meeting him does there because he knows that's your view, you've
made it clear in very strong language over the last weeks.
PRESCOTT: I know, but I didn't
arrange this meeting, the General Secretary of the party arranged it...
HUMPHRYS: ......so you don't want
it....
PRESCOTT: .....and asked would
me.... I would always meet with people I hoped would stay in the Labour
Party. There are many people who have left. You know, you've got, you've
got Molesley on the extreme right went out and they got lost, you've got
Hatton on the extreme left, if you like, one way, and somebody like David
Owen in the middle, they've all left, but eventually the Labour Party's
marched on, delivering social justice, and I say to Ken, stick with us
Ken, you're a Labour Party guy, let's make sure Labour wins this election.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, well let me
move on at that point to another area, because you are going to stay with
us for the rest of the programme I am happy to say.
|