|
====================================================================================
NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND
NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING
AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS,
THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY
====================================================================================
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE:
02.07.00
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Are Britain's
businesses getting fed up with the government and its promise of an "enterprise
economy"? I'll be asking the Trade Secretary Stephen Byers. Can Ken Livingstone
turn promises into performance as London Mayor?. I'll be talking to him
too. And can Britain really be at the heart of the sort of Europe that
France and Germany want? That's after the news read by Sian Williams.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Ken Livingstone takes over
as Mayor tomorrow. Can he deliver what Londoners have been promised?
TREVOR PHILLIPS: "If what he does are things
which are harmful to the interests of Londoners, we'll kick his ass"
HUMPHRYS: And is Britain about to
be relegated to Europe's
slow lane?
PIERRE MOSCOVICI: "It is difficult for Britain
to be the leader of Europe when it is not in the Euro".
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first let's get down
to business. There's never been a Labour government that's cosied up to
business quite like this one. And it's mutual. There's never been a time
when business leaders have been so enthusiastic about a Labour government.
But is that about to change? Indeed, is it changing even as we speak? There's
no doubt business likes many of the things the government has done - especially
a sound and stable economy. But they do NOT like all the red tape that
this government said it would cut and hasn't. And they do NOT like the
uncertainty over Europe... the reluctance by Gordon Brown even to acknowledge
that we may be closer to joining the Euro than we were a couple of years
ago. The Trade Secretary Stephen Byers is one of those Cabinet ministers
who's identified as a Euro enthusiast and he's with me.
They've a point don't
they, Mr Byers, they are getting fed up and one reason is that the government
is not enthusiastic enough about the Euro, you won't as it were get off
the fence and show them some action which is what they want.
STEPHEN BYERS: Well we have got off the
fence and we've put forward a very clear policy as far as the Single European
Currency is concerned and I actually think it's a policy that most business
people recognise as being sensible, it's looking at five economic tests
which the Chancellor has laid down and then if they are met, we have said
that we would recommend that in principle we should join a Single European
Currency so the Government, then Parliament and then the people will need
to agree.
HUMPHRYS: But staying out is damaging
manufacturing industry, that seems to be by most people's standards an
uncontested fact. Let me give you a few facts, you will be familiar with
them I have no doubt, Alan Donnelly, one of your own people used to be
the Party Leader in Europe, in Brussels 'joining would make dramatic improvements
to economies like the North East' he says that this week, or last week
as it is now. A few days ago we had the boss of Nissan, Mr Ghosn saying
'we cannot make a decision about future investment up there until we have
guarantees that we can count on' and we have Toyota this week, this weekend
saying if this goes on, he means this uncertainty, additional investments
in Derbyshire must be considered unlikely. Damage is being caused isn't
it.
BYERS: I think if we look across
the whole of manufacturing there are some sectors actually which are doing
very well, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, telecommunications, aerospace. There
are some others that are facing difficulty, particularly those that are
exporting into the Eurozone and that is because of the relative strength
of the pound against the weakness of the Euro and of course I think it
is worth reminding ourselves that it is the Euro that has been the weaker
currency. The pound for example is at a six year low against the US dollar
at the moment. So it is a sterling Euro issue but as more than half of
our exports go into that Eurozone, clearly it has a direct impact on a
number of key sectors, particularly certain parts of manufacturing. Those
companies and those commentators I think recognise the importance of a
policy which is based on economic principles and seeing that those tests
are met. What would be the worse thing for the Chief Executive of Nissan
is to adopt the policy which the Conservatives have got of saying we are
going to rule it out for at least the next Parliament because that would
then mean that investment decisions would not come to the United Kingdom
and we would lose jobs as a result.
HUMPHRYS: But you say anyway as
a result of what is happening now, that is what the man who runs Nissan
said specifically this week.
BYERS: He was a bit more guarded
than that and he did say he'd want to talk to the Prime Minister and myself
about their prospects as they saw them. But what I found interesting in
engaging in the discussion with business people who make these investment
decisions is that provided they know that early in the next Parliament
we are going to assess the five economic tests then they can understand
that in the national interest that is the correct approach for the government
to adopt.
HUMPHRYS: Can I come to that in
just a moment because I just want to pursue, I certainly don't want to
leave that issue, what to pursue what Mr Ghosn, the Nissan man has said,
and a story that has appeared this weekend about Nissan which says that
you are preparing a big package, a hundred million pounds is being talked
about which would, as it were, encourage Nissan to go ahead with that very
big development, the Micra car development to sort of compensate them for
the difficulties they are facing that you have already explained, the sterling
Euro difficulties.
BYERS: That isn't the case. I haven't
seen the speculative news story that you referred to..
HUMPHRYS: ..no persuasion for them?
BYERS: Well, I mean like any car
company in an area like the North East they would be entitled to regional
selective assistance if the application is an appropriate one. It may be
that which the newspaper article was referring to. But that is perfectly
right and proper we have done it with a number of industries but nothing
to do with the relative strength of sterling.
HUMPHRYS: Nothing to do with that at all.
So if they came along to you and said, if Mr Ghosn came along to you and
said 'look, we have got this problem with the exchange rate, it is costing
us a fortune, bail us out as it were you'd say no'.
BYERS: I would certainly say no.
That is no part of an industrial policy for the twenty-first century.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. But if they
come along asking for investment assistance, couched in different terms,
then you'd say yes.
BYERS: We would do that but we
would do it with any company whether they are trading in Europe or trading
elsewhere.
HUMPHRYS: But you see you yourself
have said when you are talking about the manufacturing industry, we would
be able..they would be able rather, manufacturing industry would be able
to plan ahead with confidence knowing that we are part of a single currency.
So you yourself have acknowledged, haven't you, that that knowledge, set
someway in the future certainly, a small way in the future, would help
them considerably.
BYERS: Well I mean there are clear
benefits from joining a successful single currency which is why we have
said that in principle we are prepared to join provided it is in the economic
interest to do so and the sorts of benefits we would get, for example are
transparency of costs, improvements in trade and currency stability. That
will come from being part of a single currency. And of course that does
tie in with some of the points that Carlos Ghosn made earlier this week.
But of course the real issue I think for business is to know and to have
the guarantee, that we are not going to let this drift, that early in the
next Parliament those five economic tests will be assessed.
HUMPHRYS: Right, and that is crucible
isn't it as Helen Liddle one of your ministers has said 'we certainly envisage
a very early referendum'. You agree with that?
BYERS: Well Helen was talking about
something else in fact if you read the transcripts of her interview, she
wasn't talking about that, she was talking about notes and coins becoming
common currency.
HUMPHRYS: This is a slightly different
point isn't, this is where she was talking specifically about the referendum
and that is a direct quote from what she had to say and I don't think that
was contested.
BYERS: Well it was actually and
I've read what she said...
BYERS: Well it was actually and
I've read what she said......
HUMPHRYS: What - that particular
bit?
BYERS: Yes, because what she said
was that it would be earlier than expected but she was talking in relation
to how we could adopt the Euro in terms of coins.....
HUMPHRYS: No, I think that is a
separate thing. She was talking specifically about the referendum at this
point in the discussion with that German journalist and she says 'we certainly
envisage an early referendum'. Nothing to do with notes and coins and
all that kind of thing which of course there was some kind of confusion
about as you say.
BYERS: Well to clarify the government's
position on this: What we have said is that we will assess the five economic
tests early in the next parliament. If they're not met then it will not
be in the national interest to join a single currency and therefore there
will not be a referendum.
HUMPHRYS: Right. Well let's try
and clarify that a bit now because what business leaders would like is
they would like to have a clearer idea about your intentions. They would
get that if you were able to say whether you believe they or we are any
nearer to meeting those five economic tests. I mean there is no reason
to delay that sort of statement until after the election is there? I mean
it's perfectly clear what's going on to everybody.
BYERS: But there are different
views John as you know, where we are. But I think the important thing
for government is to get into a situation where we're not giving a running
commentary every week on the progress .........
HUMPHRYS: ..... it doesn't have
to be every week........
BYERS: ....well how often should
it be then?
HUMPHRYS: Well let me tell you
what Alan Donnelly said and we'll come to that in a second. 'No, there's
no problem in assessing the five tests before the election. If you leave
it until two months say before a referendum it's too late to get the message
across'. Good man as you say Alan Donnelly (both speaking at once)...
you approved of him earlier.....
BYERS: Well I still do and that's
the sort of campaigning issue that Alan's referring to isn't it and there
is an issue about how you can campaign for a yes vote if there is going
to be a referendum. But you see in all of this, it's not a sort of campaigning
tactical thing, I mean the Euro, is not in the short term, the Euro is
going to be forever if we join it in reality and so we've got to get it
right, we've got to take our time and we've got to make those assessments
of the five economic tests and we've said when we will do it will be early
in the next parliament.
HUMPHRYS: But look - the Chancellor
produces key economic statistics at least twice a year so since the five
tests were first established when was it, two and a half, nearly three
years ago now, we've had how many - a dozen, fifteen of these sets of statistics?
Are you really saying that there is no way of telling at this stage after
all of those assessments and statistics have been pushed into the grinder
that you can't tell whether the ball is bouncing, to use that old phrase,
'closer to the target' or further away from it? It's obvious isn't it?
BYERS: John, you know as well as
I do that there is a difficulty in having an adult debate about the single
currency and if the Chancellor every six months.......
HUMPHRYS: Why?
BYERS: ..... because of the way
the media deal with this matter.......
HUMPHRYS: But that's politics isn't
it.......that's got nothing to do with economics.........
BYERS: Well it's not actually politics
it's the way media have an obsession about a particular issue and have
a sort of textural analysis about every word that everybody says about
the issue. But it is.... But when you get to the absurd situation....
I mean I use the same words when I talk about the single currency on every
occasion, that's not terribly newsworthy but if I deliver them rather more
quickly and I become enthusiastic, if I do it rather more slowly (both
speaking at once)
HUMPHRYS: Oh come on, there's a
bit more to it than that. I mean you've spent a part of this interview
telling what the great advantages of joining a successful currency would
be. If it were Gordon Brown sitting in..........
BYERS: Because you asked me the
questions..... but if you asked me the question of what the disadvantages.........
HUMPHRYS: ....yeah, but let me
put it to you this way - if Gordon Brown..............
BYERS: .... And I'd answer them......
HUMPHRYS: .... Of course you would
but if Gordon Brown was sitting in that chair and I talked to him about
the currency in exactly the same way that I've just been talking to you,
he would say - 'let me tell you why we're not going to jump in.... let
me tell you why we have to be cautious..... let me tell you about boom
and bust, let me tell you about our five year plan...... and he would
BYERS: ... well I'm coming to boom
and bust in a second........
HUMPHRYS: .... I thought you possibly
would.... And he would not have given me, as indeed he didn't the other
day when I spoke to him for several minutes about this particular thing
- a single encouraging word. Now you sit there and you say 'well I see
these benefits' and those are the things uppermost in your mind because
you have recognised that many people in manufacturing industry, very serious
people with an awful lot of money to invest in this country are deeply
worried about it.
BYERS: They're concerned about
our approach but I think the policy that we have which I've outlined this
morning and touched on the benefits of joining a successful single currency
are ones which they fully understand because they realise that they're
not going to have a government which is going to say 'we're going to join
at any costs'. If the economic conditions are wrong then it's going to
be very damaging and in fact, I mean if we were to join tomorrow at the
present exchange rate it's going to be very damaging to manufacturing and
that's the last thing in the world that they want.
HUMPHRYS: But tell me why you cannot
say, as the OECD.... I've got a quote from the OECD which you will know
by heart: 'You, the UK, is projected to be closer to the Euro Centre of
gravity, the economic centre of gravity than some of the current countries
that are actually already IN the currency'. Now why you as a government
cannot say, 'Yeah, well actually we think that's probably true'. I mean
look at it, you can see what's happening with the interest rates, you can
see what's happening with inflation and all the rest of it so clearly the
indications are in that direction and it may be that they will switch around
- of course it may be that they'll go in another direction but why on earth
you, Stephen Byers, being an intelligent man talking to some very intelligent
viewers can't say -'Yeah.... That's the way the thing goes'.
BYERS: Well look John, we've said,
and the Chancellor said this very clearly in October 1997, the Prime Minister
repeated it February last year - we're not going to join a single currency
this side of a general election.
HUMPHRYS: That's accepted......
BYERS: So why assess it?
HUMPHRYS: Because it's the intelligent
way to go about it (both speaking at once ).
BYERS: Because it's speculation.
People think - are they going to change their policy? Are they going
to change before the next general election? Far better to say, 'look,
there will be... we will assess them but not on a sort of monthly basis,
not even six monthly, but we'll do the assessment when it might lead to
a referendum if those five tests are met.
HUMPHRYS: All down to political
timing then isn't it?
BYERS: Not at all. It's not at
all. I mean, my own view, being very frank about this, and I believe that
we should join a successful single currency if those five economic tests
are met - we will never convince the British people to join if we were
to bounce them into that on the back of a general election victory.....
HUMPHRYS: Well that sounds precisely
what's going to happen....
BYERS: .... It isn't going to happen.....
HUMPHRYS: ..... everyone says two
minutes after the election 'oh we've suddenly discovered in the last three
weeks or something that those tests have been met. My goodness gracious
me, we'd no idea for three years and now all of a sudden we've discovered
that those tests have been met so let's go and join up folks'.
BYERS: Well I can assure you and
the viewers today John that that is not what's going to happen, that's
we said we will to assess them early in the next parliament and to clarify
the point there needs to be a clear distinction between the general election
and the assessment of those five economic tests.........
HUMPHRYS: .... Meaning what in
terms of.....
BYERS: .... Well I'll explain why
that's the case because if the five economic tests are met then the British
people are not going to vote in favour of joining a single currency if
they feel they've been bounced into it. They want to look at it, they
want a serious debate and then they'll vote.
HUMPHRYS: So a long gap then between
Gordon standing there and saying 'we've passed the test folks - good news'
a long gap between that and a referendum?
BYERS: No. We've said that we
will assess the five tests early in the next parliament and then if they're
met then we will put the issue to the people in a referendum.
HUMPHRYS: How soon?
BYERS: We will assess the five
economic tests early in the next parliament.....
HUMPHRYS: Meaning within months
- I take it?
BYERS: It will be early.
HUMPHRYS: Okay. So weeks, even,
perhaps?
BYERS: I doubt if it would be that
early.
HUMPHRYS: So let's settle for months
and then having done that, you will then, whether they are favourable or
otherwise, the result that is, whether your assessment is favourable or
otherwise you will say to the people of Britain 'right, now you can have
your vote'?
BYERS: No, because, well, no because
well, because if the five economic tests are not met....
HUMPHRYS: ....no referendum....
BYERS: ....there will be no referendum.
HUMPHRYS: Right.
BYERS: ....because we will not
recommend....
HUMPHRYS: ....because you will
not recommend....
BYERS: ....it will not, it will
not be in the national interest to do so....
HUMPHRYS: ....but if they are....
BYERS: ....and that shows, John,
if I can say this, that shows that it's economic considerations which are
paramount, not a quick political fix. But actually the five economic tests
are real tests, they'll have to be met, if they are met, then the government
will recommend to parliament and parliament will recommend to the people.
HUMPHRYS: So based purely on economic
considerations, that decision will be taken.
BYERS: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Now another
reason I left out by the way all the stuff about subjective test and all
that, but that's perhaps for another, because I want to you about something
that exercises business hugely and that is red tape, something you know
a great deal about, another reason why business is losing faith in you.
You are stifling their enterprises they believe, with all the new regulations,
and let me give you just a couple of quotes - Chris Humphries who runs
the British Chambers of Commerce 'despite the rhetoric, the reality is
the government has dramatically increased the regulatory burdens, threatening
small business, strangling the very enterprise they are seeking to promote.
Digby Jones CBI 'best role for government is to create an environment and
butt out - regulatory burdens introduced by you - says the BCC costing
business ten-billion pounds a year. Now that is a damning indictment from
people who were on your side, originally.
BYERS: Well you know that we contest
those figures from the British Chambers of Commerce. But I think there's
a clear distinction that we need to draw here, between bureaucratic burdens
on business, which is the form-filling and the box-ticking, which I have
no time for and I want to remove that and I think we have taken steps,
which are making a real difference as far as businesses are concerned.
That's on the one side, on the other, are the minimum standards that we
want to introduce into the work-place and that means things like the National
Minimum Wage, the working-time directive, which gives people four weeks
paid holiday for the first time as an entitlement, the rights to give part-timers
the same legal position as full-timers in the workplace. Now those are
minimum standards, that's not red-tape or bureaucracy, some of our opponents
actually say that they are one and the same thing. We believe they're
not. We believe that providing minimum standards in the workplace is sensible,
it motivates staff, it allows employers to retain them and also makes sure
that they are far more committed to the job that they are working in, improving
productivity and so on.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, I mean you can
say what you will about the British Chambers of Commerce, but your own
man, Chris Haskins, Lord Haskins, who you appointed to run the regulatory
task force, he said, when task force was approached, approached government
departments for advice, in this case on the restaurant sector, it received
seventy, seven-zero, separate guidance booklets, one-thousand-five-hundred
pages, that's bonkers, isn't it.
BYERS: Well, that's giving guidance
and if people don't want us to give guidance then that's something we can
do, but actually if you talk to them....
HUMPHRYS: .....War and Peace wasn't
as long as that....
BYERS: ....but John, if you talk
to employers, they actually want us to give guidance about how the regulations
are to be implemented in practice.
HUMPHRYS: ....that's not what he
said..
BYERS: ....well Chris must be getting
a different view being expressed to him, but if I get the view expressed
to me from people who deal with the DTI that they don't want guidance,
then I'm more than happy not to give it
HUMPHRYS: Let me give you another
of these little lists that I'm doing a lot of in this discussion about
the sort of directive and things that you are talking about. Working time
directive, minimum wage, unfair dismissal, trade union recognitions, working
families tax credit, part-time workers rights, parental leave introduced
last December, time off for emergencies. Now that is a very short list
of some of the things that they now, businesses now have to get involved
in and have to be responsible for and if you take that last one, parental
leave, there is a concern now, a very strong concern that as you put it
yourself in an interview you did recently, that, on parental leave and
emergency time off is just the beginning. The next stage perhaps and this
isn't what you said, but I'm asking you whether it's what you meant, the
next stage is that employees will be paid to take that parental leave and
so on. Is that going to be the next stage?.
BYERS: Well as you know there is
a review group which is looking at the whole question of parental leave
and also statutory maternity pay, which I am responsible for leading and
we will issue a document probably before the turn of the year...
HUMPHRYS: So it's possible....
BYERS: ....but no decisions, honestly,
no decisions have been taken yet. But actually the list is interesting
because I think it does throw up the clear distinction between red-tape
and bureaucracy, which is the form-filling....
HUMPHRYS: Yes I understand that.
BYERS: ....and that should provide
a minimum standard.
HUMPHRYS: ......but all of these
things, but all of these things involve form-filling themselves......
BYERS: ....well that's the real
issue you see. Now as you may know, when I took over at the Department
of Trade and Industry I inherited the national minimum wage and a proposal,
that in every wage slip there should be a two-hundred-and-fifty word statement
saying what the national minimum wage was and that was to go into every
wage slip, for everybody, whether it's a cleaner or a cabinet minister.
Now I stopped that because it was going to cost something like two hundred
million pounds a year...
HUMPHRYS: ....are you going to
peg the national minimum wage to earnings growth, that's what everybody
seems to think you are going to do?
BYERS: Well, we've given the Low
Pay Commissioner a new remit to report to us next year and one of the issues
that they will be able to look at will be the increases in earnings. In
the past they were restricted to increases in inflation effectively, now
they can look at earnings, but also they will need to take into account
the impact of low pay and the minimum wage on particular sectors and levels
of employment, they've got a more rounded approach they can look at.
HUMPHRYS: So, it could mean, again,
could, I know you've not taken a decision of course, but it could mean
quite a substantial increase in the minimum wage, couldn't it?
BYERS: Well, the important thing
about the minimum wage is it is a wage, it is a payment for people in work,
and therefore I took the view it was wholly appropriate that they....the
low-pay commission should be looked at increases in earnings, because that's
what people get paid, rather than linked with inflation. It's making the
break between the national minimum wage being seen almost as a state benefit
to be uprated annually in line with inflation and actually linking it and
looking at it in the context of what goes on in the work place and I happen
to think it is better to look at it in relation to what goes on in the
work place which means the rise in average earnings.
HUMPHRYS: I will be shot by many
people watching this programme if I don't ask you about IR35, that's an
Inland Revenue regulation, strictly speaking the Chancellor's affair, I
suppose, but one that means that an awful lot of small business people,
people who run their own little businesses, especially in the IT sector,
find utterly crippling, it's going to cost them, it is costing them a fortune
and they are saying we cannot carry on if this carries on. Are you going
to think about rowing back from that?
BYERS: Well, IR35 was introduced
to ensure that people couldn't use service companies as a way of escaping
their responsibility for tax and national insurance.....
HUMPHRYS: ....and it's had massive
ramifications, people writing to me all the time at this programme saying
we are going bust, we have actually had to close down.
BYERS: Well, I'd be surprised that
people, because they now have to pay tax and because they now have to pay
national insurance in the way in which we all have to, they are being treated
fairly like everybody else. If they were using service companies as a
device to escape their liabilities, then I think it's right and proper
that we....
HUMPHRYS: ....but will you look
at it again?
BYERS: ....well we want a fair
tax system, in the context of a fair tax system, we review all of our proposals.
HUMPHRYS: Steve, thank you very
much indeed.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Now you may have thought Ken
Livingstone was already running London. After all, scarcely a day passes
without the new Mayor making news of one kind or another. But up to now
he has just been preparing for office. Tomorrow he really does take over.
I'll be talking to him after this report from Polly Billington on the challenges
he now faces.
POLLY BILLINGTON: Ken Livingstone fought his electoral
campaign from the top of the battle bus. The view from the bus is very
different now ... as many of the people he was fighting are on board.
The Lib Dems, the Greens - even old foes from the Labour Party and the
Tories have been co-opted as experts in their field. But can he keep them
with him? Does he have it in him to be the kind of leader that London needs?
He's already proved his ability to reinvent himself, from Red Ken to Cuddly
Ken, but can he transform himself into the kind of politician that will
take on the problems of the capital?
SUSAN KRAMER: He said that he wanted to
pursue a manifesto and he wasn't going to be deflected from that and since
I agree with most of his manifesto so I am here to help that get implemented.
If he starts to back off for all kinds of other reasons then obviously
I wouldn't be able to remain a part of it.
TREVOR PHILLIPS: During the election campaign
we did point out that Ken had rather an interesting history of saying one
thing on Monday and deciding quite the opposite on Tuesday. So I don't
think it should be a huge surprise to people that he suddenly decided that
the manifesto is a sort of a burden that he can do without.
BILLINGTON: Facing assembly members at
mayoral Question Time, it's clear that Ken Livingstone's still very much
on his own against the serried ranks of party politicians eager to hold
him to account. Making alliances with some of them helps to promote an
image of inclusiveness that he's keen on. But will it help or hinder him
in getting things done? Transport is London's and Ken Livingstone's biggest
problem. He promised to improve public transport by keeping the tube in
public hands - a pledge that appeared to be popular during the election.
He also wants to introduce congestion charging to crack down on traffic
growth in central London - that may prove to be deeply unpopular. There
are political and practical realities that may make delivering on either
of these policies difficult. Ken Livingstone and the Labour Party parted
company over how to pay for improvements to the tube. He promised to oppose
the government's plans for a public private partnership to finance the
underground network. This made him the champion of the left .... and he
said the public backed him on this issue. But PPP is on its way ... and
some of those who he's appointed to help run London's transport system
say he should learn to live with it.
STEVEN NORRIS: Ken will need to understand
that the private sector is probably the only source of large scale finance
available to deliver that kind of improvement over a period - over the
period for example of these franchises which are currently being negotiated
over 30 years. If Ken therefore insists that his whole election was a,
was a referendum on whether or not we should privatise the Tube, and he
thinks that gestures like that are what will change the face of London's
transport, he will be sadly mistaken.
KRAMER: Ken is going to have to
continue the fight that he committed to during the campaign to keep the
tube in public hands and raise finance in the cheapest way that there is
which is by basically going to the bond markets and getting the money that
way. And that means taking on the government and its you know it's, it's
focus on doing this partial sell off of the tube, it's public private partnership
so there is going to be some conflict over that issue, it may be that Ken
can't win but he has got to make sure he really carries out the fight so
that the government is forced to truly understand the decision that it
is making.
BILLINGTON: Whatever he does with regard
to tube funding will lose him some allies ... either from Labour and the
Tories if he sticks by his promises - or the Liberal Democrats and others
who want him to fight on against PPP. But more immediately the public will
want to see improvements to the underground NOW. That might mean taking
on those who run it and work on it.
TONY TRAVERS: There's no doubt that taking
on powerful vested interests in the services that run London is different
from being a politician. Livingstone has been a brilliant politician, he's
fought his way through to being a candidate in this Mayoral race and eventually
won against the Labour Party, but there is a great difference between that
kind of political activity and the brutalising world of getting large corporations
with thousands and thousands of staff to change their work practises. And
that's what he now has to do.
NORRIS: If all he does is lie,
lie down and get his tummy tickled every time the unions bark he's going
to find life pretty difficult in terms of delivering improvement in London.
The real question is, where's he going to be when the picket lines are
out - is he going to be actually taking them on; or is he going to make
London a slave to the employees that he himself is ultimately the employer
of?
BILLINGTON: And while he's tackling management
and unions below ground, at street level he's promised to take on the motorist
by introducing congestion charging. Some say charging people for using
their cars in central London is the route to becoming a hate figure. Can
Ken manage to introduce them without paying the political price?
NORRIS: When you actually pick
just an area out of the centre of a city you create all kinds of problems
- the diversion of traffic that deliberately avoids the cordon area. People
who have a child at school inside the cordon but live outside. People
who have to use a car for work, which happens to be inside the cordon who
are effectively taxed an extra twenty five to fifty pounds a week. I mean,
those sorts of issues are going to make the current scheme that Ken's been
offered by government very unattractive indeed. I will make a prediction
- I don't actually think it's going to happen this side of the re-election
of the Mayoralty.
KRAMER: Congestion charging was
a central part of Ken's platform, it was a central part of my platform,
I see it as the only way in which you are going to actually get people
into a situation where they can move around this city, never mind sort
of improve the quality of life, air, to deal with congestion those kind
of things.
BILLINGTON: Ken Livingstone's made promises
on policing too. Promises, though, are easily made and just as easily dropped.
This week he told Assembly members he's not shackled to manifesto commitments
and is happy to implement more practical alternatives. But some of his
pledges offer the opportunity for a conflict with the government on a popular
issue, but that won't mean more police on London streets. Ken Livingstone's
promised to recruit two-thousand extra police officers. Experts reckon
that would cost between seventy and eighty million pounds a year. He's
also backed the Metropolitan Police Federation's pay claim of two-and-a-half
thousand pounds for every police officer. That'll cost about the same amount
of money. The only way he can raise it, is by adding it to the council
tax bills of Londoners - he'll have to persuade them and the government
that it's a good move.
TOBY HARRIS: I hope he's not going to just
play games about police numbers in London and try and pick a fight with
the Government. The reality is that the Metropolitan Police Authority is
independent of the mayor, it's independent of the Home Office it's independent
of the police service. We've got the responsibility of making sure that
proper priorities are set for the Metropolitan Police, priorities that
are consistent with what Londoners want. Now how we achieve that is going
to be working with the police service working with Government and trying
to make sure we end up with a budget which makes sense and makes sense
for London and Londoners.
LEE JASPER: Well very simply London
contributes in excess of 20 billion pounds, over and above that which it
utilises from the Treasury in terms of its income generation and its contribution
to the wealth of the nation. Seventy or eighty million, out of a final
figure of 20 billion that we contribute to the economy of the United Kingdom
is a very small amount of money in that sense and we would be making that
case as a rationale for why and from where the Home Secretary maybe able
to get these additional resources.
BILLINGTON: Lobbying for more money for
the boys in blue? It hardly sounds like the Red Ken of old ... but it might
be the kind of issue that offers him an opportunity to take on the government
and portray himself as the champion of London. But will it get him re-elected?
He needs to decide which strategy will be most successful in 2004 - to
maintain his populist anti-government media image or to co-operate with
the Labour leadership to deliver changes to Londoners. If he chooses an
oppositionist stance rather than co-operation, London may be the loser
and he could pay the political price.
TRAVERS: The evidence of the weeks
since he's been elected is of a period of amazing silence by Livingstone's
standards suggesting again that he's trying, and his advisors are trying,
hard not to court controversial issues. And I think this is partly deliberate,
partly the time it's taking to do these things. Now whether they'll be
able to go on resisting this only time will tell, but for the time being
it all seems to be aimed at winning again in 2004.
PHILLIPS: As long as what he does
makes sense, you know we'll be out there, we'll carry him, carry him in
triumph around town. If what he does are things which are harmful to the
interests of Londoners, we'll kick his ass.
BILLINGTON: And so too will the voters.
The smiles, the waves and especially the votes won't come as easily if
there's little to show for his time in office. It'll take more than warm
wit and empty promises to convince Londoners a second time round.
LIVINGSTONE: Wow, didn't I say that when
I was Mayor the sun would shine.
HUMPHRYS: Polly Billington reporting.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Another one of your promises
there you see
Ken Livingstone - the sun's going to shine! I mean we heard there from
Tony Travers that they'd been an amazing silence, that you weren't courting
controversy. That's sort of gone by the board in the last twenty-four or
forty-eight hours hasn't it? We've had another sort of long list of the
things that Ken would like to do: relaxing drug laws, gay marriages, raising
ethnic quotas in business, joining the..... I mean, a lot of this simply..
doesn't it, disguise the fact, disguises that fact that, that you don't
have much that you actually can do, there isn't a lot the mayor really
can do so you are making an awful lot of promises that you cannot do. Why?
Why do that?
KEN LIVINGSTONE: The one thing that most of my
time is spent on is preparing for the London Transport issue and we have
created a structure there. I brought in Steve Norris and Susan Kramer,
very few politicians would bring their two major critics and likely future
rivals right into centre of power. When I come to appoint the new directors
of London's buses and underground over the coming months, they will be
invited to join in that committee as well. I have a job which is to try
and get London Transport running. I think that is the key number one priority.
If I fail on that I won't be re-elected. The other things are important,
I mean we have a huge lesbian and gay community in London, they want to
be able to register their relationships to see that the city that they
have chosen to live in, or grown up in, recognises and respects their choice.
HUMPHRYS: But you don't have the
power to make that happen?
LIVINGSTONE: No, but you can lead the public
debate, some borough councils have been happy to get involved with it,
others will step back. But I can see no reason - many American and European
cities now have civic registers where couples that wish to commit themselves
to a loving relationship are able to get the acknowledgement of the city.
It doesn't have any legal standing but gradually I'm sure it will. Insurance
companies will change their policies and things like that.
HUMPHRYS: What about this comment
you had to make about drugs. I mean I'll quote for people who don't know
what you said 'you shouldn't be bothering to arrest the girl with one E
tab in her handbag on the way to a rave.' Now you do have some power here
because of the police committee and all the rest of it and the influence
you can bring to bear on the London police. Is that what you are going
to say to them, say to them leave kids alone, if they are just carrying
the odd drug because you know we are talking about 'A' Class drugs here.
LIVINGSTONE: But this is effectively the
policy that the Metropolitan Police has been operating long before I was
elected. They target the drug dealer. It's an absolute waste of police
time to concentrate on trying to pick a guy wandering down the street with
a spliff in their pocket or a girl with an E tab.
HUMPHRYS: ....one is you know a
very serious drug and the other is a less serious drug and one regards
that as being the case.
LIVINGSTONE: And you spy hundreds of thousands
of kids in London and that's the reality of it.
HUMPHRYS: As a serious politician
shouldn't you be trying to stop that rather than...
LIVINGSTONE: No, you've got limited police
resources, do you target the pushers, the people that actually recruit
new kids into drug taking, or are you going to waste police resources which
are stretched on pursuing a few kids which will then get a criminal record.
I mean the police have already made that choice in London. They know the
real danger comes from the pusher, that's where they concentrate their
efforts and they've got my backing in that.
HUMPHRYS: Talking of the police,
two thousand extra police you want, we heard the cost, seventy to eighty
million pounds a year. Well now, nobody is going to give you that money...
LIVINGSTONE: ...you've got to get out there
and fight for it. But let's be honest...
HUMPHRYS: ...well fight for it,
meaning what?
LIVINGSTONE: ..you've got to persuade the
government that that is required in London. We used to have six and a half
million Londoners and we had twenty-six...twenty-eight thousand police,
now we're down to under twenty-six and the population has gone up to over
seven million. We are becoming a more dense, a more sort of pressured city.
We most certainly need more policing. All I am saying is let's get back
to the levels that we used to have and I can't see how a government can
resist that demand. That seems to me only reasonable. We're not just asking
for money. I mean one of the reasons I asked Toby Harris to chair the
police committee is because he, of the twenty-five members of the assembly,
is I think the person, with the best talents to actually get in control
of the net budget- archaic old thing that has gone back to 1829, all sorts
of oddities and Sir John Stevens the new commissioner and Toby Harris and
myself will be looking - how we can turn that budget round so we shift
away from bureaucracy and into more frontline policing.
HUMPHRYS: But isn't it a bit na�ve
to say they can't refuse us this, of course they can, Gordon Brown can
refuse all sorts of people all sorts of things and does so every day of
the week, he perfectly well can and what he calculates that you will not
do, is say to the people of London, alright we can't get it from the Exchequer
so I, the Mayor of London, will raise your taxes.
LIVINGSTONE: Well I don't really have the
power to do that. There's a very small amount of the council tax that comes
to the mayor and you couldn't possibly, I mean the total budget of my GLA
as opposed to the subsidiary budgets of police and transport and fire brigade
is thirty-two million and you'd have to treble the budget. I mean it would
have a devastating effect in terms of people's... what they would pay.
You've got to make the case to Jack Straw. I mean in private the meetings
I've been having with government ministers have been fine. I mean they
all recognise London has particular problems, it's the most expensive city
in Europe. I mean the cost of land because we are the key financial centre
in this time zone, I mean has pushed the price of everything up so it
isn't just police, it's doctors, it's nurses. We are going to have to do
something around the issue of London Weighting or further subsidies for
housing or we won't have the people in our city that make it run.
HUMPHRYS: But you see that police
commitment was just that. I mean it was a manifesto commitment and...
LIVINGSTONE: And it stands...
HUMPHRYS: .... But it doesn't though
does it because what you're saying to me is that it will only stand if
the government will let me. I can't do it without the government....
LIVINGSTONE: ...well Londoners aren't fools.
They knew when they were voting for the mayor that the mayor had very
limited powers: no separate power of taxation, the only extra stream of
income I can get is from the congestion charge and by law all that has
to be spent on Transport - we can't use it for anything else. So it is
a question of persuading and arguing. I have no doubts about that. I
just would to say that irrespective of what people are going to say in
public, for consumption, the working relationships I've had with government
ministers so far have been excellent.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah but nonetheless
you should really have said shouldn't you 'I've tried to get you twenty
thousand extra police on the streets of London but I may not be able to
because it rather depends on....' Two thousand rather......
LIVINGSTONE: Well twenty thousand would
just take us up to the level of some cities like York (both speaking at
once). We have a very small policing establishment in London, a largely
peaceful city.
HUMPHRYS: But .... Unless you believe
the Americans who have a strange way of looking at these things, but nonetheless,
what you should have said was - 'I'll try and get two thousand extra police
if the government will let me but I can't promise you'.
LIVINGSTONE: Yeah - but in my interviews
with you before the election before all the speeches I said it's a question
of mobilising support to say 'Government's ignored London for too long.'
And the key thing here is if you neglect London, if central government
doesn't give London the resources it needs then it becomes an unattractive
city, firms won't go to Manchester or Birmingham instead, they will go
to Paris or Frankfurt. We're not competing with other cities, we're competing
with our most dangerous rivals in that sense and the jobs will go from
here to there and with it that impact we make on the economy. The government's
got an interest in making sure our capital city can compete with others.
HUMPHRYS: Well here's another reason
why they might go to Paris or somewhere else and that is your congestion
charges. It's a manifesto commitment this was. The truth of this is that
you're not actually going to be able to do it because the voters won't
let you will they? They hate the idea. I mean they're already bowed under
the pressure of high petrol prices which you don't object to so ......
LIVINGSTONE: No, I stated absolutely clearly
that if people voted for me I would introduce the congestion charges -
so did Susan Kramer, Steve Norris honestly said he wouldn't, Frank Dobson
said he'd take a bit longer. There was a clear majority in terms of how
the votes were cast. In the opinion polls public opinion was evenly split.
I recognise this is going to be the most difficult task I face in my life
to persuade people that this is actually in the interests of London and
being able to get around London.
HUMPHRYS: Well, you're going to
have to persuade them.
LIVINGSTONE: You've got to persuade.
LIVINGSTONE: Well what if they say, what
if you do a focus group or an opinion poll or whatever or stop people in
the street who say -'No way! We're not going to have this'? Will you do
it anyway?
LIVINGSTONE: I've said I won't do it unless
we can improve public transport. I've got two years to improve public
transport and my intention is that then we should have congestion charge
sometime between August 2002/January 2003. If I get it wrong I won't get
a second term so I have a real interest in getting this right.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but who makes that
judgement as to whether you're going to improve public transport or not
because that's the key thing because you could.... I mean it's your kind
of fallback position or your opt out position isn't it.
LIVINGSTONE: I'll be sitting here in two
years' time and you'll be saying - 'There aren't any more busses being
run.' I'm sure you'll be able to remind me at that stage. If I hadn't
been able to improve public transport in two years, I would have failed
as Mayor and my political career will be over. I've got to get that public
transport improving then the congestion charge gives us the money, that
extra two hundred and fifty million pounds we get from that to actually
continue to expand it further as people switch.
HUMPHRYS: Ah but you see, back
to public transport, staying with the tubes, and that's something else
you're not going to be able to do is it because you wanted to fund improvements
in the tube by issuing bonds - you're not going to be able to do that,
the government's going to go ahead with its own scheme.
LIVINGSTONE: Well we're not yet certain.
The government, by law, has to consult the Mayor. Now I've not said I
need to see all these papers and documents because I know that will be
a problem for them. I will ask Will Hutton, a very distinguished former
editor and the Industrial Society to do an independent analysis. I'm asking
the government now to give them the information, they will make a recommendation
in the Autumn. If they were to recommend that this is a bad scheme for
London and Londoners saw the government going ahead and pressing on with
that, that is a price that Labour will pay when it comes to the general
election.
HUMPHRYS: It's a funny old business
this isn't it? Here you were elected as Old Labour as opposed to New Labour,
you're not able to govern London except in co-operation with New Labour
so you're elected as Old Labour and now you're going to have to govern
as New Labour?
LIVINGSTONE Well no, I'm not governing
as New Labour, I'm doing what, issue by issue, I believe to be right and
that's the only way I can go forward on this. If I sit and calculate,
'will the government like this or that?' the issue at the end of the day
is 'am I going to do what's in Londoners' interests?' and if I don't -
Londoners will get a new mayor.
HUMPHRYS: Ken Livingstone - thank
you very much indeed.
LIVINGSTONE: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: The debate
over the future of the European Union has been revived last week, President
Chirac of France went to the German Parliament and painted a picture of
the sort of Europe that he wants to see. That was interpreted by some -
by many indeed - as a two-speed Europe, with Britain in the slow lane.
Tony Blair was in Germany himself a couple of days later to see Chancellor
Schroeder and to tell him that he does not want that to happen, he wants
Britain to stay at the heart of Europe. But, as Paola Buonadonna reports,
wanting it is one thing, achieving it may be something else again.
PAOLA BUONADONNA: Every morning the French river
police set off from the port of Strasbourg to patrol the Rhine, the
border with Germany. French police work closely with their German counterparts
but the relationship extends beyond the river. France and Germany have
traditionally been the twin engines of the European Union. France takes
over the Presidency of the EU just as wholesale institutional reforms are
underway which could once again change the course of Europe.
For the next six months France is in charge of steering European affairs
and is determined to make practical progress towards European integration.
Germany has promised its full support. But France's ambitious plans put
Britain in an awkward position and could raise questions about Britain's
role in Europe shortly before the next General Election.
PIERRE MOSCOVICI: The Franco-German motor is on
its way. The Franco German couple is back and we are going to defend absolutely
common positions during our presidency.
KEITH VAZ: I know it suits the
purposes of some to believe that there is some kind of thing going on between
France and Germany. Frankly this does not exist as far as we are concerned.
FRANCIS MAUD: I think we kid ourselves
if we think that those arguments are over, that that federalist drive is
over - it's as strong as it ever was and they're determined to press ahead
with it.
BUONADONNA: In the 1980s the Franco-German
alliance drove Europe towards the single currency. But when President Mitterrand
and Chancellor Kohl stepped down the big vision seemed lost. Now the debate
has been re-ignited by the German Foreign Minister who has called for a
fully federal Europe. The new leaders, President Chirac and Chancellor
Schroeder set out to revive the alliance in the run up to the French Presidency.
Last month they agreed that reforms of the EU's institutions are essential
if Europe is to regain popularity with voters and function effectively
when it's enlarged to nearly 30 countries. They believe young people in
Europe want much more than a single market and are determined to agree
a new Treaty at the end of the year to pave the way for closer political
union.
The first move is to dramatically reduce the national veto, making it
impossible for one country to block legislation. France and Germany want
many more decisions taken by a substantial majority of countries by a qualified
majority vote. QMV could be introduced for immigration controls and even
some areas of taxation.
MAUDE: There should be no further
Qualified Majority Voting, no further loss of the veto on EU laws. I think
that's a very simple thing for Tony Blair to say which would be very welcome
to the British public. He hasn't said that, he's effectively said that
he is prepared to give up the veto in a lot of further areas.
VAZ: We have always made
it clear that we will look at QMV on a case by case basis. We always approach
European issues on the basis of what is in Britain's national interest.
As you know the previous government, Francis Maude, the current shadow
Foreign Secretary signed the Maastricht Treaty, which together with the
Single European Act, agreed to QMV 42 times.
MOSCOVICI: You know, when you are
in a democracy the rule for living together is voting. It's not logical
that any decision requires unanimity. This is why we must have another
logic, which is to say: the rule is majority, the exception is unanimity.
BUONADONNA: But it doesn't stop there.
France and Germany have agreed practical plans to allow some countries
to push ahead with some decisions. This week President Chirac told the
German parliament that a group of pioneer states should be able move forward
in Europe.
JACQUES CHIRAC: Assemble avec l'Allemagne
et la France ils pouriez se constitue dans un group pioneere
BUONADONNA: This is known as flexibility
or re-inforced co-operation. It was negotiated by the French and German
Europe Ministers.
CHRISTOPH ZOEPEL: I think there are some areas
where it is no problem to have different regulations between some of the
member states and others. We have two of them, the Euro and the agreement
of border control - in both areas the UK is not participating and I can
imagine that we would have more areas in which not all member states will
participate.
MOSCOVICI: We must decide that
a small group of countries, I don't know how much, let's say eight, this
is the proposal of our friends from Benelux, can together decide that they
will co-operate. I'm sure that everybody in Great Britain is fond of that
flexibility too.
BUONADONNA: Tony Blair hasn't shown much
enthusiasm so far. After meeting Chancellor Schroeder this week the Prime
Minister acknowledged the need for some flexibility in decision-making
once Europe is enlarged. But he feels that the Franco-German plans for
re-inforced co-operation go too far too soon. Tony Blair doesn't want
a two-speed Europe because he's determined to be seen at the heart of Europe.
But at the last EU summit the French President told Mr Blair that two-speeds
already exist and the UK is definitely in the slow lane.
HENRI WEBER: We realise that not all 15
member states have the same degree of motivation. So for those that are
determined for their country and for their vision of Europe, it is vital
to make progress in turning the European Union into a political force and
not just an economic area. For this to occur we have to use every opportunity
for advancement and it would be the pioneer states or the vanguard as Jacques
Delors called it, that will do this.
VAZ: We still remain to
be convinced of the intellectual arguments in favour of reinforced co-operation.
The Prime Minister's view and the Government's view is that we believe
in a Europe of nation states. In all the countries being treated equally.
We don't accept the need for groups of countries going off in different
directions.
BUONADONNA: But a group has already emerged
that's travelling further faster - the Euro 11. This exclusive club is
made up of the eleven countries that joined the single currency. Their
finance ministers meet behind closed doors to agree policies for the eurozone.
Now France and Germany want to strengthen the role of the Euro 11. And
Britain is excluded.
MOSCOVICI: It's a material, concrete
reinforced co-operation and we want it to work more and more, in a very
visible and transparent way. This is why our Minister of Economic and Finance,
Mr Fabius will make proposals as soon as the Presidency begins.
ZOEPEL: I think that is a most
realistic scenario for the reinforced co-operation that this Euro group
is going ahead. This group must speak with one voice especially in the
field of defending the external value of the Euro. I think that will be
the realistic approach of reinforced co-operation in the future.
BUONADONNA: Trade is booming within the
Eurozone. The eleven countries in the single currency are becoming the
driving force in European politics. Greece is to join soon; Denmark will
hold a referendum on the Euro in September and Sweden could follow.
(Guten Tag Chief Mann, Herr Controller. Bitte Zehen hier sind mein papier.)
The British Government
is under increasing pressure to make its mind up on the Euro.
MOSCOVICI: It's difficult for Britain
to be the leader of Europe when it's not in the Euro. And as soon as it's
not in the Euro Great Britain cannot stop the others to advance on such
matters.
ZOEPEL: If Britain will be marginalised
Britain should join the eurozone, if Britain will not be marginalised it
is not necessary.
VAZ: This is not a country
that is marginalised in Europe. This is a country that is leading the debate
on economic reforms, this is a country that is quite clear on where it
stands on the major issues concerning Europe. And we have made our position
on the Euro absolutely clear.
BUONADONNA: But the next six months will
bring another awkward issue for the British Government. Here in Berlin
one of the most keenly awaited developments of the French Presidency is
the creation of a Charter of Fundamental Rights - an idea first floated
by the German Government. But what started as a simple declaration of existing
rights now threatens to become something far more problematic for the British
Government. France wants the Charter to contain new rights, in areas such
as employment and family life. And Germany thinks the Charter should be
legally enforceable.
VAZ: We want certainty,
not confusion. We want to make sure that our citizens understand what they're
entitled to expect from such a Charter. What we do not want is a extension
on existing rights.
MAUDE: The British government pretends
that this is only going to be declaratory, it will only declare existing
rights - in which case why on earth have it; why on earth do this?
BUONADONNA: Critics fear the Charter represents
a European constitution in embryo. Britain was taken aback this week when
France and Germany called for a formal EU constitution to be agreed by
2004.
WEBER: In reality, the charter
is the nucleus of the future constitution. We would start by drawing up
and voting on the charter and the charter would be the foundation stone
of the constitution.
MAUDE: This is yet another of the
trappings of statehood that is trying to be created in order to make the
European Union more of a state, more of a country, less of, the sort of
confederation, the co-operative arrangement between nation states that
we want to be part of and so that would be quite unacceptable.
BUONADONNA: As the French Presidency begins
France and Germany appear more united and ambitious than they have been
in a long time. And whenever they share a vision they usually get their
way. In the face of this the UK has been forging strong bilateral links
with Spain and Portugal, and Scandinavian countries.
VAZ: We are at the centre
of the pack, we are influencing the debate, we are positively engaged.
Last year there were eighty-eight bilateral ministerial visits with the
Germans and seventy with the French.
WEBER: The construction of the
European Union cannot be confined to bilateral agreements. It is a collective
structure, which means joining in major steps forward.
BUONADONNA: The French are determined to
have a successful presidency. They want to complete institutional reforms,
agree the Charter and make practical progress towards political union.
The British say this will not mean the creation of a two speed Europe but
if they're wrong the next six months could be the hardest yet for Tony
Blair and his Government on Europe.
HUMPHRYS: Paola Buonadonna reporting
there, and that's it for this week, and indeed for this summer. We'll
be back in the middle of September for the start of the Party Conference
season, enjoy the summer. If you're on the Internet, don't forget our
website that is still there. Good afternoon.
...OOOoooOOO...
25
FoLdEd
|