|
====================================================================================
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:
07.05.00
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. There's been a
breakthrough in Northern Ireland but will it satisfy the hardliners in
the Ulster Unionists? I'll be talking to the leading opponent of the Good
Friday agreement and to the chief negotiator for Sinn Fein.
What has the government learned
from its drubbing at the polls on Thursday? I'll be asking John Prescott
why Labour's voters stayed at home and how is HE going to deal with Ken
Livingstone. That's after the news read by GEORGE ALAGIAH.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: The IRA statement yesterday
raised real hope of a lasting peace and a new future for Northern Ireland.
But there are still problems and I'll be talking to both Martin McGuinness
of Sinn Fein and Jeffrey Donaldson of the Ulster Unionists, the man who's
been most identified with the opposition to the Good Friday agreement.
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.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: At the start of last week things
were looking very bleak indeed in Northern Ireland. Today there are grounds
for real hope. The IRA has gone further than ever before in promising
to begin the process which MAY lead to disarmament. We still don't know
whether that's going to be enough to meet the demands of those Ulster Unionists
who rejected the Good Friday agreement. I'll be talking to one of their
leading figures and to Sinn Fein after this report from Robin Aitken.
ROBIN AITKEN: When on Thursday Bertie Ahern
and Tony Blair arrived at Hillsborough there was a fair degree of cynicism
in the air. The two premiers said they'd come to revive an ailing peace
process; many in the media pack believed Mr Blair was conveniently absenting
himself from London on Labour's black day at the polls. But the cynics
were wrong. Yesterday's statement from the IRA is clearly a significant
advance with the potential to open a new chapter in the peace process.
BAIRBRE DE BRUIN AM: I am optimistic. I think that
there's a very good chance. I welcome this development. I hope others will
also welcome it. I think there's an extremely good chance. Obviously we've
been down this road before and therefore there is this small part, I think
in everyone, from whatever political persuasion they are that says we raised
our hopes before, let's not raise them too much, but my view would be that
notwithstanding that tiny core in all of us, I am very, very optimistic.
DAVID ERVINE I think that whilst we have
come a long way we have but a short distance to travel now to complete
the course. And I advocate that we get on with it and I know that the two
premiers advocate the same.
AITKEN: But the week had started
on a much grimmer note. On Tuesday the Gardai, the Irish police force,
resumed their search for the "disappeared" - victims murdered by the IRA
and buried in concealed graves. On this remote bog in County Monaghan they
were looking for the body of a seventeen year old abducted and murdered
by the IRA twenty-five years ago. The ghosts of Northern Ireland's bloody
past were not, it seemed about to be shaken off.
The legacy of the violence
seemed to have wrecked the prospects of the new Northern Ireland Executive.
It began work in December but was suspended in February because the IRA
had failed to decommission its weapons. The leaderships of both the Sinn
Fein and the Ulster Unionists had invested heavily in the Good Friday Agreement.
After the executive's suspension both seemed weakened.
DE BRUIN: For every time that we
have engaged in bringing our people forward in taking our views out and
discussing them with our membership in trying to persuade the wider republican
community that this is the way forward and that we have had a slap in the
face, we have lost some of that credibility. It can be rebuilt obviously
and it has a strong basis, but I don't think that you can endlessly go
and stretch your political constituency and take the kind of leadership
moves that we have done as political leaders, if you don't see the fruits
of that.
AITKEN: David Trimble survived
a leadership challenge but the result revealed deep divisions in his party
- forty three per cent voted against him and it seemed he might be unable
to overcome growing opposition to the Good Friday Agreement. Yesterday's
statement from the IRA might be the lifeline he needs to reassert himself.
TOMMY McKEARNEY: We have a strange case where the
political future of both Trimble and Gerry Adams is closely intertwined.
In some ways I think it is obvious that Sinn Fein would much prefer to
deal with Trimble than the ultra right-wing of unionism. Sinn Fein has
based its position on a restoration of the executive. Without an executive
the Sinn Fein programme is very difficult to affect. Without Trimble there
is absolutely no chance that the right wing of unionism will deal in any
meaningful sense with Sinn Fein.
DAVID McCLARTY: I see great parallels. David Trimble
does has his difficulties within the Ulster Unionist Party but I believe
those difficulties pale into insignificance compared to the difficulties
that Gerry Adams has within Sinn Fein. And I believe that if he is determined
to stand up to the rejectionists within Sinn Fein, then he is showing a
great deal of courage.
AITKEN: On Friday, Sinn Fein's
leadership was seeking common ground with the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.
Gerry Adams seems to have got what he needs from the IRA. Now the Ulster
Unionist leader has to sell that deal to the doubters within the Ulster
Unionist Council - his party's sovereign body - who have always demanded
actual weaponry to be handed over as a prerequisite for Sinn Fein in government.....
MCCLARTY: We do have rejectionists,
that's plain for all to see that we have rejectionists. But I believe that
within the Ulster Unionist Council, who will ultimately make the decision
whether to accept whatever proposal is on the table, I believe that David
has a majority support within the Ulster unionist Council and if there
is certainty this time that decommissioning is going to happen then I believe
they will accept that.
AITKEN: ` Yesterday David Trimble
was still sounding a note of caution but his chances of winning his internal
party critics round must have been improved greatly by these latest developments.
And if he does get agreement to go back into the executive with Sinn
Fein that is not an irrevocable decision.
JOHN BRUTON: One must recognise that the
Unionists under the Belfast Agreement if they are not satisfied at any
stage in the future with progress in regard to demilitarisation or decommissioning
or any issue have the power to collapse the executive. So also do the SDLP
on the nationalist side. So it isn't too difficult therefore to go back
in on the basis that you have got some fundamental commitments and you
are awaiting full delivery of the implications of those commitments.
AITKEN The streets of
Northern Ireland have become accustomed to a kind of peace; the Royal
Ulster Constabulary can afford to be a little more relaxed these days.
But the future of the RUC is itself meshed in controversy ; the loss of
its name and the distinctive cap badge have become a rallying point for
opponents of the Good Friday Agreement.. But though that debate's highly
charged it's likely to become submerged in the search for a wider political
settlement..
MCKEARNEY: I think unionism will have
to take on board the fact that they will not see a huge scale decommissioning.
On the other hand the republican community, the republican leadership
will have to take on board the fears of the unionist and the demands of
the unionist leadership that there is a clear commitment that the war is
over.
AITKEN: ` The gardai have given
themselves three weeks to try to find the bodies of the disappeared and
bring some solace to their families. The goal Northern Ireland's politicians
have set themselves - a peaceful settlement of a generations old blood
feud - has at times seemed almost impossible. But this weekend is one of
those occasional moments of hope which intermittently illuminate the political
landscape.
HUMPHRYS: ` Robin Aitken reporting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Well Martin McGuinness,
Sinn Fein's Chief Negotiator is in our Derry studio.
Mr McGuinness, the Ulster
Unionist Party as you'll know, is saying that it's good, or some in that
party are saying that it's good as far as it goes but they want a lot of
clarification. As far as your understanding is concerned, is it the IRA
statement, that is a take it or leave it or is there now scope for real
negotiation based on it.
MARTIN McGUINNESS: Well I think the first thing
to be said is that the IRA statement is a very powerful development and
one which gives all politicians on all sides, particularly those who are
pro-agreement a very real opportunity to press on to implement an agreement
which should have been implemented some two years ago. Now obviously over
the course of recent weeks much work has been done to try and bring about
a situation where the impasse can be broken and of course involved in those
meetings were the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Taoiseach, ourselves
and Sinn Fein and of course others. Now I think in relation to whatever
difficulties or problems that the Unionists might have, and I'm very heartened
by the response that I have heard from at least those Unionists who are
prepared to be positive and constructive about how we handle this particular
situation that we're in. I think that whatever difficulties and problems
are there can effectively be ironed out successfully.
HUMPHRYS: So there is room for
negotiation - that's the nub of it?
McGUINNESS: Well what I'm saying is that
I believe that we have cracked the nut and I don't believe that there are
any outstanding difficulties in relation to where we've arrived at and
how we've contrived the situation which permits all of us to effectively
proceed in a harmonious way to raise up the issues of equality of justice,
of policing, of demilitarisation, of the Irish language and many other
aspects of the Agreement which have effectively for the last two years
been lost in this nonsensical debate that has gone on and dominated the
political agenda for the last two years.
HUMPHRYS: Well you may believe
that but clearly very many people, including David Trimble, do not accept
that the nut has been cracked. There are cracks appearing perhaps but
the nut hasn't actually been cracked yet and there are clearly
a lot of worries that they have, one of them obviously has to do with
this notion of inspecting IRA arms dumps and they wonder how they can be
sure what happens to those arms between inspections, or maybe they'll be
inspected three times a week or something, but if they're inspected once
a week or once a month what happens to the arms dumps in between? These
are crucial areas aren't they? I mean that is a problem itself isn't it?
McGUINNESS: Well I actually don't believe
that it is a problem. I think that the fact that there are agreed third
parties in the shape of the former Finnish President and Cyril Ramaposa
of the ANC. Clearly these are people with a huge international reputation.
Cyril Ramaposa was very much at the heart of the South African negotiations,
was a very successful negotiator and I think that obviously it is my view
that these people are of the highest calibre and the fact that they're
involved or will be involved in this process I think certainly should allay
the fears and concerns that Unionists may have.
HUMPHRYS: So I mean if they were
to say, for instance, and who knows what they will say but if they were
to say 'we want to inspect them or have somebody inspect them on our behalf
every day of the week' then that wouldn't, as far as you understand it,
cause a problem?
McGUINNESS: Well I mean that's a matter
for the IRA to work out with the third parties and of course the third
parties will be reporting to the International Decommissioning Commission
under General De Chastelaine. So I actually don't think that we should
waste time dealing with nuts and bolts of all of this. I think that...
let's focus on the reality that the IRA have made a very powerful contribution
that will cause obviously great difficulties for Republicans and I think
that what I would want to do at this time is pay tribute to the leadership
of the IRA and to IRA volunteers all over Ireland who are yet again showing
themselves willing to enhance the peace process and I think that Unionists
need to sit back and consider and reflect very much on the words used by
the IRA in their statement and I think you know there has been a huge welcome
for those words, I think that people believe that these words do give confidence
to the Unionist people, to Unionist political leaders who are progressive
and give us all a real opportunity to press on and implement the Good Friday
Agreement.
HUMPHRYS: What they said in that
statement was that there would be a confidence building measure to give
reassurance that the weapons remain secure within a matter of weeks. Now
is that going to happen, do you believe, before the setting up again of
the Executive and the Assembly?
McGUINNESS: Well I don't know what time
span is on that. I do believe that it will happen and that it will happen
over the course of the next couple of weeks. I don't really think it's
that important to tell you the truth..
HUMPHRYS: ...not essential that
it happens, that the executive gets set up.. the Assembly gets set up before,
not essential from your perspective?
McGUINNESS: I don't think so. I think
the fact that the IRA have said in a public statement that they are prepared
to facilitate this within weeks I think you know we can take for certain
because the only statements that they've made in the past they've always
fulfilled what they've said. So that's not a difficulty for me. I don't
believe it's a difficulty for David Trimble or for Tony Blair either.
I think our focus needs to be on the fact that there is now a powerful
development. What we obviously want to see from our point of view and the
Nationalist Republican community is you now the commitments that have been
made by the British government in the course of recent days fulfilled in
the coming days and I hope that they will be announcements from the British
government which will deal with and tackle the whole issue of equality
of justice, of human rights, the Irish language, the need for demilitarisation
and of course the need for the Patten Report to be implemented in full.
HUMPHRYS: One question that David
Trimble has raised, he raised it again this morning is - 'Is this, the
IRA statement and all it contains, is it a gesture, the beginning of a
process, or is it just a token gesture, is it something really important
that you now move on from here towards decommissioning, proper decommissioning
or is it simply a gesture'?
McGUINNESS: I think it's absolutely huge.
I think it's massive........
HUMPHRYS: ....the beginning of
that process..
McGUINNESS: Pardon?
HUMPHRYS: ..the beginning of that
process of decommissioning.
McGUINNESS: Well from our perspective as
you know, and you and I have talked about this on many occasions over the
course of recent years, the Sinn Fein project from the very beginning was
to remove injustice, was to remove the causes of conflict and was to remove
all of the guns from Irish politics so we are trying to do that in a very
determined way and many parties to that process have contributions to make.
I think from our perspective in Sinn Fein we have been at the coal face
of trying to resolve these difficulties and I think that the announcement
this week by the IRA has been an absolutely huge and mighty step forward.
HUMPHRYS: But that is it is it?
That is what we now have to understand is going to happen as opposed to
decommissioning, handing over or destroying of weapons, this notion that
they are buried in some arms dumps, that they will be left there to rust
and rot away - that is it is it as far as you can see it?
McGUINNESS: Well in relation to all of
that and I don't want to go into the details of all the points which you
raised I think in fact what we need to get to is a situation where all
of these matters can be left to John De Chastelaine and his international
commission, left to Cyril Ramaposa and the Finnish President and to the
armed groups and I think from our perspective what we have to do as politicians
is obviously deal with that issue but it's my view and I think that there
is much agreement about it, what we have to do in relation to being successful
in removing all of the guns from Irish politics is that we actually to
put up a political project. Now what is this political project? A political
project from the beginning is about power sharing in the North, is about
those Unionists who say they're for the Good Friday Agreement, who do want
Catholics about the place getting into government with Republicans and
Nationalists. It's about those rejectionist Unionists who are out there
who are trying to destroy all of the work of the last number of years being
told very firmly by the British Prime Minister and Pro-Agreement unionists
that they are not going to win. It's about setting up a power sharing
executive, an All Ireland Ministerial Council, all Ireland implementation
bodies. It's about ending division in the North. I want to stretch out
the hand of friendship to David Trimble. I want to work with David Trimble.
It's about ending division on the Island of Ireland. I think when you
consider the new economic age that we're moving into it makes eminent sense
for all of us to work together to end divisions on this island once and
for all.
HUMPHRYS: But to what extent does
what was promised yesterday and the sorts of things you've been talking
about to what extent do they depend on reciprocal gestures from the British
government?
McGUINNESS: Well over the course
of the last number of days the British government have outlined along with
the Irish government the steps which must be taken not just by others within
the process but by themselves and of course the British government is addressing
at this moment in time, I hope they will do it satisfactorily, the issue
of demilitarisation, the issue of equality, the issue of justice, the issue
of human rights, the issue of the Irish language and these are all huge
issues that need to be dealt with because one thing that is absolutely
certain, and this is a message for the rejectionist Unionists out there
- Sinn Fein isn't going to go away. Sinn Fein is becoming bigger. Sinn
Fein is becoming stronger and the people that we represent have a very
real confidence that Nationalists have never had before in the North of
Ireland as a result of the efforts that have been made by people like Gerry
Adams and by John Hume and by the fact that we are involved in a process
which they see can bring great change to their lives. So you know we are
no longer John going to be treated like second class citizens in our own
country and we now need people from the British end of things in the shape
of the British Prime Minister and pro-agreement Unionists to publicly agree
with us that we are no longer to be treated like second class citizens
and Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson have made remarks about that in the
course of the last week or so. So things are changing. We are moving
forward, hopefully to new times and there is a real opportunity now for
politicians, Unionists, Loyalist, Nationalist and Republican to build a
new future for all our people, I think we're going to get there.
HUMPHRYS: Martin McGuinness, thank
you very much indeed.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: And let's now turn to a
senior Ulster Unionist, Jeffrey Donaldson. Mr Donaldson, you are one of
those rejectionists, as at least as described there by Martin McGuinness,
are you persuaded by what he just had to say?
JEFFREY DONALDSON: Well I found the term rejectionist
insulting to be quite honest with you. I've worked for democracy in Northern
Ireland and against terrorism for the last twenty years. I want to see
peace and progress in Northern Ireland but it has to be real peace and
therefore I don't regard myself as a rejectionist. In fact the people who
have rejected democracy for the last thirty years were the IRA.
HUMPHRYS: But do you accept this
proposal, this statement that was put forward by the IRA as being a significant
step forward, that's really the question isn't it.
DONALDSON: The real question is the one
that you were trying to get an answer to from Martin McGuinness unsuccessfully
and that is, is this the beginning of a process of actual decommissioning
of IRA weapons. Now that is the key question and when you look at the
statement from the IRA yesterday all that they are offering at the moment
is to open up some of their arms dumps for inspection by two independent
persons from the International community. They have made no proposal whatsoever
to decommission their weapons and bear in mind that we do have legislation
in place, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 that provides
for decommissioning and sets out two options: one, is that the paramilitaries
including the IRA can destroy their own weapons under the supervision of
General de Chastelaine and his independent commission. The other option
is for them to transfer the arms to General de Chastelaine who will then
destroy them. Now there are no proposals from the IRA in this statement
to do either of those things and therefore what we need to do and what
David Trimble asked this morning is is this the beginning of a process
leading to complete disarmament because it's disarmament that we need to
see if the threat of violence is to be removed.
HUMPHRYS: But surely it is something
to build on and some people in your own party would be perhaps surprised
that you appear to be rejecting it more or less out of hand.
DONALDSON: Well I am sorry that is not
what I have said. What I have said is what we need to know is that this
is a real move which is going to bring amount disarmament...
HUMPHRYS: Do you see this as a
step towards that. That's really what I am trying to get at. Are you saying
that statement is at least important in the sense that it can help us now
to move forward. Do you see it in that light?
DONALDSON: We don't know that because Martin
McGuinness and Sinn Fein IRA won't answer that question. Martin McGuinness
failed to answer the question that you asked him on that very point. So
we don't know whether this is the end of it and I have to say based on
what I have heard so far I suspect that this the end. Martin McGuinness
said in the interview just now that this ....that the nut had been cracked.
Well does that mean that all the IRA are ever going to do is periodically
permit two people from the International community to inspect some of their
arms dumps to confirm that they are still there because the problem with
that is that the IRA retain possession of those arms, they have full access
to those arms and the threat posed by those arms remains and the question
I think that ought to be asked of the IRA is if you believe in peace and
if you want peace then why are you holding on to the arms. After all the
Republican movement when it entered this process signed up to the Mitchell
principles of democracy and non-violence and one of those principles is
a commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary groups and what
we have got in this statement isn't disarmament.
HUMPHRYS: So, nothing short of
them handing over physically handing over or perhaps destroying weapons
would persuade you when you have your council meeting of the Ulster Unionist
Party in a fortnight's time, nothing short of that would persuade you to
say let us support this and go back to doing business with Sinn Fein?
DONALDSON: John, that's not my position.
That's actually the position and the policy of the party. The policy
of the party is that we need disarmament, in fact complete disarmament
by the twenty-second of May this month. Now the government has unilaterally
set aside the deadline that was set out in the agreement, and what we need
to see is disarmament, that's the party's policy, it's not my policy, it's
the policy of the party.
HUMPHRYS: So therefore David Trimble
your leader should have rejected it out of hand effectively, and ....
DONALDSON: David Trimble has himself this
morning said that there are key questions that we need answers to. I've
outlined some of those questions just now to you and includes perhaps the
most important question of all, is this leading to disarmament? Are we
going to get actual disarmament by the IRA? That's what we need to know.
HUMPHRYS: But he saw it as being
grounds for optimism. At least that was certainly the way I read his
interview this morning and indeed yesterday.
DONALDSON: Yes, but we need to know the
answers to the key questions from the IRA. Is this the end of the process
for them, do they regard what they offered yesterday, access to some of
their arms dumps as being the end, or what do they mean by putting guns
beyond use, what does that actually mean? Those are questions that we need
answers to if people are to have the confidence. We are being asked to
put Martin McGuinness and Bairbre De Bruin the two Sinn Fein ministers
back into government Between them as Minister of Education and Minister
of Health they will be responsible for almost half the budget, half the
public expenditure in Northern Ireland. Now those are very important positions
and we need to know that all the ministers in our government are committed
to exclusively peaceful means. We need to know that they don't have a
private army with all their arms retained at their beck and call, and we
need therefore the answers to clear questions.
HUMPHRYS: In just a very few words,
are you prepared to split the Ulster Unionist Party over this issue. Just
a few words, we only have a few seconds left.
DONALDSON: Well, I don't think it's a question
of splits. We will obviously have to look at this. We need answers to
questions that need to be posed to the IRA and then we will meet to discuss
and vote on this matter. All that I'm saying is that in terms of our present
policy where we're looking for disarmament that's what the parties were
committed to in the agreement, and what the IRA offer at the moment doesn't
represent disarmament.
HUMPHRYS: Jeffrey Donaldson, thank
you very much indeed.
DONALDSON Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: And that's it for this
week. Until the same time next week, Good Afternoon.
23
FoLdEd
|