|
====================================================================================
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:
02.04.00
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Is it the end
of the road for the small farmers of Britain? I'll be asking the Agriculture
Minister Nick Brown if he's telling the industry: adapt or die?
The government's
facing a rebellion from its own supporters who say it still won't let us
know enough about what goes on in Whitehall. That's after the news read
by Sian Williams.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: The government tells us we
have a right to know what goes on in the corridors of power, but is the
promise to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy being betrayed?
The United Kingdom
Independence Party did well in the Euro elections, but are their chances
when it comes to choosing our MPs?
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first, Tony Blair hosted
a "Farming Summit" at Number Ten last week and sent the farmers away with
a promise of more money to help them out of their crisis. But the crisis
remains and no-one, least of all the farmers themselves, believe that things
can carry on as they are for very much longer. Something has to give.
The Agriculture Minister Nick Brown is with me. We'll talk about that
in a minute if we may Mr Brown but the Country File programme that was
on the air just before us showed, as you may know, a report from Queen's
University in Belfast, amongst other places, about Chrone's disease and
the bacterium that causes it which is apparently found in three out of
every hundred bottles of milk. Now that on the face of it sounds desperately
worrying. Are you worried about it?
NICK BROWN: The bacterium that's referred
to in the programme is a world wide problem, this isn't unique to the United
Kingdom and of course it's killed by pasteurisation.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but not all of
it apparently.
BROWN: Well in the laboratory experiments
that the government has done, the normal levels and above normal levels
are killed off by pasteurisation. The theory is, and there's no agreement
amongst scientists about this, that in some circumstances it may get through
and there may be a link but the scientific advice to government doesn't
tell us that that's the case and as with everything in this area, the government
relies on being professionally advised.
HUMPHRYS: But because there is
this disagreement between the experts and some very sensible, very serious
senior people they're saying it is terribly worrying indeed, are you going
to do anything about it?
BROWN: Well there is a research
programme that's underway now. As you know, responsibility for these issues
has just transferred to the Department of Health and to the new Food Standards
Agency......
HUMPHRYS: Will they be looking
at this?
BROWN: Well they take the lead
in this issue from now on but we have been not only pushing forward the
research frontiers, we've also conducted our own experiments and at normal
levels and above normal levels the bacterium is killed off by pasteurisation.
Pasteurisation itself is a very powerful public protection measure. I
mean that's why it's in place.
HUMPHRYS: But because of this research
and because of the warnings raised by this particular professor you wouldn't
say people should be cautious about drinking milk?
BROWN: No. No..... I wouldn't....
I mean this is just a personal view, although we still allow green top
milk which is unpasteurised milk to be sold, I personally don't drink it.
I drink pasteurised milk and it's safe to do so.
HUMPHRYS: Absolutely safe as far
as you're concerned?
BROWN: I'm not going to get into
a debate about what is absolutely safe. It isn't absolutely safe to go
to bed at night. We're getting into a semantic area now but it's certainly
safe enough for me to feel I can drink it with confidence.
HUMPHRYS: Okay. Two hundred million
pounds for the farmers as a result of this farming summit, not much of
a summit as it turns out but there we are. The Prime Minister met a few
farmers and talked to a few people and you came away with this two hundred
million pounds which you will no doubt be very pleased with. But you would
accept that it is no more at the very best than offering a breathing space.
BROWN: It was a very successful
summit and the best things that came out of it weren't the things that
had a price tag attached. The retailers were able to present their new
Code of Conduct for the supply chain. Now that's something that's going
to be enormously welcome to farmers and to distributors and processors
and to the retail chain itself. Ben Gill was able to launch - the President
of the NFU was able to launch the new quality assurance mark which pulls
together the different quality assurances and enables people in the supermarket,
because the retailers pledge to use it to buy British Assured Standards
and they said, the supermarket leaders said they would be using it on British
products, so you look for the mark, you're getting a high standard product
and it's British.
HUMPHRYS: But it's money that they
want understandably because their incomes have fallen. If you look at
the figures as you know very well indeed, have fallen by sixteen per cent
in the past five years, that's nearly five billion pounds. Now when you
set two hundred million pounds against that it isn't very much is it so
they are still in crisis are they not?
BROWN: John, they're my ministry's
figures. I mean farm incomes have been depressed for the last three years
and we have never concealed the extent of that. What we're trying to do
is to develop sensible policies that will get British agriculture through
to better times. We cannot buy the problem out and the money that was
announced last Thursday isn't an attempt to do that. What we're doing
is targeting the money that we have got, measures that we know will get
farming through to better times. We're spending it on a range of things:
Hill farm supports, lifting the weight limit on the OTMS which will be
a help to dairy farmers.........
HUMPHRYS: OTMS is the ........
BROWN: It's the Over Thirty Months
Scheme.... I'm sorry some of this is quite technical, but the idea is to
try and tackle the three problems which are low commodity prices on the
world market, the weakness of the Euro, and that's why we've made proportionate
use of the counter-veiling agro-monetery compensation, and the BSE Public
Protection Measures which do put an extra cost onto UK farmers and the
government at the summit accepted the cost of some more of those measures
ourselves, hence the point about lifting the weight limit.
HUMPHRYS: But if you asked most
farmers what their biggest concern is in relation to their drop in incomes
they would say it's the value of the pound, it means that they cannot sell
their products abroad at the sort of price that means anything for them
at all and therefore they are in very serious trouble as a result of that.
Now presumably you've not been banging on Gordon Brown's door saying 'Do
something about the value of the pound' because that's by and large not
something that industry ministers are paid to do and you'd need to be a
very brave man indeed, perhaps you are a very brave man indeed and perhaps
that's what you've been doing, but in the absence of that then it has to
be a restructuring of the industry doesn't it?
BROWN: Yeah. Well I do favour
a restructuring of the industry regardless of the exchange rate position.
The fact of the matter is that world markets are liberalising, the CAP
is bound to reform, there are enormous pressures upon it, we need to get
ahead of the game not run behind it and make British agriculture much more
market orientated. There are a range of different ways of doing that:
The choices for the individual farmers who are running individual private
sector businesses the government is there to help and that was the purpose
of the summit on Thursday and the range of announcements that followed.
HUMPHRYS: Let's be clear what we
mean when we talk about restructuring. What it actually means is a cut
in the number of people working in agriculture, that's effectively what
it's all about isn't it?
BROWN: I'm not sure that that is
so. I mean there's been a steady movement for farms to amalgamate and
to get larger in the United Kingdom.....
HUMPHRYS: Which means fewer people
BROWN: Well, that's nothing new.
I mean that's been going on ....
HUMPHRYS: Absolutely!
BROWN: I mean since the Second
World War that has been a discernible trend. Another discernible trend
is a steady decline in the numbers of people employed in agricultural production,
but that is a trend that may be bottoming out now, and may even reverse
with some speciality markets. Organic farming is one obvious example,
it's labour intensive, but....
HUMPHRYS: ... described as a speciality
market, but...
BROWN: I know, well we can quarrel
about that later, but the developments of the farmers' markets movement
as well is a great way forward for the small and medium sized farmer, and
that also is labour intensive. So it doesn't mean that there has to be
a steady move towards agri-business as you would put it without any countervailing
factors.
HUMPHRYS: Well, then it's odd in
that case that one of the documents that was published by your Department
on Thursday after the summit talked about, and I quote from it 'a faster
restructuring would result in a faster run-down of the number of farms
and the number of people working in farming', and that was accepted
BROWN: All of that is true, but
it doesn't mean that the total numbers of people employed will necessarily
go down.
HUMPHRYS: Of course it does. A
faster restructuring, a faster run-down on the farms, and the number of
people working in farming.
BROWN: Because the jobs move downstream.
I mean is running a farmers' market working in farming?
HUMPHRYS: The reduction of rundown
- faster rundown in the number of people working in farming.
BROWN: Well, that is a steady discernible
trend. The point I'm trying to make is there may be new jobs coming in
farm businesses which are not what you'd call conventional agriculture.
Running a farmers' market is one such thing, running a riding stable for
example, is that agriculture? It's certainly a farm business.
HUMPHRYS: But we're talking about
a hundred thousand people over the next five years. That's the sort of
figures that we're talking about. They're not all going to run farmers'
markets, and I went through the document that you produced with a reasonably
fine tooth-comb and the only thing that I could see that it really offered
them was talk about the horse industry. Well, for heaven's sake how many
people are going to be able to run pony trekking operations. Not too many
in west Wales or Cornwall I can tell you, or Cumbria for that matter.
BROWN: I think you're actually
wrong to speak prejudicially about that. It is actually quite a strong
sector and one of the things that came out of the summit were new moves
to encourage it. We're talking about...
HUMPHRYS: A hundred thousand people,
let's be realistic.
BROWN: ..farm business diversification
more generally, and the areas that are always pointed to are farm-gate
businesses, are the potential for tourism, their potential for converting
agricultural businesses to other economically....
HUMPHRYS: This has been going on
for year and years and years.
BROWN: ...viable uses. And the
government wants to encourage that trend.
HUMPHRYS: There is a limit to....
BROWN: What we cannot...
HUMPHRYS: .. how everybody can
take in paying guests. There aren't enough to go round, you know. It
just doesn't work like that.
BROWN: It is a necessity for those
running farm businesses to focus on the income streams and to make sure
they've got enough income streams to make a living. What you cannot ask
the Government to do is to pay the problem up, and that's the message we're
giving loud and clear, and what we're trying to do is to put money behind
alternative routes, and you can say: oh well each individual route doesn't
amount to very much, but the sum total of them does.
HUMPHRYS: What a hundred thousand
jobs?.
BROWN: Well, you know. Yes.
HUMPHRYS : Because that's the figure
you're talking about isn't it?
BROWN: Who knows how many jobs.
Uniquely in the United Kingdom there is a drift from urban societies to
rural ones. A pattern world wide in developed societies is the other way
round. There is something quite special going on in our country, that
most of the people who go to live in the countryside now don't do it to
get employment in farming.
HUMPHRYS: No. Because they work
in the cities. They come and work in the cities. Most people who go and
live in that nice little village a hundred miles away or sixty miles away
or something, go to work in the nearby town. They're not working in the
country - it's a great myth that they're working in the countryside, they're
not.
BROWN: That's not entirely true
either. I mean with the growth of new technologies and the growth of home-working
you find a lot of people working in the service sector ...
HUMPHRYS: But they're not creating
jobs are they. You can be sitting there playing with your ... or doing
something terribly important maybe with your word-processor or your little
internet operation - you're not creating jobs.
BROWN: Well, I fundamentally disagree
with that. Economic activity is economic activity and not all work involves
you know, manual work on a farm.
HUMPHRYS: Of course it doesn't
all involve manual work on a farm, but I repeat, we're talking about a
hundred thousand jobs. We're talking about a major restructuring, and
when the Dutch looked at their problem, as they looked for instance as
you very well know at their pig industry of which there is too much, too
many pigs, not enough people buying the bacon and all of that, so they
said, well now we've got to get a lot of people at fifteen per cent of
cut back, which is more or less what you are envisaging as I understand
it, and they said: we're going to put a lot of money into this. They put
five hundred million pounds into it. Well what are we talking about?
We're talking about twenty-six million pounds.
BROWN: The Dutch example is not
a good one because as you know they've had a recent outbreak of classic
swine fever. The industry had to run right down in order to control the
disease, it then built up again very fast indeed and arrived at substantial
over-production just as the whole market crashed. So they've had to take
pretty radical surgery....
HUMPHRYS: But the end result is
the same. They had as it were, to buy out those jobs because they didn't
want massive depression in there, so they spent five hundred million quid,
we're spending for the same sort of job and the figures are comparable,
the figures are roughly comparable. We're spending twenty-six million.
BROWN: But the correct analogy
with the Dutch pig industry would be with our BSE crisis. Remember it's
how they respond to things that have gone wrong in the industry after a
dramatic disease. It's not how you respond to things that have gone wrong
in the industry after a dramatic swing in the classic industry cycle which
is what is the case here in the United Kingdom. There was huge over-production
in nineteen-ninety-six because people were getting a decent price for the
product and so they....
HUMPHRYS: ... I understand that...
BROWN: The European Union market
then fell away largely because exports to eastern Europe collapsed so there
was an enormous amount of surplus product, some intended for the domestic
market, some displaced from overseas markets and the prices came crashing
down.
HUMPHRYS: But in this country.....
BROWN: It has probably been the
deepest downturn in what is called the classic pig cycle ever, and the
Government has taken countervailing measures inasmuch as it is for government,
but what a lot of people don't understand is that pig farmers, unlike sheep
and dairy and beef, are not covered by aid programmes from the Common Agricultural
Policy, so devising a policy involving public money to help the sector
isn't an easy thing to do.
HUMPHRYS: But it is going to get
worse in this country isn't it, I mean, competition is going to get worse.
The Americans are pressing very hard, in the end what the Americans want
the Americans tend to get, so that we are not going to be able to subsidise
it in those areas that we can subsidise, beef and sheep and so on, we are
not going to be able to as much of that in the long run as, as we are at
the moment, so the upshot of all this is that we are going to see a very,
very changing rural Britain, aren't we? And we are going to see many fewer
jobs and we are going to see many fewer farms.
BROWN: We are going to see changing
agricultural businesses. I agree with you long-term trends in employment
are downwards in direct production although I don't agree that that necessarily
means that the related jobs will go, in fact, I think they might even increase.
The key issue for the government is to make sure that we take the supports
from the supply side supports, the production supports that we pay now,
and that we pay rural supports, use public money to preserve the countryside
in the way we want to keep it, but to make sure that those payments to
farm businesses, buy in environmental goods and are decoupled from agricultural
production.
HUMPHRYS: Let's try and make that
a bit more simple so that we follow what we are saying here. In other
words, you will not in future pay farmers to grow things, particularly
those things that we don't want and we can't sell and we put into store
or whatever it happens to be or sell cheaply somewhere else, we will not
do that, we will pay them to manage the countryside, in effect.
BROWN: That's the road down which
we're travelling. Now, it's not going to change overnight, but we are
remorselessly in a period of change. It means that farm business have
to be more market focused and that the government supports in the future
are much more likely to come for purchasing valuable public goods, like
the landscape, like the shape of the countryside, and not subsidising
food production.
HUMPHRYS: But that in itself, the
way you describe it, is very, very expensive and we are not at the moment
putting in anything like enough to keep the farmers doing, or to get more
farmers more specifically to do that sort of job, and that's the crucial
thing isn't it.
BROWN: No, but last December I
announced a sixty per cent increase on the resources that the government
were going to apply....
HUMPHRYS: ....on a very small figure....
BROWN: No, that's true, but I got
a thirty per cent increase in the amount of money that comes from Europe
to our country, you're right, on a very small base, but it is an extra
three-hundred million pounds over seven years, and that's new money, real
new money, for England alone.
HUMPHRYS: But there's got to be
much more hasn't there, ultimately.
BROWN: My view is, that in reshaping
the Common Agricultural Policy, we should put more money behind the instrument
I am just describing and put less money into direct Agricultural supports
or compensation for price cuts.
HUMPHRYS: And we'll see a different
Britain in fifty years time, twenty years time, ten years time.
BROWN: I think it will be on a
much shorter time-scale than that, but the key thing is to reform the Common
Agricultural Policy.
HUMPHRYS: Nick Brown, thank you
very much indeed.
BROWN: You're very welcome, as
always.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Now MP's are going to
debate the Freedom of Information Bill this week, and when they come to
vote it's expected that many Labour MP's will oppose the government. Because,
they say, there will not be ENOUGH freedom. Too much of what goes on in
Whitehall will still be kept secret from us, the voters. As Paul Wilenius
reports, they want big changes.
PAUL WILENIUS: Seeing clearly into the
heart of government, is difficult. To many people it's a mystery The public
has no right to know what goes on or the government spends �350 billion
a year, and employs nearly 5 million people. Now many fear Labour is failing
to deliver a radical Freedom of Information Bill, despite the early promises
to reveal government secrets .
MARK FISHER MP: I'm disappointed that the
whole tone of this bill is not on the side of the applicant, the individual,
the questioner, but is on the side of the minister, the Government, the
institution.
LORD RICHARD: It is quite extraordinary
actually , the more one goes round the world , even at my advancing age,
the more I marvel at the fact that Britain is a country that believes
basically deeply believes that government ought to be secret.
WILENIUS: Tony Blair promised four
years ago to end the culture of secrecy which surrounds Whitehall when
he got into power, .but many in his party feel the Freedom of Information
Bill is too weak .Now many Labour MPs are planning to vote against crucial
parts of the legislation when it's debated in the Commons this week.
TONY WRIGHT MP: People don't want to be rebellious.
People don't want to vote against their own government, I certainly don't
want to do it, but this is an issue which does cross those party lines.
It's about how we defend and advance the rights of citizens.
WILENIUS: And the ordinary citizen
was at the front of the minds of this all-party group of senior MPs when
they met on Thursday. They warned Ministers that there'll have to be significant
changes , to make the bill acceptable Ministers are so worried about their
opposition, they'll meet the MPs tomorrow to try and head off a revolt.
But if there are no significant concessions, some are forecasting a sizeable
rebellion.
FISHER: I would be surprised if
between 40 and 60 back-bench Labour MPs were not very unhappy on this issue,
and perhaps more significant from the Government and indeed the House of
Lords' point of view, is who those MPs are. They're not going to be the
regular rebels, the awkward squad, they will include, I suspect, some very
senior chairmen and chairwomen of select committees.
WRIGHT: This is serious pressure
on government, its not the normal party, party line stuff. We think we
we've got the arguments right, we think we think we've got the government
on the ropes on this.
WILENIUS: The political pressure
has forced some concessions from Ministers. But campaigners feel the bill
still allows far too much secrecy. They've targeted three major defects.
Under the bill there are blanket exemptions on the release of information
gathered during investigations by any public authority, which may lead
to criminal or civil proceedings. It means important information on health
and safety, and potential risks to the public could be kept secret, even
if it does not prejudice a court case, or even after the court case is
over.
MIKE O'BRIEN MP: There will be a substantial
ability to know information and there will be a requirement that any information,
in which there's a public interest in disclosure is disclosed. But if there's
also a public interest in making sure that we catch criminals and that
we don't have people, getting away with crimes that they shouldn't, then
I don't think we should put a right to know before making sure the criminals
are put behind bars if that's where they need to be.
WILENIUS: But many investigations
don't produce criminal convictions. Campaigners fear this exemption is
so wide that even information on nuclear safety problems, like those seen
recently at Sellafield could be kept secret. Now they want this veil of
secrecy lifted so the public can demand information from BNFL, especially
when there's a major incident.
FISHER: Information that arises
on a big investigation like into the Sellafield problem, that should not
have a blanket exemption and be removed from the public scrutiny, there
ought to be a public interest test there, and other countries manage that,
we should have that too.
MAURICE FRANKEL: I think that blanket exemptions
are almost unbelievable for a Freedom of Information Act. They are not
just the police but to bring in the health and safety executive, trading
standards officers, environmental health officers, with all the important
day to day things that they deal with about the hazards that people face
in their ordinary lives and in their working lives, to put that under a
blanket of secrecy is not just a mistake I think it is a stunning missing
of the point of what freedom of information is about and what people expect
from it
WILENIUS The bill will establish
an Information Commissioner , with powers to compel public authorities
to disclose information, where there's an over-riding public interest.
But Ministers will still be able to veto the Commissioner's ruling and
keep information secret.
O'BRIEN: These proposals, which
we've now brought forward, are quite radical. What they do is they provide
checks and balances all the way down the process. They don't give the Information
Commissioner dictatorial powers, there's some democratic oversight of her
powers, and I think that's right.
FISHER: I think it is wrong that
the powers of the commissioner are not stronger. We're going to have a
very good commissioner in Elizabeth France, but the Government and the
bill don't trust her to have the final say.
WILENIUS: Under the bill there's
no legal obligation to release the factual information, on which government
policies are based. This means Ministers will be able to withhold research,
statistics and scientific data which they've used as background information,
from the public gaze.
O'BRIEN: Most information that,
er, Ministers deal with is public in any event. Most of the statistics,
the background information is all in the public arena today. Where sometimes
it isn't, the Minister will have to show, prove that there is an overriding
public interest in not disclosing it.
WILENIUS: But it's issues like
the BSE crisis which really worry campaigners. Even though it began in
1979, the full scale of mad cow disease did not emerge until the 1990s.
Many MPs feel that if the facts given to Ministers over that period had
been made available to the public, the crisis may not have been so serious.
But Ministers were able to keep them locked away.
WRIGHT: The whole BSE example has
really changed public thinking on this altogether. They want to know how
they could have been duped, how they could have been mislead for so long.
Why couldn't we have seen the information that was coming into the system
into the Department of Agriculture into Ministers, why didn't we see what
was going on.
FRANKEL: There's really no excuse
for treating that kind of material as sensitive to start with. I mean
if you're serious about freedom of information, the facts on which policy
is based is the first thing that you give to the people.
WILENIUS: If there are no more
concessions there will be a rebellion in the Commons over the key parts
of the bill, but the government will still be able to push it through.
However, when it gets to the Lords the bill is likely to be radically
changed, unless the government backs down further.
LORD ARCHER: If it's clear that a substantial
number in the House of Commons have serious doubts about the Bill, I think
that would encourage the Lords to say well, we ought to pursue the doubts
which we ourselves have. If there is no concession at all from the position
we are in now, then I'm pretty sure there will be a pitched battle in the
Lords.
WILENIUS: So even if the bill can
survive a rough ride in the Commons, it's set to be dramatically altered
when it eventually gets sent up to the Lords. Ministers could face a difficult
constitutional battle.
LORD RICHARD: The way in which the politics
will play in, certainly in the Lords, and then it will have to go back
to the Commons, come back to the Lords, a little bit of ping-pong, getting
towards the end of the session, they'll be faced with a choice of either
losing a big chunk of the bill or making concessions. I think at the end
of the day, they'll concede a bit.
WILENIUS: Inside Whitehall both
Ministers and officials claim the bill is radical, and hope that the rebels
will back off, when the government's amendments are explained to them.
But they'll have their work cut out, as many rebels are just not open
to persuasion.
O'BRIEN: It's about balancing various
rights. Balancing a right of privacy with a right to freedom of information.
A right to ensure that we have government with, which is efficient, against
a right to ensure that in a democracy the people know what the government
is doing.
WRIGHT: We are grudgingly making
the government move on this, I mean its like drawing teeth, its very very
difficult. But we are making some progress. But we haven't got to the
end of the road yet. I mean the government's got to negotiate the House
of Commons now, its got to negotiate the House of the Lords, then probably
the House of Commons again. I mean, we, you know, we're not at the end
of this story.
LORD ARCHER: A lot of us would like to
see the Bill on the statute book. That's the first thing I'd want to say
to ministers. It will be a pity if it falls because they don't listen.
WILENIUS: There were high hopes
the government would live up to its manifesto promise, and end the culture
of secrecy which has always hidden its work. But there seems little chance
of Ministers doing that voluntarily, now they are themselves in high office.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Paul Wilenius reporting there.
The United Kingdom Independence
Party stands for just one big issue, getting Britain out of Europe. And
most people refused to take them very seriously, until the European Elections
last year when they managed to win no fewer than three seats. Since then,
if the polls are to be believed, we have become even less enthusiastic
about Europe. So does that mean they can look forward to doing even better
when we choose the next government? Jonathan Beale has been to one of
the areas where they've done best to try to find out.
JONATHAN BEALE: Things aren't quite what they
used to be for Cornish Fisherman Mick Mahon.
MICK MAHON: We've got the richest
fishing grounds in the world around our coasts and we've got a declining
industry. There's something wrong somewhere and I blame Europe. I used
to earn a pretty good living at fishing but now I haven't drawn a wage
out of my boat for four or five months. It's Brussels that's destroyed
my living.
BEALE: Europe sets the limits for
his catch. But he wants Britain to take control of his destiny. For him
and many other fishermen it can mean only one thing. Leaving the European
Union.
MAHON: I don't see a future for
myself and that is why I want out. It's the main reason I'm supporting
the United Kingdom Independence Party because they want complete withdrawal
from the Common Fisheries Policy as well as Europe. If we can withdraw
from the Common Fisheries Policy, I see a future for my industry and
myself. And UKIP is the only party that's offering me that.
BEALE: The decline of traditional
industries like fishing have given added momentum to the political campaign
to leave the European Union. The United Kingdom Independence Party won
three seats at last years European Elections - one of them here in the
South West. But that was with a low turnout and PR - an electoral system
which favours smaller parties. UKIP is still largely an unknown quantity
in British politics. It must now prove that it can pose a threat at the
General Election.
BEALE: UKIP members aren't
the only ones who are wondering how well they'll perform.
ACTUALITY
BEALE: Christian Sweeting
is the Conservative Candidate for Torbay. Europe is an important issue
here. Visiting a local business he's left in no doubt that the Tories'
views on Europe really do count:
CHRISTIAN SWEETING: What specifically do you
think your problems will be in this business?
UNNAMED MAN: We've already had metrication
impacting on us whereby legally we're obliged to do it but the customers
don't want it
BEALE: The Tories lost this
seat in the last General Election. The Liberal Democrats won with a majority
of just twelve. But it was UKIP's intervention - winning nearly two thousand
votes - that sealed the Conservatives' fate.
SWEETING: At the last General
Election a lot of people went out there and they voted UKIP and they felt
great about it for five minutes. They socked it to Europe for five minutes.
At the next election I'm absolutely sure people will leave that ballot
box having voted for a Conservative Member of Parliament to work for five
years to maintain British sovereignty and perhaps to try and regain some
of the things that are patently obvious that we need to regain in terms
of powers from Brussels.
ADRIAN LEE: One of the things the
Conservatives are really trying to do is to claw back those voters that
they see themselves as having lost to the United Kingdom Independence Party
- to the Referendum Party again in 1997. And it's because the Conservatives
lost a lot of those voters that actually they lost a number of seats in
the South West of England - because the Conservative vote had ebbed into
abstention and it had ebbed into support of UKIP and the Referendum Party.
Now the Conservatives will be trying like mad to stop that happening again.
BEALE: The race is on. In
the red sports car is the UKIP candidate Graham Booth. The Tory has
borrowed a British car for the day. Both want to prove that they only
have the country's interests at heart. And they're both competing for
the Euro sceptic vote.
GRAHAM BOOTH: I've been a lifelong
Conservative. But I'm afraid for the last five, ten years, seeing the way
they've been giving everything over to Brussels, and discovering the UK
Independence Party frankly I'm afraid I've left them and it'll take an
awful lot for me to go back.
ACTUALITY: But the large majority
would agree that we must withdraw from the European Union.
BEALE: UKIP is out in force
for what was supposed to be a Conservative event. Except for the placards
it's hard to tell the two sides apart. But they don't see eye-to-eye.
UNNAMED WOMAN: You can't get clearer than
that ...I will repeat to you again...
BEALE: The Tories are not
going to renegotiate Britain's membership of the EU or advocate withdrawal.
But William Hague has hardened the party's line on Europe, and it's hoped
the doubters can be won round.
SWEETING: What's changed
nationally about the Conservative Party is that Europe is far more at the
fore in terms of thinking and policy. The Keep the Pound Campaign for example
is making our position crystal clear as to where we stand on that issue
and sovereignty in general.
BEALE: The Tory leader is
in Torbay on his nationwide campaign to save the pound. A boost for the
local candidate ever eager to show off his party's Euro sceptic credentials.
WILLIAM HAGUE: ....in Europe but not
run by Europe and that wants to keep the pound....
BEALE: For Graham Booth though
it simply doesn't go far enough.
BOOTH: The only thing that
will make me go back to the Conservative Party - and I'd have millions
coming with me - is if they pinched our policy - that is withdraw from
the European Union.
BEALE: UKIP are not just
fighting for the votes of disillusioned Tories. They're also targeting
the support of those who may have backed pro European parties. The South
West has become a stronghold for the Liberal Democrats. But UKIP are convinced
that many who voted Liberal Democrat do not share the party leaderships
pro European views.
MAHON: There are one or two
seats in the South West that are very vulnerable to UKIP er the UKIP party.
I think the other parties, the Liberal Democrats in particular, are very
worried about us.
BEALE: The political ambitions
of one Liberal Democrat have already been swept away on a tide of anti-European
feeling. Until last year this lone figure was the Euro MP for Cornwall.
TEVERSON: In our membership there
is a concern about our European credentials. People were voting primarily
around European issues for once in the European Election. The Lib Dem
message was not one that particularly people wanted to hear down here.
They like the UKIP message and I guess that didn't do my electoral chances
a lot of good. People at the General Election will not primarily vote
on the European issue and even if they did I think very few people would
actually want to move to a complete withdrawal of the European Union. What
they're trying to say is, we don't like Europe as it is at the moment,
I'll make a protest vote.
ADRIAN LEE: There's some evidence to suggest
that Liberal Democrats may well be trimming their pro Europe sails to some
extent - you know, in the sense that they're taking the line in the South
West region in particular, that the problems with fishing and farming for
example can be resolved by the constant application of pressure, the constant
speaking up for farmers, the constant speaking up for fishermen, and by
the revision of European policies.
BEALE: But UKIP aren't doing themselves
any favours. After bitter in-fighting they appear to have lost their way
- or just lost interest. They're searching for a new leader. Nine hopeful
candidates have been addressing some of the party's eight-thousand members.
They know that whoever is the victor will have an enormous task. Michael
Holmes was the UKIP leader and one of its three MEP'S. He's now turned
his back on the party but not the Strasbourg Parliament. He's not optimistic
about UKIP's long term chances of survival.
MICHAEL HOLMES: I think it hinges on who becomes
leader in three weeks time. Whoever wins is going to have problems with
another part of the party, like I had when I won two years ago. I think
it's, I give it no better than fifty-fifty that it would grow to reach
the potential.
BEALE: It's been a time for soul
searching:
UNAMED MAN: We have conspired to rip ourselves
apart by indulging in internal warfare.
UNAMED MAN: I joined this party to fight
the European Union and not fellow Euro- sceptics.
UNAMED MAN: We are not a pressure group;
we are a political party and our business is getting votes.
BEALE: There are fundamental problems
for whoever takes over the leadership. At present UKIP are divided on whether
to field candidates in all parliamentary seats and whether to offer more
policies than withdrawal from Europe. It could make the difference on how
they're viewed - as a serious party or a single issue campaign.
BOOTH: We have got a raft of policies
- in the European elections....
BEALE: ...What are they? What policies?
BOOTH: Well, we've got policies
on every aspect of Government.
BEALE: Like?
BOOTH: Well on Health, Education
and Defence.
BEALE: What are they?
BOOTH: Oh, no, in, in two minutes
I can't go through that and in fact we're working on them again now.
BEALE: At least UKIP is still afloat
as a party and preparing to fight over 400 seats in the general election.
Most members realise they're unlikely to win seats as they did in the
European elections. But they hope they can force the bigger political
parties to alter their course on the issue of Europe.
LEE: If UKIP was a serious
party that was here to stay, we'd be seeing a great deal more activity
from it now at this point in time. We'd be seeing it putting up candidates
in local elections. That would indicate that it had a local organisation
and local support. It's had major problems nationally, it's had a leadership
resignation, the executive has been split, they've had all sorts of difficulties.
It is short on organisation, it is short on finance and it is perceived
by the electorate, largely, as a single issue party.
HOLMES: UKIP has to be realistic,
it's never going to be a government, its main job in the next five years
is to try and turn one of the main political parties and obviously particularly
the Tories into a position of rejecting membership of EMU for all time
on constitutional grounds and therefore admitting that we may well have
to leave the European Union politically.
BEALE: UKIP has set a course for
complete withdrawal from the European Union - and so far no other party
is willing to follow. But political opponents are nervously watching the
horizon. UKIP may still take away valuable votes.
HUMPHRYS: And that was Jonathan
Beale reporting there and that's it for this week. If you're on the Internet
you can keep in touch with us through our website and the address is on
your screens now and we will be back with the usual full hour next week,
until then, good afternoon.
19
FoLdEd
|