|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first ...where did
all the Labour voters go on Thursday? Stayed at home, it seems rather
than turn out to support the government they had put into power so enthusiastically
a few years ago. Or, in the case of London, turned out to vote for Ken
Livingstone rather than Frank Dobson. The question, rather, perhaps is
why .. and what does Labour need to do to make sure they turn out for
the big event when Tony Blair finally decides to call a General Election.
Well that may partly depend on how the government deals with the new Mayor
of London, Ken Livingstone. The Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott is
with me.
You have created a bit
of a martyr in Mr Livingstone haven't you Mr Prescott and it was inevitable
that he would be elected and you sort of made a rod for your own back haven't
you? - not you personally you understand.
JOHN PRESCOTT: Well we actually had a Labour
candidate - Frank, a pretty decent guy and he was the man we put forward,
he was the man who won the vote and we put our candidate forward. Ken broke
all his promises and decided to run as an independent. He is now the Mayor
of London and as the Mayor of London it is right for us to discuss with
him how we improve things in London.
HUMPHRYS: Not going to be easy
for you though is it because there is a good deal of bad blood between
you.
PRESCOTT: Well I've listened to
the interviews and again this morning with Ken Livingstone, he's a pretty
practical man and I think the language changes from day to day and that's
what makes for a certain amount of difficulties with dealing with Ken.
But if you take the Underground as a quick example, in that case he is
prepared to say that he will look for the best value for Londoners and
he says he agrees with me, that's what I am intending to do so perhaps
there are ways of finding agreements on these matters, recognising the
commitments of government and his desire to see with us a better service
in London.
HUMPHRYS: Come on to the Underground
in a bit more detail in a moment if we may but the sort of thing I had
in mind was the kind of language that was used during the campaign. I know
things get said in campaigns that can be fairly heated but I mean you did
suggest on one occasion that he wasn't telling the truth, difficult stuff
that to deal with later isn't it?
PRESCOTT: Did I say he wasn't telling
the truth? - you'd have to refer to the incident..
HUMPHRYS: You said Ken should stop
telling lies when he was describing your policy on the Underground.
PRESCOTT: He was describing it
as privatisation, it's not privatisation, clearly there isn't an equity
share here, it's owned by the public London authority, all the assets are
returned to the London authority and I think to try and dress it up as
privatisation or indeed to suggest that it would be less safe as he was
tending to do or indeed that bond financing would solve those problems.
I don't think he was putting the full case and in some case he was certainly
putting what was not true.
HUMPHRYS: But in terms of you having
to deal with him, wouldn't it be better if he were back in the fold in
the Labour Party, which he wants to do. He told me the morning he was elected
that he wants to be back in the Labour Party, that's what he would like.
PRESCOTT: Ken changes quite a bit
doesn't he. I mean he expelled himself. He did it himself, he knows the
rules in the Labour Party, if you stand against the official Labour candidate
you will be expelled. That's happened to a number of people. As to whether
they can apply, well we have rules there again. But at the moment he's
the Mayor of London. Our job is to get on with him and see if we can improve
the services in London, afterall we were the ones that have brought government
back to London, we were the ones who proposed a Mayor in London in these
circumstances. We want to get on with it, it's part of our decentralisation
of decision making. I as a Secretary of State have certain powers in that
as laid down under legislation agreed with Ken and he has certain powers
as the Mayor and out of that we will have our discussion.
HUMPHRYS: But what if he does apply.
I mean if he put in a formal application tomorrow and said: let the past
be the past, I want to rejoin the Labour Party, I want to be the Labour
Mayor for London, what would your attitude be.
PRESCOTT: My attitude, I wouldn't
be accepting his application for membership if he applied tomorrow. I mean
he's fought a campaign on his own manifesto, he rejected Labour's manifesto.
Now I won't go into all the history of that which led to these complications
but now the job is, as he has decided to be, to be an independent Mayor,
he wants to negotiate to work with government, he's had his talk with the
Prime Minister. He clearly will be wanting talks with me and I want to
get down and deal with that. The whole business of whether he reapply for
the Labour Party is one for our executive, or our conferences and others
have left the Labour Party and have rejoined as you know..
HUMPHRYS: After five years, that's
the statutory period.
PRESCOTT: Well it's the rule of
the period in the rule book at the present time. The executive always have
extra powers in these matters..
HUMPHRYS: So it's not necessarily
five years without time off for good behaviour is it.
PRESCOTT: I think Ken decided to
leave the Labour Party. It was his choice. I support Labour Party candidates,
I support Labour manifestos, I get on with that job. Ken has rejected all
that and for that sense he expelled himself from the Labour Party.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. You're going
to be meeting him, apparently this week to talk about the London Underground
amongst other things. What's the point...
PRESCOTT: I haven't had any application
from Ken, but he's only just become Mayor to be fair and ....
HUMPHRYS: I thought that was a
done deal, you're not..it's not confirmed then?
PRESCOTT: No, but I will meet him.
HUMPHRYS: So if he says, I'd like
to meet this week, you will say sure.
PRESCOTT: Of course, I mean I am
the Secretary of State responsible for a lot of local government in Britain
and London is one of it now. I will certainly be meeting him yes.
HUMPHRYS: But it's quite difficult
to envisage that meeting in a way isn't it, to imagine what you will be
talking about. I mean are you going to try to persuade him to accept your
policy or are you going to be negotiating with him? Because clearly you
have different views on what should happen with the Underground.
PRESCOTT: With the Underground
it's quite clear and I've agreed a public private partnership. We have
legislation before Parliament that has now been passed which has said that's
what..how we will do it. Ken voted for it, both in the Committee and in
the Commons and I have to get on with that public private partnership deal
for the Underground. Of course what I have said and I notice that Ken is
now saying well he would like to see the best value for Londoners and that's
of course what motivates me and I have to have a public comparative to
show that this public private partnership is the best way of raising finance
and the best value for Londoners. I have always had to do that, that's
always been my view and I see that Ken now says that he will judge it when
it comes to that time on best value. Fine.
HUMPHRYS: So would you make concessions
yourself. I mean if he says look I'll give a bit here, would you say well
I'll give a bit there.
PRESCOTT: What do you mean, the
concessions on the public private partnership? - no the criteria will
be, we have decided to go, we are in the midst of negotiations, we are
selecting out the ones that will be doing the improvement of the investment
in the infrastructure and we will conclude that agreement. I have to meet
the criteria of best value. There will be a lot of people examining that
and I have to justify that and there's no reason and nor am I required
to, to come to different agreements with Ken about it. And anyway can you
imagine the set of negotiations if I were to say all of a sudden, I'm going
to meet Ken and talk about the negotiations and whether he agrees or not
agree, negotiations would completely vanish and then there would be further
delay in the Underground while he was sorted out, who had the right to
make the decision about the contract. Now that would mean we would be going
into another three or four years before you could get anything done on
the Tube. I am not prepared to do that. What is best for London is to get
the investment and the long term investment. One of the problems with the
Underground it's been plagued by political differences between government's
and Treasury rules and now it could be presumably be between different
Mayors. What we want is long term solutions to these difficult problems
and that's what I am about to implement.
HUMPHRYS: Now the trouble with
that attitude though is that you could have two or three or four years
of legal delays couldn't you because Mr Livingstone was saying this morning
that he might have to take it to a judge. Well once you get the law involved
in these matters God know where it's going to end.
PRESCOTT: Yeah, yeah. But I mean
I think he said that to us about the levy that was on the utilities to
pay for the unemployment programmes. I mean people will make....
HUMPHRYS: ...he wasn't in...
PRESCOTT: What I am carrying out
is what Parliament is agreed: what is our policy, what I put through on
legislation and that's what I am required to do. I mean I'll let Ken go
and make all his legal advice, I mean it might be difficult that he has
got to give these answers at this moment because he's got to make some
adjustment. I don't know, it's up to Ken. What's clear about me is that
I have an obligation to bring in the public private partnership, to prove
best value and if I do that we'll get on with the contracts.
HUMPHRYS: So, if he takes it to
court you'll fight him in the courts?
PRESCOTT: Well I mean.... all sorts
of people threaten to take me to court - local authorities about land deals
and God knows what. That's a constant threat, constantly made. I can't
divert my energies. If as long as I meet the requirement of bringing in
a public/private partnership it is of best value and I'll get on with the
job.
HUMPHRYS; But you could take the
view couldn't you that an awful lot of people voted for Ken Livingstone,
more than have ever voted for any democratically elected politician in
the land ever and they voted for him on the basis of his manifesto and
they knew perfectly well what he wanted to do with the London Underground
so if you were a true democrat perhaps you'd have to say ' well, that's
what the people want.' Maybe you should take a different view.
PRESCOTT: Everybody was clearly
of the understanding and I made it clear right at the beginning, this is
the way we will finance the Underground......
HUMPHRYS: .....and they voted against
you......
PRESCOTT: ....and we have separated
the Underground from the control of the Mayor until these contracts are
agreed, there can be no doubt about that. Ken understands that and that's
exactly what I'm proposing to do. As for mandates, Ken may have ......
begin with his thirty odd per cent for his mandate in the first tranche
of voting. There are what...? Nine Tories and nine Labour in the Assembly?
They've all got their different manifestos - the Greens as well. He has
to come to an agreement with the Assembly but that's the whole nature of
coalition politics we're about to see here in London. I'm not a great
fan of it myself I'm bound to say but that is the nature of the politics
that Ken Livingstone will have to deal with as Mayor. I have given you
the government's position - that's what we intend to do and I want to see
that Underground improved. For too long it's been plagued by political
indecision, by various governments over a long period of time, particularly
the last one. I'm getting on with the job because Londoners want me to
get on with the job.
HUMPHRYS: You're not a fan of coalition
governments as you say, you're not exactly a huge fan of any sort of proportional
representation. What you've done with creating mayors, we've seen it now
with Ken Livingstone as you say is you've got this whole business of setting
up these mayors for big cities is you've created another big rod for your
own backs in government haven't you?
PRESCOTT: Well we're giving choice
to people and we'll see whether people actually by the referendum and the
proposals we have or individual proposals whether they want a mayor in
these different cities, I'll wait and see. It's controversial in all the
areas frankly. It's true I'm not a great fan of it but we have given the
choice, it's part of our decentralised framework and I think that's important.
We're modernising an awful lot of local government with legislation we've
put through now. One of those options is they can have an elected mayor
but I hear many differing views about whether they want them or not or
whether they're influenced by this London election. I'll wait and see
but we have given the choice to the people yes.
HUMPHRYS: But it is causing problems
within your own party isn't it?
PRESCOTT: In what way John? I
mean there is some honest discussion, some want an elected mayor some do
not, I don't think it's a major problem for us but it's a matter of debate
that's going on about it.
HUMPHRYS: But doesn't that depend
on how you go about it? I mean the problem that you've had in London is
that the party's, under Tony Blair, the party's centralising tendencies
have come to the fore haven't they? You're going to have to stop that
aren't you?
PRESCOTT: Well when you say the
centralising tendencies I understand what you mean by it but a lot of decentralisation
has been going on in the party as well as the actual government structure.
We have more people now deciding policy than has ever been before. Before
it was just the National Executive and that's a considerable change. In
our, what we call twenty-first century party changes we're looking at a
number of voting systems, the complaints that people have against the existing
system so we are constantly in the process of change, we are a party of
change, very much to the long term, making the changes that are necessary,
modernising our own party as well as indeed the government structure.
HUMPHRYS: But you got it wrong.
Everyone gets it wrong from time to time. Tony Blair.......
PRESCOTT: I don't think.... I mean
actually Tony's actually said himself that perhaps he thought that decision
wasn't as good as what it should have been.......
HUMPHRYS: Well he apologised for
Wales didn't he? I mean specifically. He did so in an interview with
me only a few weeks ago and he said 'yeah, perhaps we should have walked
away from it'.
PRESCOTT: I think he meant for
what happened in Wales rather than Wales itself..... (laughter)
HUMPHRYS: As a Welshman I'd have
to agree with that........ Should you perhaps have apologised for what's
happened in London to the people of London?
PRESCOTT; No I don't think so.
Not for one moment. I mean basically we did have an electoral process
there with regard to the Mayor which was the electoral college and Frank
was chosen under that position. Under the electoral system we had a candidate,
I don't think we have to apologise for that. If people have got doubts
about the electoral system and think that's not a good way of doing it,
and there's lots of views expressed about that, then there is a situation
in the party that we can actually make the changes if they so wish. Take
the European elections which were the change a break, if you like, from
the member in the constituency. None of our constituency party didn't
like it. A lot of them didn't turn up because they didn't feel they had
a connection and we are now looking at the rules and how they apply. It
will still be proportional representation because that is required under
the European legislation but there's no reason why we can't find a system
where the members of parliament have a direct connection to a European
constituency basis. The curious thing is that some of the MPs are already
doing that now, formulating their own, so we are looking at that. So in
all these areas we're quite prepared and indeed it's in our constitution
that if people don't like it they can seek to change it whether it's the
electoral college for the election of leaders, one member one vote or the
Euro elections and a lot of that is going on at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: So clearly what they
didn't like was stitching things up through the sort of electoral college
that you had to favour your own choice - that'll have to stop won't it?
You won't do that again will you?
PRESCOTT: Well I think part of
the problem is what you mean by 'stitch up'. I mean if you're saying that
in a federal structure John, it's a very important point, where the trade
unions have a third of the votes and the constituencies have a third and
the Members of Parliament. There are people who said that the Member of
Parliament vote is far too high as a proportional third for the amounts
of Members of Parliament. There are people who have been critical about
whether it's the trade unions.
HUMPHRYS: Well specifically about
whether the trade unions should have balloted their members. Tony Blair
told us that it was exactly the same system that elected you and him as
leader and Deputy Leader of the party and of course it wasn't was it.....
PRESCOTT: Yes it was......
HUMPHRYS: Well no it wasn't because
they didn't have to vote......
PRESCOTT: But let just say why
I think it was, and then you can make a judgement about it because I think
there was some misunderstanding about that. The principle was the same
but there was one difference in a way, there was a certain amount of voluntarism
in that. It was required of the trade unions perhaps to ballot their members,
right? They voluntarily agreed that and then we went on to change the
rules in our deputy leadership thing. In this one because we then, the
executive decided to have this electoral college we appealed to the trade
unions to actually do that, to have a vote among their members. One
or two said (INTERRUPTION) well one or two, no, well let me come to
that point, it's not written to the rule as such for the election of a
mayor, because this was a new precedent in this sense, but in this case
they were not prepared to work voluntarily on it. They said that, no,
it's too expensive, we don't want to do it that way, we've got our consultative
councils. Now I've no doubt that even now there will be people saying:
Look if we have our leaders elected and you have to vote on union members
then it should be for this kind of system if that's what we're going to
use for future mayoral elections. But all these are under discussion......
HUMPHRYS Oh right.
PRESCOTT: .. and consultation in
the party in the Twenty-First Century.
HUMPHRYS: Ah so,.....
PRESCOTT: The document we have
out which comes to a
conclusion I think in July.
HUMPHRYS: Right. So you personally
wouldn't like to see that same system used again would you?
PRESCOTT: Well, I've always felt
that I think there should be an elections and members - you mean the electoral
college for the mayor?
HUMPHRYS: The sort of electoral
college we had ...
PRESCOTT: Well I don't think that
helped us. I think a lot of people misunderstood it. I don't think it
was helpful to any of the constituent parties whether it was the trade
unions or the mayor, and there's no doubt that those discussions will go
on as to whether this is an appropriate way of doing it.
HUMPHRYS: And your advice will
be...
PRESCOTT: What we did, we had it
for leaders whether it was in Wales. Scotland or the National Party, and
Tony and myself. Mayors was a new area and the executive took the decision
to apply this balance between the trade unions, MPs etc, and there's been
some controversy about that, but those matters can change, but it requires
you to get an agreement and go to the party conference to change it.
HUMPHRYS: But your view would be
that you shouldn't have the same system applying in future that resulted
in Frank Dobson for instance being elected...
PRESCOTT: I think there are differences
between electing a mayor and electing a leader of a party for in deeds
you see in Scotland and in Wales I certainly do defend the electoral college.
I think it allows for the difference constituent parts of the Labour Party.
When I hear some of the trade unions saying for example that we'd like
to move to just one member one vote, I've got a pretty strong view about
one member one vote, but in the leadership, within the framework (INTERRUPTION),
yes, but within the framework, so you should still have the one member
vote if electing, and that applies to trade unions, but basically we have
- that should be true for the leaders, I don't think it's a system as best
used for mayor, so the trade unions should say to themselves, do they feel
they need to be involved in the election, in the electoral college way
for mayors. It's local government frankly, it's decentralised, and I'm
not convinced that the case is made.
HUMPHRYS: Right, and clearly it
didn't help you this time around with the ....
PRESCOTT: No, I think a lot of
people had a lot of controversy about it John,
HUMPHRYS: And the problem, the
reason for that is because you were seen, the party was seen rightly or
wrongly to be a bit arrogant, to be a bit control-freakish and all that
sort of thing. Do you accept that that was one of the reasons why the
voters didn't turn out for you the way you would have hoped that they might?
PRESCOTT: It might have been because
I think there are a number of reasons why they perhaps didn't turn out.
I mean most of all I think is because they felt we weren't delivering,
I've heard that constantly from people. They misunderstood some of the
policies, for example the seventy-five p for the pension. Most pensioners
said, look that's all I'm getting a week, but if you actually see what
was given in total resources and the cold weather payments and put that
into a weekly payment you've got a higher figure, but they didn't see it
that way.
HUMPHRYS: Well, they didn't want
it that way, they wanted an increase in their basic pension.
PRESCOTT: It is a very important
point John. Most of our people on the doorstep, when they explained it
to them and then they understood they didn't pay tax on it, but if we'd
have given it them totally on the weekly payment they would have paid tax
on it, or it would affect other benefits, so to that extent whilst I can
rationally show you how they're better off the real point is what is the
perception of people on the door. Now that is a lesson for us, how do you
best get across what is motivated by a desire to help the real poorest
in the pensioners and the huge scale of resources we have put into the
pensions, when they go to pick it up and they pick up the pension book
and it says seventy-five-p you and I know precisely what discussions will
go on about that. Now that's a lesson for us to learn. These elections
have said to the Labour Party: Look, we wanted you to deliver, we believed
in your programme, - in a way they hadn't believed in any political programme
before because they gave us such an overwhelming support and we have to
show that we're delivering on that. I would say to them though John, it
is a five year programme that we talk about here that they expect us to
deliver on and you know I've always waved my card at you.
HUMPHRYS: Oh yes....
PRESCOTT: And we have delivered
on nearly three-quarters of that, but at the end of the period we have
to show that we're delivering, and at the moment there was another factor
I think affected the elections. You know, that the first two years we
decided to accept the previous government's arrangements on public expenditure,
because we wanted to sort out the public expenditure programme, and we've
done that now, but it meant you didn't get much gains in the two years,
and people now say you're in three years, where's the delivery, whereas
most of the resources we're now pouring into the public services are only
just beginning to materialise, so now we have to get that over to people.
HUMPHRYS: So you couldn't for instance,
to return to the pensions thing for a second, you couldn't go into another
election given that the circumstances were similar and inflation was much
the same with another seventy-five or eighty-five pence increase. I mean
that wouldn't be....
PRESCOTT: Well, Gordon's already
said hasn't he that he will actually be putting more onto the basic pension,
he's talking about two or three pounds, that he would do it that way.
That would be on top of what we've done for cold weather payments and the
minimum income guarantee. So we will be able to show....
HUMPHRYS: I didn't think he'd actually
made that a commitment?
PRESCOTT: Well, he said - well
he has to make his public statement, but he has said in the House of Commons
and in other places that he wants to do it in that area next time. Let
us wait and see, but I think that is a lesson that we would learn, and
when the electorate are saying to us, particularly the pensioners I don't
like it this way, our governments have got to try and deliver programmes
that they like it being delivered to them, and it's alright us being intellectually
convinced that this is the best way to do it for the poorest pensioner
if the people on the doorsteps of the pensioners don't believe that that's
benefiting them. For example, if you set a hundred-and-fifty pounds on
cold weather payments, sure that's a hundred pound more than there was
there before, they say: Ah, but that's for cold weather payments, that's
nothing to do with my pension, and really we have to take that into account.
Governments are elected by those people, not by a kind of scoreboard as
to whether it was intellectually right, that we should do it, a, b, c,
d. That's what we learnt from this lesson, to get the judgements right.
HUMPHRYS: So on that basis perhaps
it was a mistake to stick to the Tory spending plans for as long as you
did, two years.
PRESCOTT: Well, I don't think so,
but then we have to convince them of that. I mean we have made, Gordon
Brown has made a radical transformation in public finances and said we'll
begin to get the benefits once we've done the two years. We fought the
election on that. One interesting example is, we've spent four thousand
billion pounds less, - four billion pounds less now on interest payments
than was paid under the great debts that we incurred from the Tories.
That was transferred to health and education. Now we'll begin to see some
of the pay back if you like, having transformed that, get stability into
the economy and do what I've done with public/private partnerships, releasing
twenty billion pounds raised by the private sector whether it in the NATS,
the underground or the Channel-Tunnel Rail Link, taking that pressure off
the public expenditure, so we can find more money for health and for education,
and as for the twenty billion pounds on the mobile phones,.....
HUMPHRYS: Ah yes.
PRESCOTT: Every paper I see has
spent it, whether it's into the Midlands area, whether it's into health
whether it's education.. You know John, one thing about Labour, in its
period of office nobody was ever in doubt we could spend money. The real
problem was whether we could raise it, and do it in a much more stable
way. We have introduced and Gordon Brown has greater stability in the
economy. It is producing greater amounts of resources and they will be
benefited in our public services, and greater growth in the economy.
HUMPHRYS: But your problem has
been hasn't it, that the perception has been that you've consistently talked
big and delivered relatively small. As you say there were expectations
built up, but maybe there was a bit of spinning going on..
PRESCOTT: I think there is a problem
there John. I mean when we announced those big amounts of money going into
health and education, it was in the second year. Well in the second year
we knew that there wouldn't be spending in the two years because we'd made
those agreements and I think people rather thought it was going to come
immediately when you announced it even though we were saying it's...Gordon
spelt out all these years. So I think we are a little bit ahead of time
and raised those expectations. I think that was a concern. But the broader
principle is this, we have taken the view it's the long term we have to
deal with and what we have to do here is get some of the decisions right,
getting stability back into the economy, getting a fundamental reform of
the public finances so to get the benefits at a later stage. We have taken
long term not short term decisions, that's what I am doing on the Underground,
taking the long term investments which will benefit us rather than the
problems that come from short term.
HUMPHRYS: In a sense I wonder whether
you have learned the lesson because you've talked now about putting billions
and billions of pounds in the National Health Service, one wonders how
many times the spin doctors or whoever it happens to be will tell us how
many times that money is going to be spent.
PRESCOTT: You know sixty-four billion
pounds going into the Health Service, everybody is agreed, nobody has seen
those resources going into the Health Service before and it's a very interesting
point because if you'd try and raise that kind of money over the next three
or four years which we have now committed ourselves to do to put into the
Health Service then in those circumstances we have to find the money and
one very interesting point is that we have had to learn like everyone else,
Health Service and Education will increasingly take a greater proportion
of the GDP than just assuming you put the same amount of money in, even
keeping up with inflation that is the nature of what has happened and that
is why I have been very strong about fighting for public private partnerships.
Controversially in our party I have had to argue my case for them but if
I can raise money from a private sector in public private partnerships
I can deal with the essential principle of health - that treatment should
be based upon need and not your ability to pay and in a modern economy
that is quite an expensive proposition.
HUMPHRYS: Somewhere else where
you have been highly controversial is with NATS - National Air Traffic
Service - the Air Controller people. Now you've got the vote coming up
this week and you have an awful lot of opposition to you from people who
say, including..many of your own backbenchers who say this is not what
we put a Labour government in power to do. Particularly since you'd said
when you were in opposition we are not going to do it.
PRESCOTT: Well that's interesting
John because during the election I think you asked...some of the questions,
if you expect the public expenditure probe, if you accept the Tory one
what you do about NATS because the amount of money from...
HUMPHRYS: You do what you said
you were going to do - our air is not for sale..
PRESCOTT: No we didn't, please...
HUMPHRYS: ...that's what you said
at the..
PRESCOTT: ...your memory's a bit
slight...
HUMPHRYS: ..my memory is spot on,
I can remember Mr Smith saying it at the Party Conference...
PRESCOTT: ..no, no, please, please
John you are usually fairer than that. He did say that at the conference
during the election when we accepted the ....
HUMPHRYS: oh indeed during the
campaign itself..
PRESCOTT: ..that's what I am talking
about. And we said we accepted it, so they said and you people said does
that mean you accept the privatisation because the money from the sale
was going to be fed into that two years, we said no we'll do a public private
partnership, so we said it at the election, my job then therefore was to
get on with that job and of course it's controversial and all these public
private partnerships are different horses for different courses. On the
Underground it's not private capital, they borrow, the assets come back,
it's owned by the people of London and on the Channel Tunnel Link it's
a different system. On the NATS one it wants a billion pounds. Now the
billion pounds can be raised in the revenue way, what we have got to make
sure it's a safe system, I am changing the safety structure in NATS more
than what the Select Committee asked for, I'm taking safety away...
HUMPHRYS: The Select Committee
say it's the worst of all possible options.
PRESCOTT: Yeah I think I've pointed
out four hours discussion on what we were doing is hardly the way of actually
describing an option. But let me just give you the facts, they asked me
to transfer the safety onto a separate body and away from the operator,
I've not only done that I've actually after discussions with Trade Unions
about these matters, listening to their fears, they've not necessarily
endorsed that, they're in opposition to it, I understand that but we have
improved the safety so the hours are controlled, the skills are controlled,
the inspectors, all that way it is a gold plated safety system. Secondly,
I want to have the opportunity to reduce some of the inefficiencies that
have occurred in there. You know it's five years behind time, two or three
hundred million pounds over budget. A public private partnership would
sharpen that up. Thirdly, you know Europe has got something in our global
airlines, everybody gets together in global alliances now in the global
economy. There is something like forty-five air traffic controls in Europe,
it would be reduced to five or six. I want to see Britain to the fore,
like BAA yesterday announcing they are taking over the American airport
system to do a better system, to grow, to get more value for it. I have
got government control, I have got directors on, I have got greater accountability,
there's share distribution. This is a great opportunity, public private
partnerships provides money and it is indeed a cornerstone of this government's
policy.
HUMPHRYS: Just look at the broader
picture for the last minute or so that we have got left. You've acknowledged
that you have got somethings wrong over the past few years. A lot of people
perceive it as being that there's been too much spinning and not enough
delivery - in part yourself. Now we read this morning that there's going
to be a Cabinet reshuffle and that Peter Mandelson is going to be brought
back to London so that he can be put in charge of the whole campaign..
PRESCOTT: Look John, every time
at this time of the year we get the whole stories about reshuffles. I mean
the press get out their little computers and say what do we do at this
year.. we start talking about reshuffles right whatever the Prime Minister
says. Firstly, let me put the facts, we have agreed that in the strategy
of the election, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson will be playing an important
part. Both play major contributions in our election strategy, that was
announced months ago, over twelve months ago. Now, when the election comes
is up to the Prime Minister and we have to make sure we are in good shape
and have got the electorate in a mind to want to support us, clearly we
take into account what has happened in these elections. But as for reshuffles,
that's a matter for the Prime Minister. But you know as well as I do, it
will go on and on, everybody speculating and everybody wondering, but that's
the nature of the political system we live in. It's the way the journalists
just move from one story to the next depending on the season.
HUMPHRYS: So you welcome Mr Mandelson
back with open arms.
PRESCOTT: I welcome back anyone
who helps Labour return and Peter Mandelson made a major contribution last
time, he'll make one this time and that's sort all part. I'll be on my
bus going around 'Vote Labour' and with my ticket saying 'we delivered...we
delivered'.
HUMPHRYS: John Prescott, thank
you very much indeed.
|