BBC On The Record - Broadcast: 28.05.00



==================================================================================== 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: 28.05.00 ==================================================================================== JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The Tories are making lots of promises to pensioners. But have they done their sums properly? Now the unionists are going back into government I'll be asking Sinn Fein if the IRA will keep its promises. And... remember the Third Way? Has it LOST its way? That's after the news read by Fiona Bruce. NEWS HUMPHRYS: And what's happening to Tony Blair's promise on fox hunting? The government's facing growing pressure for a law to ban it. GORDON PRENTICE: "The government cannot afford to give out any more signals, that it's proscrastinating on an issue that so many people feel very very strongly about." HUMPHRYS: And world leaders meet again this week to discuss where the "third way" is going. Some say that in Britain it's going nowhere... I shall also be asking Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein why the new government in Northern Ireland should be any more successful this time around than last time. But first... the Conservatives are promising that life will be so much better for old age pensioners if they form the next government. They told us last week that the basic state pension will go up by at least five pounds, five pounds fifty a week. Now they're making more promises. Pensioners who care for a relative will get more benefits; war widows who marry again will be better off... and there's another promise to ALL of us... an end to mixed wards in hospitals, and so on. Sounds good. But how are they going to pay for all this stuff and cut taxes... another of their promises? Indeed THAT one is more than a promise: it's a guarantee. David Willetts is the Shadow Social Security Secretary. JOHN HUMPHRYS: Mr. Willetts, let's deal first of all with the promises. Given your record, the Conservatives record in government, why should pensioners believe that they are going to be better off under you next time. DAVID WILLETTS: Because what we've proposed is a very carefully costed package, the figures agreed with the House of Commons Library, which shows that you can both consolidate all the money in the special payments into the basic pension, plus, there is three-hundred-and-twenty million pounds extra on top from elsewhere in the Social Security Budget, so pensioners will have an income that is at least as good, if not better than what they have at the moment, and above all, it will be guaranteed, it will treat them with respect, it will be part of the weekly basic pension. HUMPHRYS: Let's look at the list that you've announced today. It doesn't seem to amount to very much when you break it down, does it really? Breast cancer screening, you say that you are going to extend that for sixty-five to sixty-nine-year-olds, depending on trials, but the government is already doing precisely that. WILLETTS: Yeah, but, and what we're doing though, both on breast cancer and the other things we've announced is that we're saying, when we identify areas where policy discriminates against people just because of their age, we Tories want to break down those barriers, and what we're finding, both in the benefit system, and in the health service, is there are still barriers which people face, getting the right service, getting the right level of benefit, just because of their age, and that's unacceptable. HUMPHRYS: And the government's recognised it and is not going to have it. It's going to change it. WILLETTS: Well, but I think the trouble with this government is that because of all their rhetoric of new Britain, young Britain, cool Britannia, the pop stars at number ten, all that type of stuff, they don't understand or respect what it is that concerns older people, particularly pensioners, and we are showing that we have been listening, we have been learning, and we Conservatives value and respect pensioners and these policies, both on pensions and on the health service show that we're serious. HUMPHRYS: Sounds as if you've been listening to the government, because as I say, on breast cancer screening what you're proposing is precisely what they've already decided to do - it's not new, is it? WILLETTS: It depends on how the pilot project scheme will go...... HUMPHRYS: .....exactly. WILLETTS: ....but, what we know is that the problem with cancer treatment in this country, and we do unfortunately have a record on cancer that is worse than most other advanced western countries, is almost entirely to be explained by the treatment which older people get in hospital, so there is indeed, yeah there's a deeper question here about how you help older people - but if I look at how this government has treated older people in the past three years, look at the way all the New Deal money, for example, went to eighteen to twenty-four olds, they don't understand, or value, or respect them. HUMPHRYS: Mmm. But as I say, they already acknowledge this. Anyway, let's move on to the next thing, mixed sex wards, which you don't like, neither does the government, neither do most people it seems, and your government promised, Virginia Bottomley, I remember her telling me about it years ago, five, six years ago, that they were going to put an end to it. Urgent moves were needed, that's exactly what she said. John Major apologised for it all a couple of years later because it hadn't happened. It still hasn't happened, but this government is now saying, it is going to do it, you didn't do it, this government says it's going to do it, now you say again you're going to do it, and present it as something new. WILLETTS: Yeah, but you say the government now it is going to happen, one of the troubles...... HUMPHRYS: .....he says it's going to happen. WILLETTS: .....one of the troubles is that already the timetable has slipped. I remember Baroness Jay, when she was a Health Minister, saying that by now they would have eliminated mixed sex wards. Now they're talking about some date after the next election. HUMPHRYS: Two-thousand-and-two, which may not be after the next election, probably will be but may not be. WILLETTS: Yeah, who knows. But what we're saying is, yeah, we've been listening, we've been learning, we've been listening to pensioners, and I'm not going to defend everything that happened in the past, what we are saying is, pensioners tell us over and over again that they don't think that they get a fair crack of the whip under this government. So William Hague has said to us, he wants us all to review the policies in our area, to make sure that they do not discriminate against older people. HUMPHRYS: Fine, except that you've come up with policies that are those that have already been adopted by the government, so, there isn't any difference. They are going to do it. WILLETTS: Well, the policies that we have been announcing on the basic state pension, that's not what the government has done...... HUMPHRYS: ....we'll come to that in a minute WILLETTS: ....and the policies which I've announced today in the areas of benefits, saying that we should get rid of the discrimination against older carers, that is a policy that sadly is not being implemented by this government, I wish they would, to be honest, and we would support them if they did. And on war widows, where we're saying that war widows should not lose their pension if they remarry, there the government absolutely has an opportunity straight away to do it, the amendment has been tabled in the House of Lords, the government has been defeated on it, all they need to do is to say, when the current Welfare Bill comes back to the Commons, they will not try to reverse that provision. So yeah, if the government does these things, that's fine by us. HUMPHRYS: But, you, you could have done that by yourself, William Hague, who was then the Social Security Minister back in 1995 said, and I quote, we looked it up this morning - it would be wrong to change the rules for one very small group, one very small group in isolation - he didn't think it was a good idea then. WILLETTS: Yeah. Well what's happened is very simple. What's happened is five years on, five years later, listening and learning from older people, what we have found is there is a whole range of areas where they don't feel they are properly treated with respect. So, yes, I am not going to defend our policy of five years ago, but I am proud of our policy today. HUMPHRYS: Mmm. Well, let's look at the other thing that you're proud of, the basic state pension, the changes there, you gave the impression very clearly last week, that pensioners would be five-pounds-fifty a week better off. They're not going to be five-pounds-fifty a week better off, are they? WILLETTS: What we said is that there will be an increase in the basic state pension that is a minimum of five-pounds-fifty for a single pensioner under seventy-five, and goes up to ten-pounds for an older pensioner. We made it perfectly clear all along, because pensioners have been over-sold too many gimmicks by this government, we made it perfectly clear all along, that most of this money came from consolidating the various special schemes....... HUMPHRYS: .....all but forty-two pence of it. WILLETTS: ...no, but the, an extra three-hundred-and-twenty-million pounds that comes from, for example, saving on the bureaucracy of administering the special schemes, a complete waste of money that will instead go into the basic pension. So it is true, most of the money is coming from consolidating the existing schemes, but there is extra money on top, and I think that that's why we can be confident that all pensioners will be better off. HUMPHRYS: And the extra money on top is forty-two pence a week, you made great fun of the sum, as indeed did an awful lot of other people, the seventy-five pence a week that they got on top of the pension, you are offering them another forty-two pence a week, making it sound a great deal of money. WILLETTS: What we are doing is - it will vary according to the circumstances of individual pensioners but it could be significantly more than that. And to be honest John, even if there was not an extra penny, even if there was not a single extra penny of money rather than the three hundred and twenty million, even if we were simply taking the money that goes into the special payments and putting that into the basic pension, I think that would be an improvement because it would treat pensioners with respect, whereas the current special scheme, they all have to apply for and is complicated to administer do not. So I - even if there were no extra money, I would still say this was a better policy. HUMPHRYS: Alright, important expression this, with respect, because as you say that is what they want and quite right too and William Hague made the point earlier this week, not five years ago but just four days ago he said the basic state pension in effect is a return on years of contributions, these people have worked for it, they have paid their contributions over the years and they are damn well entitled to it, that's the view they take, quite right too. 'We want to show respect' he says. Now if that's the case, how come that you are not promising to do what they want above all and that is a substantial increase, not forty-two pence, a substantial increase in the basic state pension and restore the link with earnings which your government chopped and which made so many of them......if you are really listening to them, that's what you'd do isn't it. WILLETTS: Well we are talking about a substantial increase in the basic state pension.. HUMPHRYS: No you're not, it's forty-two pence.. WILLETTS: ..well minimum of five pounds fifty, up to ten pounds and that is an increase that includes the recycling of the existing... HUMPHRYS: ..that's smoke and mirrors isn't it. WILLETTS: ..but on the earnings I know that many campaigning pensioners would like to see the earnings link restored, you are quite right, neither the Conservatives nor the Labour Party, nor even the Lib Dems actually in their manifesto proposed that because it is not affordable and would not be well targeted. So what pensioners have to look at is not what for them would be the ideal, you have to look at the practical options that are on offer. They can either have all Gordon Brown's special payments or they can have what we propose in their carefully costed package which is an increase in the basic state pension that is more than consolidating the special gimmicks. That is the real choice they'll face in the next election. HUMPHRYS: So respect doesn't actually mean much extra money, it means a few pence extra, it just means packaging it up in a different way, that's really what it's all about. WILLETTS: Well I think..you say it just means packaging it up in a different way, the thing that pensioners feel is that if they are to have extra money they will want it to be part of the contributory basic pension as an entitlement.. HUMPHRYS: ..they want more money.. WILLETTS: ..yes they do want more money as well, you are quite right, but the money they do get..the complication of these schemes, the way they are so badly targeted. I am sure that Gordon Brown didn't even intend this but he has got a scheme where people in nursing homes and residential accommodation who are on income support don't get the winter fuel payment, but the affluent pensioners, the two hundred and twenty thousand who are above income support levels do get the winter fuel payment. It's a nonsense. He's created a nonsense because every budget he stands up and wants to announce a new scheme with a new change to the benefit system, it's too complicated and simplifying it and putting it as part of the contributory pension is a lot better than what they have at the moment. HUMPHRYS: There's one group of pensioners - the worst off as well - who are actually going to be worst off still under you because at least under Labour people on the minimum income guarantee will have that increase, that benefit paid in line with earnings, it will go up in line with earnings. You won't allow that will you? WILLETTS: That is simply not true. We made all along, clear in our package, that the extra money that goes into the basic pension is to go to all pensioners. It will not be taken off pensions.. HUMPHRYS: ..talking about the minimum income guarantee.. WILLETTS: ...yeah the minimum income guarantee is income support as it was in our day, renamed as is often with New Labour you look behind you.. HUMPHRYS: ...but the question I'm asking is whether you are going to increase that in line with earnings in the future, that's the crucial point. WILLETTS: What I am..in the package which is the uprating for 2001, is based on Labour's spending plans for the year 2001/2002 and only differs from Labour's spending plans where we have specified. The 2001/2002 year which is for what this applies.. HUMPHRYS: ..a one off.. WILLETTS: ..will have the increase in means tested benefits that ensures that all pensioners are better off than they are.. HUMPHRYS: ..for that year. What about subsequent years? WILLETTS: Well in the long term how you up-rate the value of the income support, the minimum income guarantee is indeed a matter for decision... HUMPHRYS: Oh right, so that's exactly the point I made. WILLETTS: But Labour are not themselves, they are not guaranteeing that all through the lifetime of the second Parliament what they will do, when they will produce their spending plans, we will produce our spending plans. HUMPHRYS: But their policy is to increase it in line with earnings, you are not going to do that. WILLETTS: But what Alastair Darling was claiming was that poorer pensioners on means tested benefits will lose out because they will not get the value of this increase, that is untrue. This will go to all pensioners and means tested benefits will be increased so as to ensure that the value.. HUMPHRYS: ...for that year but there's no commitment from you to continue to do that. WILLETTS: But there is a commitment for the future.. HUMPHRYS: The answer is no to that isn't it, let's be clear about that. WILLETTS: The commitment to the future is that then this larger, more substantial basic state pension will be uprated in line with prices and it will be a larger sum that is uprated so that every year the uprating will be bigger because you are uprating a bigger sum. It's another reason why pensioners gain from this package. HUMPHRYS: Right, let's be quite clear about this. The poorest pensioners could, because you are not prepared to give this commitment, in the long run be worse off. WILLETTS: Neither Labour ministers nor us as a responsible Opposition have said that in the long term you can guarantee that the minimum income guarantee will rise in line with earnings rather than prices. That is a decision to be taken beyond the year 2002. HUMPHRYS: Alright, so the upshot of all that is that you're telling the many pensioners who will be watching this programme that under a Conservative government they would be better off. There's no ifs, ands and buts, no sleight of hand, no repack, they will be better off? WILLETTS: Yes. HUMPHRYS: Well now, that is a bit strange isn't it, because what you're supposed to be doing, what you're going to have to do if you get into office is to cut taxes during the lifetime of the government, no ifs, ands or buts about that either, that is an absolute commitment and yet you're going to pay extra money to pensioners. Of course you're also going to pay extra money to the Health Service, to schools, all the rest of it, but extra money to pensioners. Bit of a tricky one to pull off that isn't it? WILLETTS: And we've managed it. HUMPHRYS: Managed it? - you're not in office yet. WILLETTS: Yes. HUMPHRYS: You are telling us how you might manage it. WILLETTS: No because let me tell you, because you're quite right. I want to see the social security budget coming down and I'm committed to bringing down the social security budget, and that's what I want to do, and what we've done in this package for pensioners is we've identified very clearly elsewhere in the social security budget where the extra three hundred and twenty million pounds comes to help pensioners. I comes from the abolition of the New Deal for lone parents, it comes from the savings on bureaucracy, other measures, adding up to ..... HUMPHRYS: ...oh come on, savings on bureaucracy, the number of times - can I just remind you of something one of your colleagues said about savings on bureaucracy - Stephen Dorrell. He said when the Labour - the then Labour Opposition said we're going to save on bureaucracy in the NHS and all the rest of it, he said that's a mirage, you can't do it. WILLETTS: Well we - I tabled parliamentary questions to ministers to establish how much it cost to administer the winter fuel payment scheme and how much it cost to administer the special free TV licence scheme. Those figures add up to forty million pounds. We're saying if you abolish the schemes that releases forty million pounds and you can put that into the basic state pension. Though if you disagree with the figures you'll have to ....... HUMPHRYS: Well, that will pay for your war widows bit, but you've got - I've been making a list here, you've got forty million for war widows, twenty million for carers' benefits, forty million...... three-hundred-and twenty million for the new pension - still an awful lot of money... WILLETTS: Yes, and what we've identified is substantial savings in the social security budget by saying for those lone parents for example, instead of Labour's hopeless New Deal which does nothing to get them into work, we will expect of single parents whose children are of secondary school age because it's in the interests of their children that they be actively seeking work... HUMPHRYS: ..is it? WILLETTS: ..we will end - it is in the interests of their children.. HUMPHRYS: Family friendly policies. So much for them. WILLETTS: Well, I was very struck by ... HUMPHRYS: ... be out of work and looking after the kids. WILLETTS: If you look at the evidence, if you look at education attainment of the children, if you look at future employment, if you particularly look for the daughters at their own risk of becoming a teenage mother, you see that if their lone parent works when they're of secondary school age then the chances for the child are much better. So we think it's only responsible to act on ...... HUMPHRYS: ..but sure, but... WILLETTS: ... and that's one-point-two-billion pounds of income support that goes to single parents..... HUMPHRYS: If they all find jobs, if they all, every single one of them, every single one of them finds a part time job that would fit in with where they live and where the school hours and all that, a bit optimistic that isn't it? WILLETTS: Well, all that we're expecting them to do is to find the jobs that the married mothers with working husbands are doing. Again, we're going to say, what we're going to say to them is, look at the sort of jobs which are being done by the women in your area, that is what we'll expect job centres to be referring them to, and those will be the reasonable offers of work, and if you don't do that indeed you will sadly lose your income support. HUMPHRYS: And you're also assuming that they will be paid enough, so that they don't have to get benefits. You're asking a great deal - making a great deal of assumption about this aren't you? WILLETTS: All I say is that the assumptions that we're making are a jolly sight more sensible and practical than the assumptions that Labour have made in the New Deal for lone parents, that's ninety-million pounds that just goes, and I will use the word again John, it just goes into bureaucracy. It literally is bureaucracy, it goes into letters that are sent out to lone parents inviting them for interviews, it goes into the postage, it goes into the bureaucrats who send out the letters and they're no more likely to get a job than the people who don't get the letters. HUMPHRYS: The idea that you're going to save one-point-two-billion pounds on this scheme alone is fairly preposterous isn't it. It's making an enormous assumption. WILLETTS: What we're saying is that over a lifetime of a parliament we will tackle it in a sensible way, we're not being - we're not doing anything rash. HUMPHRYS: So, it's not going to all happen immediately then? WILLETTS: What we'll do is bring down the age at which parents get their income support unconditionally. From the age of the child being sixteen or eighteen as it is at the moment, down to eleven a year at a time. We've identified other savings as well. HUMPHRYS: Well, just before we leave that one, you're not going to say one-point-two-billion pounds, certainly not in the first year, not in the second, maybe by the end of..... WILLETTS: We're talking about increasing savings that will reach one-point-two billion pounds, and they are substantial savings, they're much larger savings than the only extra items of social security expenditure that I've announced, apart from this self financing package for pensioners which is forty million pounds to help war widows and twenty million pounds to help carers who are discriminated against at the moment. Comparing those two specific announcements that tackle the real and genuine grievance with the very large savings totalling well over a billion, adding up eventually to three-point-two billion it's clear that we're committed to making overall savings in the social security budget. HUMPHRYS; You didn't pick out of that little lot the way you're going to save money, the ninety million pounds you're going to pinch out of the social fund, that fund that helps the very poorest people buy shoes for their children and the like, and that's a pretty mean cut isn't it? WILLETTS: Yes, that was a tough decision to take, but we took it because.... HUMPHRYS: People are going to suffer. WILLETTS: Yes, and we didn't want you to be able to say, and the critics to say, hang on the figures don't add up, they haven't shown where they'll get the savings from. It was a tough decision, but our view was that the government had put over sixty million pounds extra into the social fund this year, it was increasing way on top of inflation, and that if we can put more money to pensioners through guaranteed weekly payments in their basic state pension it is possible to make off setting savings elsewhere. And we've come clean on it and the figures have all been agreed with the House of Commons library, and it is a package where the figures add up. And by the way you haven't given me an opportunity yet to identify other areas where there are savings to be made, there are entire benefits such as the Industrial Injuries Benefit which we say should be shifted away from an indiscriminate subsidy to employers whether they are having high rates of industrial injuries or not, and instead we say that that should be a responsibility on them to take out private insurance. We want to see a much bigger effort on welfare fraud, where there's seven billion of fraud and the Government are pathetic on tackling it. There are big savings that we can deliver. HUMPHRYS: Maybe. You can't be absolutely sure. WILLETTS: We will. HUMPHRYS: David Willetts, thank you very much indeed. HUMPHRYS: This week an inquiry that's been looking into hunting with dogs is due to report its findings. It was set up under Lord Burns after Tony Blair promised that fox hunting would be banned. But how? There's no commitment to a new law and there's a strong feeling that the government's trying to wriggle out from under a promise that they wish had never been made. But it was... and the pressure from the anti-hunt lobby is building up... as Paul Wilenius reports. PAUL WILENIUS: Farmer Roger Goodchild fortifies himself for a hard day's work. He feels many of Britain's city dwellers are blissfully unaware of the threat to life in the countryside, and the government's doing little to defend it. ROGER GOODCHILD: A lot of farmers feel as though they're hard hit, and that things like the banning of fox-hunting is just one last body blow. WILENIUS: Tony Blair will be facing fresh trouble over foxhunting, when the Burns Inquiry into hunting with dogs reports next week. Labour backbenchers are planning to force a Commons vote shortly afterwards, to get hunting banned before the next election. But countryside campaigners are threatening to mobilise mass protests to kill off any attempt to outlaw hunting. RICHARD BURGE: People in the countryside would get very angry, and they probably would protest if they saw any, any ban being brought in on a wave of political expediency and prejudice. PHIL WOOLAS: There's no doubt in my mind that the Labour Party, whether it's locally or nationally, coming out strongly against fox hunting, is an electoral vote winner. WILENIUS: Roger Goodchild's family has farmed in Buckinghamshire for generations. Linking the way of life of farmers like this, to foxhunting, has galvanised opinion in many rural areas. The Countryside Alliance, which organised the massive rally in London, warns that there is a lot at stake. BURGE: The prime issue is that hunting is not a welfare problem for animals, it's just as humane way of controlling those quarry species as any other way. Secondly it has a massive impact on the social and cultural life of the countryside. It's a major player in the way that we manage pests, species, it's a major way in which agriculture and farming management goes on. Jobs are an issue. WILENIUS: But others say there is another side to hunting with dogs. They believe it's got little to do with countryside tradition, and everything to do with animal welfare. The anti-hunt campaigners claim hunting is not an issue of rural lifestyle, it's about the thousands of foxes torn apart every year by packs of hounds. They say the foxes suffer terrible anxiety and pain. Many Labour backbenchers agree. GORDON PRENTICE, MP: This issue is about killing for fun, that's what fox hunting is, that's what hare coursing is, it's about killing for fun. And it's about time that the government took a handle to this issue, with more than three years into this Parliament, and the government cannot afford to give out any more signals, that it's procrastinating on an issue that so many people feel very, very strongly about. WILENIUS: Last year Tony Blair said he too felt strongly. TONY BLAIR: It will be banned. We will get a vote to ban it as soon as we possibly can. We had one try at it, last session, it was blocked by Conservatives in The House of Commons and the House of Lords, and we are looking now at ways of bringing it forward in a future session and allow people to have a vote and actually carry it through. WILENIUS: There was no quick ban, because of the angry reaction of pro-hunt campaigners such as Labour Peer Baroness Mallalieu and Roger Goodchild. They're now waiting for the Burns Inquiry into hunting with dogs which is expected to report to the Home Secretary very soon. Although it is expected to say only 5,000 jobs will be at risk from a ban, it won't produce a definitive solution to the problem. BARONESS MALLALIEU: The Burns Inquiry commissioned a poll on rural views on hunting, and it showed an overwhelming support in truly rural areas for hunting, something we've always been told by the opponents of hunting was just not true. I think over, well over 59 per cent, nearly 60 per cent of people heavily support the continuation. MICHAEL FOSTER: Clearly they will show, I believe, evidence that that the anti-hunt people have always thought to be the case, and certainly the post mortems on foxes, and this week the post mortems on hares that have been coursed, make grotesque reading. And that is what is conducted in the name of sport. And I think the Burn's evidence will bring that to the public's attention, and gel the support that the anti-hunt movement has. WILENIUS: So the mixed messages of the Burns Inquiry are unlikely to hold back this explosive debate, as the rival groups will pick out parts of the report which support their case. The government's now expected to back a bill introduced by an MP, rather than bring in its own legislation, but this type of bill has failed in the past. And it's unlikely to get through the Lords. WOOLAS: I think colleagues and certainly myself have realised that whatever the majority view, these old fashioned procedures, are just stopping us getting the majority verdict through and that of course is in some quarters turning to frustration at the government for not acting decisively. WILENIUS: So there's a new call to arms, among the anti-hunt campaigners. Gordon Prentice will put forward an amendment to the government's Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, now going through the Commons. This would allow Ministers to invoke the Parliament Act to force the ban through the Lords within a year. This amendment will be tabled early next month, and many Labour MPs are backing it. On The Record asked 100 Labour MPs whether they would support Gordon Prentice's amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill calling for a ban on hunting with dogs. Sixty-nine said they would back the amendment, while only ten said they wouldn't, eighteen said they didn't know and three refused to comment. But if the anti-hunt Labour MPs rush towards an early ban, Ministers warn they could risk wrecking the long awaited Countryside Bill, and its right to roam for the nation's walkers. If the Commons votes for the Prentice amendment, the whole bill could be lost in the Lords, until after the next election. BARONESS MALLALIEU: If the countryside Bill were to go to the Lords with an anti-hunting amendment tacked on to it, I think there must be a very real doubt about the Bill reaching the statute book, because it would immediately be subject to major delays, there would obviously...the Lords would overturn that amendment. And I think the Lords would inevitably take steps to see that it didn't in any form reach the book. PRENTICE: And what do we want, if the government decide that the Countryside Bill is not the appropriate vehicle, then it's got to come forward with an alternative and what we have at the moment is the private members route. Now we've been here before and it's failed. WILENIUS: Tony Blair is under pressure from many in his own party to back his words with action. But if the moves to ban hunting with dogs before the next election fail, they want a firm manifesto promise to use a government bill to implement the ban soon afterwards. But this raises the spectre of big protests by countryside campaigners, right in the middle of a general election campaign. BARONESS MALLALIEU: I'm sure that the government don't want to attract at least half a million people onto the streets of London against them, in the run up to the elections and many of the Labour MPs in rural seats, who never expected to get in, have been on a very fast learning curve and quite a lot of them, I think, are beginning to understand a great deal about the countryside and I hope will influence the government not to make a stupid mistake of committing government to a ban on people. WILENIUS: Labour does now have dozens of MPs in rural seats, but many feel countryside traditions like foxhunting should not be immune from change. On The Record asked one hundred Labour MPs if the Labour Party should have "a manifesto commitment to introduce a government bill to implement a ban in the next Parliament ?" The vast majority of Labour MPs, ninety-one, felt the government should make this promise to voters at the next election, two didn't want a manifesto commitment and seven didn't know. Labour leaders are worried about the slump in party morale and support. Yet here at last year's Eddesbury by-election Labour MPs say there was clear evidence that firm backing for a ban could energise party workers and enthuse those voters turning away from Labour. Insiders say signing up to an anti hunting policy paid off. WOOLAS: There was strong support against fox hunting, not just from Labour core vote in the constituency, but also from the those traditional conservative voters, who for, either for moral reasons opposed fox hunting or because they saw it as being part of the arrogant upper class set as they saw it and we were able to use that issue to gel opinion across the social spectrum and to in fact achieve a vote that was a swing towards the Labour candidate. WILENIUS: For Tony Blair there'll be no running away from a tough political choice on hunting. He knows that a ban on hunting would be unpopular with many in the countryside but he's also shown that this issue has the potential to unite the party, he poked fun at protesting hunters to win over last year's party conference. TONY BLAIR (28.9.99) I'm sorry we're a bit late but it's all those hunting horns outside the window, still here goes - tally ho!. WILENIUS: But some fear that if the Prime Minister fails to match up to these words, he could appear weak. PRENTICE: The worst enemy is vacillation. People have got know where you're coming from. You can't put off the evil day when you've got to make a decision and that's the point that the Prime Minister has got to make a decision and we've got to make it clear to people that we're all four square behind his policy. WOOLAS: If we don't have a firm manifesto pledge without a ban being in place by then, then we will be on our back foot, we'll be defensive, we'll be accused of having dithered over the issue and why turn what is a vote winner for Labour into a potential vote loser. FOSTER: Most people would actually like to see the manifesto commitment, the words of the Prime Minister, who last July said that we will get it banned and I think if there is wording sufficiently clear and positive, that basically says we're going to finish the job off, that will satisfy the vast majority of people in this country, who want to see hunting banned. WILENIUS: It's the end of a hard day's work for Roger Goodchild. And if Labour MPs get their way it'll soon be the end of fox hunting too. But the Prime Minister will have to face up to harsh reality, that he'll make enemies in the countryside. HUMPHRYS: Paul Wilenius reporting there. JOHN HUMPHRYS: There was a great sigh of relief in Westminster, Dublin and Belfast yesterday when the Ulster Unionists agreed to go back into a devolved government after it had been suspended because the IRA wouldn't give up its weapons. But the vote was about as close as it gets and the future of the new Executive depends on what the IRA does now. If it does nothing, if it does not begin the process soon, well then it's back to square one. So now the ball's in the Republicans court. Martin McGuinness is the Chief Negotiator for Sinn Fein. He's in our Derry studio. Good afternoon Mr McGuinness. MARTIN MCGUINNESS: Good afternoon John. HUMPHRYS: You always make it clear on these occasions that you do not and cannot speak for the IRA, but it's clear that they do now have to deliver and deliver pretty soon don't they. MCGUINNESS: Well I think everybody has to deliver and there is a responsibility on everyone to live up to the commitments that they have made, not least the British government and I think we have to remember the context in which all of this took place. The breakthrough came yesterday on the back of an initiative by the Sinn Fein leadership in the course of the last few months, that led to the discussions at Hillsborough, the agreement to come out of that, the joint statement from the two governments and the letter to the party leaders and of course following that there came the IRA initiative. Now I think that the context is very very important. It is very important that we realise and understand that there is a responsibility on everybody to fulfil their commitments and of course the British Government have to fulfil their commitments on things like Patten which has to be implemented in full. On the issue of demilitarisation of course we will see the re-establishment of the institutions next week. We also need to see justice issues dealt with and the whole gambit of the content of the Good Friday Agreement needs to implemented as a matter of urgency. Everybody has to deliver. HUMPHRYS: But you would agree with Bertie Ahern who said 'I hope they, the IRA, will implement it as quickly as possible within a matter of weeks as agreed.' MCGUINNESS: Well I think what we have to do is ensure that everybody lives up to their commitments and for us critically within the Republican constituency it is vitally important that we see the British government embrace the type of change which the Good Friday Agreement promised. Now yesterday was obviously a good day for the agreement and it was a good result for the Ulster Unionist council to eventually face down the rejectionists who are out to destroy this agreement because they are opposed to it lock, stock and barrel. It's just a pity that a sour note was struck by David Trimble when he talked quite offensively about the need for Sinn Fein to be house trained. That has caused a huge reaction within the Nationalist community. People view those comments as effectively sectarian and racist and I think he needs to recognise that the way forward for all of us has to be through inclusivity, equality and respect.. HUMPHRYS: His job is on the line, his position is on the line, the Ulster Unionist Party is on the line in a sense, its whole future is on the line and last time he persuaded the party to jump and nothing happened. He took a gamble in a sense and it failed, the IRA did not deliver what it was supposed to deliver. It can't happen again can it, if it does that that's it. MCGUINNESS: Well I think the difficulty all along and you and I have had many interviews over the course of recent years about the peace process, about the Good Friday Agreement and about the issue of decommissioning. The difficulty all along is clearly that the Ulster Unionist approach to this issue, the securicrat approach within the British military establishment to this issue was totally and absolutely wrong. It was also outside the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, so hopefully we will now see a much more realistic view from the Ulster Unionist leadership as to how we resolve this particular matter in the course of the weeks and months ahead. HUMPHRYS: And if in the months ahead, many months ahead now, if we look ahead to June of next year, by which time the entire Good Friday Agreement should be implemented, by that date you would expect that the IRA would have played its part and would have decommissioned completely, it would be finished by June of next year. MCGUINNESS: Well I think the IRA published their statement in the aftermath of the Hillsborough agreement and that statement is very very clear and I think if people want to examine that statement they will clearly see that there is a commitment in that statement given that all of the other participants to the process fulfil their commitments, that the IRA leadership will deal with the issue of arms. Now from our point of view in Sinn Fein and the Sinn Fein leadership, we have made it absolutely clear, in fact we were the people who coined the phrase from the very beginning, that the object of the exercise is to remove all of the British and Irish governments from Irish politics but we can only hope to do that if people move forward to wholeheartedly embrace the type of change that the Good Friday Agreement promised for everyone. The difficulty about the Unionist stance to the Good Friday Agreement is that whenever a debate is up about this the only issue we hear talked about is the issue of decommissioning. You know I do look forward to the day when Unionists will face up the type of change that the Good Friday Agreement promised the Nationalist community wholeheartedly embraced that and move on collectively with the rest of us to ensure that that agreement is implemented in full. HUMPHRYS: Now one of the other problems, very serious problem for the Ulster Unionists is the question of the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. You mentioned the Patten Report earlier that make certain recommendations, David Trimble managed apparently to squeak through yesterday because his deputy John Taylor said certain assurances had been made about the RUC and that is that its name would continue in one form or another. What are the implications of that, do you believe, for your position and the IRA's position? MCGUINNESS: Well obviously coming out of the Hillsborough agreement we have seen a situation where the British Prime Minister has committed himself to the implementation of the Patten Report. Patten makes no provision whatsoever for double barrelled names or for the name of the RUC to be in the title deeds and we and the Republican Nationalist community and it goes right across from Sinn Fein to the SDLP to all the sections of the Nationalist community, we have made it clear that the Patten proposals which have now been effectively diluted into the Mandelson proposals on policing, are totally and absolutely unacceptable, so it is essential if we are to provide what the Good Friday Agreement charged us with, that is a new beginning to policing in the north, then the British government is going to have to deal seriously with very strong objections within the Nationalist Republican community to the legislation which Peter Mandelson has put in place. Now from my perspective, as an elected MP for mid-Ulster for example, I want to be in the position where I can advocate to the young men and women and to their parents that there is a new beginning to policing, that this is a force that they can join. I can't do that if the British government diverge from the content of the Patten proposals because from the very beginning we made it clear that as far as Republicans were concerned that Patten didn't go far enough. So Patten is the bottom line. HUMPHRYS: And if there is any, let's put it like this, hesitation there, or any changes are made, or indeed, the present proposals go through as they stand, the Mandelson version of this goes through as it stands, does that in any way, do you believe, jeopardise the IRA's promise to open up it's arms dumps, which it should have done now, by now, because we were talking about two to three weeks, we've had three weeks since the promise was made, is that jeopardised in any way, do you believe? MCGUINNESS: Well, I mean, I think we have to be very accurate about all of this, nobody put any time span on us at the time of the Hillsborough agreement, people did talk about this..... HUMPHRYS: ....well, the IRA statement told them opening up dumps within weeks, that was the phrase in the statement. MCGUINNESS: Yeah, but less now than two or three weeks. HUMPHRYS: Well, we ....... MCGUINNESS: .......they made their position, they made their position clear that they would facilitate this. Now from our perspective, what we want to see in Sinn Fein is everybody living up to the commitment that they gave during the course of the Good Friday negotiations.... HUMPHRYS: .......well you made that point but I asked you, sorry to interrupt you, sorry to interrupt you, but I asked you that very specific question, about whether the Patton, the present approach to Patton by the British government, and what John Taylor said yesterday, is likely to influence the decision by the, promise by the IRA to open up those dumps within weeks. MCGUINNESS: Well, I mean I can't answer for the IRA. They can, they can only answer for themselves...... HUMPHRYS: .....what would your recommendation be? MCGUINNESS: ....I can certainly, I can certainly answer for Sinn Fein, and I can certainly speak on behalf of the Nationalist community when I tell you that the Mandelson proposals, the Mandelson legislation, is totally and absolutely unacceptable. It does not provide a new beginning to policing and I think the British government are going to have to take stock of that reality. HUMPHRYS: Martin McGuinness, that you very much indeed. MCGUINNESS: Thank you. HUMPHRYS: When Tony Blair came to power he told us that the old way of doing politics was dead. What was needed was the "Third Way" - not Old Labour, not Conservative - something different. The problem was that nobody quite understood what "something different" was meant to be. Only that Mr Blair and Mr Clinton and other leaders of centre-left governments around the world regarded it all as terribly important. They even started to meet regularly to try to define it. And this week the circus moves on to Berlin. But this time Mr Blair won't be there - he'll be bonding with Leo presumably - and neither will "the Third Way." As Iain Watson reports many people both here and on the continent think that it's now time to bring the curtain down on the "Third Way." IAIN WATSON: It wasn't so long so ago that they were lining up to get inside Tony Blair's big tent. Back in 1997 the boundaries of Labour's political support were expanded to record lengths. The charismatic and then youthful-looking leader, won over disillusioned Conservatives, while managing to hold on to his party's more traditional vote. All of this sounded pretty good to the other centre left leaders in Europe who were anxious to gain power themselves. They took great interest in what Tony Blair called the Third Way - an inclusive kind of politics which was neither old left nor new right. But critics are now saying Labour must present a more positive vision at the next election. MATTHEW TAYLOR: I think the term "Third Way" may be on the way out. Its always been a bit risible because it's never very clear what the first and the second way are. And it also speaks to a sort of halfway point between left and right. PROFESSOR ANTHONY GIDDENS: Well, the Third Way's taken over the world more or less, as you wouldn't find a single left of centre government in the world which isn't in some sense following Third Way policies. In other words, which has broken away from the traditional policies of the left. MASSIMO D'ALEMA: (TRANSLATED) I have always thought that the most important question was a dialogue between European socialism in its different experiences and the American Democrats, not a break-up or separation of European socialism.. WATSON: Labour's ability to assemble a coalition of voters from both left and right won the admiration of other centre left parties in Europe. But now they are not so sure that Tony Blair's brand of Third Way politics stands up to close inspection. But what's more surprising is that modernisers in the Labour party -those who should be impressed - are now sounding every bit as sceptical. The Fabian society isn't exactly a bastion of traditionalists; this Labour think tank is where modernisers in the party tend to find a convivial home. Downing Street want them to talk up the Third Way but, at their annual bash last week, the assembled guests were more interested in the flan than the philosophy. The Third Way wasn't exactly a major topic of conversation. BEN JUDGE: "I'm not sure there is a definition of the Third Way - I think it's a bit of spin." ANITA CROWE: "I think the Third Way is marketing strategy, its a way of selling new policies to people who might have been interested, who might not have been as interested in old labour." JOHN O'FARRELL: It was actually coined by Franco I think, the Third Way, believe it or not - that's not to say new labour has anything to do with Franco - but it sort of means you can delay your policies as long as you want. WATSON: Supporters of the Third Way say it's wrong to brand it as a nebulous or even vacuous concept. They say the way it balances economic liberalism with social justice is genuinely new. And they say, it can provide a sturdy framework to meet the challenges of the global economy. Exponents of the Third Way argue that it offers an answer to the real-life challenges of the day. When the government intervened in Rover recently, Labour's traditional wing hoped this signalled a new policy of more active intervention in the economy. But the government had other ideas. So Tony Blair has sent out John Reid, a close cabinet colleague, to explain just what the Third Way means; it's neither laissez faire nor unlimited state support; but something in-between. JOHN REID: I've rejected the old form of state intervention. Because what that used to mean was when everybody had a problem the state would take over the running of something. Now in the past, Labour was regarded as a party with a big heart but when it came to business or running the economy, with a very soft head. Thankfully that myth has now been destroyed. Not only have we shown that Labour can run the economy better, far better than the Conservatives could, but that it is an integral part of delivering social justice. TAYLOR: I think Labour's failed to articulate sufficiently a clear industrial strategy. We know the emphasis upon supply side and upon education, and those sorts of factors. But their account of how it is the economy goes through periods of transition is underdeveloped, and that's partly because they were so keen to get rid of the image that they were going to be supporting lame ducks, and so keen to say we recognise the rigours of the market, that they've had to develop in office an account of the importance of supporting people through those transitions and not just letting people be washed up, because basically the public won't accept the idea of twenty thousand people losing their jobs because a car plant closes. WATSON: Those who expound the Third Way say we should see the bigger picture. the route to success in the global economy is not through protecting old industries but by producing a more flexible and adaptable workforce. GIDDENS: You need more flexible labour markets because the pace of technological change is much higher, because you have plenty of people who want to work in a flexible way because after all flexibility is often a positive thing. If, for example, you want part time work, if you're a woman at a certain phase of your career. You need to get people into some kinds of lower level service jobs as long as you can ensure they can move up the job hierarchy. What's happened in some European countries like Germany, is that people have become excluded from those jobs, and therefore you've got a big unemployment problem, in that kind of economy. WATSON: When the centre left met in Florence last year, flexibility was still the in-thing. But at this week's gathering in Berlin, even the term the 'Third Way' is off the agenda. The Europeans realise that too little regulation can be as damaging as too much. One of Tony Blair's closest allies in Europe -the former Italian PM, Massimo D'Alema , says that the Left must be able to re-assure their voters that there's more to life than economic efficiency. D'ALEMA: (TRANSLATED) I don't think that the societies of continental Europe should be considered only as bearers of negative values compared with the Anglo-Saxon experience There are also advantages. The fact that we live better in Italy is a thing of value, too. The values of competitiveness are not the only ones: there is also the value of better quality of life. WATSON: Modernisers such as the Fabian's Michael Jacobs say that Labour has a lot to learn from the way other European countries protect their workforce. MICHAEL JACOBS: I think sometimes by emphasising the importance of competing in the global market we underestimate the extent to which people want some protection from the effects of the global market. You only have to see what's happened with Rover to know that people are not happy simply surrendering to whatever the global market seems to seems to demand and I think there is something in the rhetoric, perhaps particularly expressed in France of challenging the forces of globalisation, not necessarily saying we can turn them back but we can shape them, we can direct them to some extent, we can say they should be going in this direction rather than that direction which is I think attractive and I don't think sometimes the British government perhaps encourages people to believe in the power of democracy and of government and sometimes I think perhaps we feel it gives the impression that we are relatively powerless in the face of these forces. WATSON: Supporters of the third way say that parties of the left should acknowledge that taxation is a tricky business. Proper funding of public services always goes down well. But, on the other hand, if tax rates are too high, desirable objectives could be endangered if wealth creators decide to walk away. GIDDENS: That means sometimes you need to bring taxes down rather than put them up. In some countries for example, including this one, tax on business has been too high, it inhibits business and it inhibits job creation. You therefore need to look for a decent tax balance which will allow you to spend the money you need to for social purposes, but that needn't come and shouldn't come wholly either from corporate tax or income tax. WATSON: Elsewhere in Europe left of centre governments don't want to put at risk their public services by cutting taxes too far. They're proud of the fact that they won't allow public spending in their countries to fall to British levels. D'ALEMA (INTERPRETED) I am convinced that public spending cannot go below a reasonable level. I do not believe that it is possible to reduce public spending below a certain limit which, for primary public spending, could be considered as about 40% of the GDP. To go below this limit would mean, above all, damaging the economy of our country. WATSON: Similar arguments are reflected in this country by some of Labour's leading modernisers. They say the state should never provide merely a safety net. The government has to be bold in arguing for more spending in universal services, even if that means more tax. TONY WRIGHT: It was famously said by Keynes that taxes are the membership fee we pay for living in a decent society. If you do want decent health services, decent schools and all the rest of it they have to be paid for. So I would like Tony to make a speech which does talk about the civic value of taxes and what taxes do for a society. WATSON: The pressure is now building on Tony Blair to better define what the third way actually means. As a concept it stretches from America to Europe and beyond. But even those close to Tony Blair are now saying he shouldn't try to be all things to all people, instead he should clearly draw his inspiration from the parties of the centre left on the continent. JACOBS: I think the fact that they're moving in the same direction or in the direction towards greater flexibility or lower taxes and spending, doesn't mean that where they're aiming for is the levels that Americans have or frankly that we have and actually if we were converging on Europe we would have a bit less flexibility, a bit more protection for workers, a bit more generous welfare state, slightly higher public spending even if what's going on in the rest of Europe would be slightly lower and more flexible. TAYLOR: The odd thing is that the whole debate about Europe is couched in terms of the single currency and what I envy in Sweden and Denmark and Holland and Germany is not their currency, I envy their transport systems, I envy their education systems, I envy their commitment to social justice, I envy their more liberal criminal justice systems. There's a great blindness in Britain to the amount of successful practice that's going on in Europe, but I think that's going to change. WATSON: Labour has been having problems getting its supporters to sing from the same song sheet. MPs from industrial areas have been sounding off recently. So Labour's leadership have responded by making populist noises of their own. Only this weekend they've been pounding Oxbridge dons for their alleged elitism. But Cabinet Ministers also realise that if they're to keep as many voters as possible within Blair's big tent, then they mustn't sound too out of tune with the middle class. REID: If the Labour Party becomes a body that does not appeal to the broad mass of hard working families in this country, then it will be finished electorally. We should have learned that lesson twenty years ago; we did learn it; that's what caused our re-appraisal, our modernisation. That is what's developed - our new way, which you call the third way - and that is what's so attractive to the people of this country. WATSON: But those urging the government to go further than they might feel comfortable with say there are no real dangers - Labour's recent middle class supporters won't be scared off. In fact the government, far from leading public opinion, is now falling behind. They say that labour mustn't be complacent about winning the next election - they should see that it's public spending as much as prudence which will bring them electoral reward. JACOBS: I think the government is now in a position, having established the credibility of its basic economic position and its competence in driving improvement in the public services to say if we want those improved services we have to pay for them, and that may mean higher taxes and that I think is a confident message to take to the British people. WRIGHT: I think now that we have to find a way of putting third way discussion into more convincing and coherently popular terms. So that when people do say, you know what is this government all about, what is Blairism all about, you've got some meatier answers than phrases about the third way. WATSON: So modernisers are saying Labour needs to take more risks to maintain a high level of support at the next election. And the term 'third way' may have had its day. But Labour needs to mark out its territory more clearly otherwise an increasingly uncertain electorate may make a permanent exit from Tony Blair's big tent. HUMPHRYS: Iain Watson reporting there. And that's it for this week. Next week we'll be on at the slightly later time of half past twelve. So, until then, good afternoon. 24 FoLdEd
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.