|
====================================================================================
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:
08.10.00
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Anne
Widdecombe could scarcely have expected such an adverse reaction as there's
been to her controversial policy on drugs. Has the mood among the politicians
changed? Why are there so few black MP's in the House of Commons, we'll
be addressing that question. And we'll be talking to the man who could
be the next leader of the Ulster Unionists? That's after the news read
by Peter Sissons.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Anne Widdecombe was cheered
by the Tory faithful when she said: let's get tougher on soft drugs. But,
although she won the applause, it seems she's losing the argument.
Britain's ethnic
minorities may be successful in many areas of society ... but why are they
so few in the House of Commons?
We'll also be talking
to the leaders of the Labour and Conservative groups in the European Parliament.
What do THEY think of Tony Blair's plans to "take Europe closer to the
people"?
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first Northern Ireland.
David Trimble was in a defiant mood yesterday when he talked to the annual
conference of his Ulster Unionist Party. He has no intention either of
resigning as party leader or of walking away from the Good Friday Agreement
which, once again, is in so much trouble. But can he really hold on and
the can the agreement survive? Jeffrey Donaldson is perhaps the biggest
thorn in his side - certainly on of them - an MP who thinks the agreement
is fatally flawed. He wants to return to the party's policy of "no guns...
no government" and he does NOT want the Royal Ulster Constabulary to be
changed in the way the British government intends. Mr Donaldson is in our
Belfast studio.
Good afternoon Mr Donaldson.
JEFFREY DONALDSON: Good afternoon John.
HUMPHRYS: Mr Trimble made a very
powerful appeal yesterday for support for the peace process as it now stands,
did he win you over?
DONALDSON: Well a lot of things have happened
this week John. Earlier in the week we had David Trimble's confession in
The Daily Telegraph newspaper that the agreement itself was riddled with
constructive ambiguity and that if he knew now..if he had known then what
he knows now about the agreement it wouldn't have signed up to it. So clearly
I think there is now a consensus within the party that the agreement is
deeply flawed and what I'm suggesting is that we need to address those
flaws, because if we continue on the path we've embarked, this process
is going to fail and we don't want to see that happening in terms of the
decommissioning of terrorist weapons. I think we've got to address that
issue, we've got to address the problems in relation to the policing debate
and these things have got to be looked at and that's why I and others are
proposing in the aftermath of the South Antrim by-election and something
that was an electoral disaster for the party, that we need to address these
issues and do so quickly.
HUMPHRYS: Well you may well be
right about there being flaws in the agreement, I suspect most people would
probably agree with you but the fact is, as Mr Trimble makes very clear
indeed, there is nowhere else to go. You don't have a plan B so if the
agreement falls and you walk out of the assembly for instance, then that
is the end of that isn't it, you are back ultimately to direct rule in
Ulster, the end of devolved government in Northern Ireland.
DONALDSON: The process will fail John unless
we address these issues. It's failing at the moment, is anyone seriously
suggesting that we've made progress on the decommissioning of terrorist
weapons because we haven't...
HUMPHRYS: You have a government
in Northern Ireland that seems to be working...
DONALDSON: We have got a debate on the
policing issue which threatens to up end the whole process, the IRA and
Sinn Fein are threatening to walk away if they don't get their way on the
policing debate, well, you know, these are matters that need to be addressed
and done so properly. There's been a tendency in the past to brush them
to one side, not to meet them head on and I think they have to be met head
on. They've got to be addressed. I'm not talking about pulling the whole
edifice down, what I am saying is that the foundations are so fundamentally
weak that it's going to fall down unless we sort out the foundations that
are deeply flawed.
HUMPHRYS: You say it's failing
at the moment but look at what you actually have now that you didn't have
before it all began. You do have an IRA ceasefire imperfect admittedly,
but you have it, you do have devolved government, you do have an assembly
that is working, you are sitting alongside Sinn Fein, something that would
have been unthinkable at government level in Northern Ireland until very
recently. If you now abandon the process, you say you don't want to bring
it all down but if you do move away from the Northern Ireland agreement,
then you are back where you started aren't you.
DONALDSON: Well John I think you've given
a very one-sided view of the agreement. We also have all of the terrorist
prisoners released, we also have an amnesty granted by the government to
terrorist prisoners on the run. We also have the dismantling of the Royal
Ulster Constabulary, we also have violence on our streets. We also have
an increase of criminality on our streets, the terrorist organisations
have increased their activity not reduced it at that level. We also have
the IRA running guns from America, so you know we have got a lot of things
there and you can paint a rosy picture but I think that masts the reality
that underneath that there are very deep problems that haven't been addressed
and that's what people want. That's what the people of South Antrim want,
that's why they sent a protest, a very clear protest message that this
process, at least in terms of a Unionists perspective is one-sided, it
is about appeasing a very violent minority and the Unionist Community does
not see that it has gained significant benefits from this agreement, it
sees that it is unbalanced and that the benefits have been for the IRA
more than anyone else.
HUMPHRYS: The danger though, if
you go down the path that you seem to be suggesting, is that Unionism is
sidelined and that you will see London and Dublin sorting things out for
themselves, you will be sitting there watching it happen.
DONALDSON: Well I heard what Peter Mandelson
said earlier this week and I wasn't impressed by his scaremongering, hints
of joint authority. If Peter Mandelson really believes that some form of
joint authority over Northern Ireland is going to bring peace and stability,
then I think he is fooling no-one only himself. What we've got to do is
recognise that there are flaws in this process that need to be addressed
and unless they are addressed, the process will collapse John, or else
when we come to the next election, what happened in South Antrim will be
repeated right across Northern Ireland and where will the Unionist Party
be then and what value will the Unionist Party be to this process if it's
left electorally decimated.
HUMPHRYS: But let's look at what
you probably regard as the greatest flaws and that is the fact that the
IRA hasn't given up any guns or Semtex or anthing else, no decommissioning
at all. You had said that another inspection of the IRA's arms dumps will
not do you, that won't not satisfy you. Mr Trimble says there is no chance
that you are going to get real decommissioning, actual handing over of
weapons unless you stay in the Good Friday Agreement.
DONALDSON: Well we haven't had any real
decommissioning after two and a half years of the Good Friday Agreement.
Decommissioning under the Agreement was supposed to have been completed
in May this year, after two years, well we're now two and a half years
on and no decommissioning. What I am saying is clearly this method hasn't
worked, so far, within the agreement and given that that is undermining
confidence in the agreement, particularly in the Unionist community, then
we need to do something about that, that's all that I am saying.
We've got to address the failure of the paramilitaries to honour their
obligations under the agreement. They can't have it both ways, John, there
reaches a point in this process, and I think it's now, where we have to
say to the paramilitaries, look, you've had the benefits, you've taken
the concessions and you've pocketed them, but you haven't delivered the
peace that the people of Northern Ireland want and were promised, were
promised under this agreement. Now, you've got to honour your obligations,
you must make a choice, there is a path before you that is the democratic
path and if you choose that path there is a place there for you, but if
you choose to continue with your violence and your violent activities and
your gun running and your criminality, then you cannot walk the democratic
path exclusively, you can't have it both ways. They must make a choice
and they've got to be faced up to that choice.
HUMPHRYS: So when you say faced
up to it, can I be clear about something, as far as decommissioning is
concerned. Are you saying that there ought to be a deadline, set for the
start of that decommissioning process, the start of actual decommissioning,
that you will put that proposal before your ruling body, the council, the
Ulster Unionist council and that if there is no beginning of decommissioning
by the time that that deadline expires, then you should walk out of the
executive. Is that what you are saying, can I be clear about that, if
so when is the deadline going to be?
DONALDSON: Well we had a deadline and it
was in May this year and it passed and there was no decommissioning. I'm
not convinced John that deadlines in that sense will work. What I think
is needed is that in this process, Unionists made it clear, that we cannot
sustain a position where we're sitting in government with Sinn Fein, IRA,
bearing in mind that Martin McGuinness, who Ken Macguinness, my colleague,
described as the 'Godfather of Godfathers' is now the minister of education
in the government of Northern Ireland. Now we can't sustain that position
in the absence of decommissioning by the IRA. They're not disarming -
they're re-arming. They're engaged in violent activities. They're engaged
in murder on the streets.
HUMPHRYS: So if not a deadline
- what?
DONALDSON: Well I'm not going to announce
our proposals on this programme in advance of the Ulster Unionist Council
meeting. I will give the delegates at the Ulster Unionist Council the
opportunity to consider the proposals that we will put forward to them.
It will be, I believe, a viable alternative to the way in which this process
is proceeding at the moment and I believe that it is a way in which we
can address the flaws in the Agreement and we can address how we can move
forward. I want to see a positive move forward. I'm not in the business
of seeing us return to the past. I want to see progress but it's got to
be progress based on firm foundations where there is a clear understanding
and expectation that the paramilitaries will actually deliver on their
side of the bargain.
HUMPHRYS: But those proposals are
not going to be acceptable to your leader David Trimble are they?
DONALDSON: Well we don't know that. What
I would like to see is a consensus within the party on how we go forward.
At the moment that consensus doesn't exist. If I were the leader of a
party that was split down the middle and was in the electoral mess that
the Unionist Party is in at the minute, I'd want to see what I could do
about rebuilding the consensus instead of simply pushing ahead with a policy
that doesn't achieve a consensus, that is out of favour with the electorate
and is failing. I would want to see if there were ways in which I could
restructure that policy and that's what we're suggesting and I hope actually
that we can persuade David Trimble that there is value in the proposals
that we will put forward.
HUMPHRYS: We know that David Trimble's
not up for any sort of restructuring the sort of thing you've described.
He's made that clear time and time again. The SDLP is not up for that
sort of restructuring. Sinn Fein is not up for that sort of restructuring.
DONALDSON: Well we don't know that John.
We don't know that for certain after all we've had previous reviews of
the Agreement and the party's participated in those reviews and at the
end of the day we as a party have got to consider our approach to this
agreement. The SDLP have sat on the fence throughout all of this process.
They've taken no risks. I think we're entitled to know from the SDLP
what they're prepared to do to put pressure on the paramilitaries. I think
we need to know from the governments what they're prepared to do as well.
The responsibility shouldn't rest solely with the Ulster Unionist Party,
that's absolutely right. There's a responsibility on others to do their
bit to address the flaws that are there and that are failing the people
of Northern Ireland.
HUMPHRYS: Well I can tell you one
thing as you well know that the SDLP is not prepared to do and that's countenance
any watering down the Pattern proposals for the reform of the RUC, I mean
that's just the beginning of it.
DONALDSON: Well then we're going to end
up with proposals that do not command widespread community support and
actually if you read the Belfast Agreement, that's what is stated: That
there would have to be proposals for policing that could command widespread
community support and it is clear that the Unionist Community does not
support the proposals in the Pattern Report, so we don't have that consensus
and what we're going to do is simply replace one set of grievances with
another set of grievances and the result will be that we don't have what
we desire and that is a proper police system for Northern Ireland and I
think actually the Royal Ulster Constabulary, given its professional reputation
throughout the world can form the basis of a police service in Northern
Ireland and that's why I'm against many of the proposals that have been
put forward. I think they're unnecessary and they're simply about pandering
to the whim of the Republican Movement.
HUMPHRYS: Given that David Trimble
does not support you in the things you've been saying today, quite apart
from the RUC where you may have a degree of agreement, but given that on
the broad front he is not going to say - 'yeah, I'll go along with Jeffrey
Donaldson on all of that', do you believe that he ought to be challenged
for the leadership and if there were a contest would you feel, yourself,
obliged to stand?
DONALDSON: Well I'm not sure that I accept
your premise for that question John. After all, David Trimble said yesterday
in his speech to the party conference that he wasn't prepared to wait another
three months for decommissioning - now what does that imply? Does that
mean that he too, as he said in May this year when he went to the Ulster
Unionist Council, that he would be prepared to walk away from the executive
if decommissioning didn't occur. So don't conclude that there isn't a
possibility that the party will achieve a consensus on walking away (both
speaking at once).
HUMPHRYS: But he has accused you
of undermining the party. I mean that's a pretty powerful accusation to
make. It doesn't sound like consensus to me.
DONALDSON: Well it is a pretty powerful
accusation. I don't think I've undermined the party. When I was up in
South Antrim talking to people on the doorsteps it wasn't me they were
putting the blame on, it wasn't me they were saying got it wrong with regard
to the Agreement, wasn't me who they were saying made the mistakes on decommissioning,
on policing, on prisoner releases - it wasn't me they were pinning the
blame on.
HUMPHRYS: So would you challenge
him, and if not you - who? Will you challenge him?
DONALDSON: I don't think this is about
personalities. And actually I think it demeans the debate, the seriousness
of the debate that has to take place within unionism, by reducing it to
the level of personality. What I think is important is that we address
the flaws that are there in the agreement, that we address our approach
to the agreement, our policy with regard to key issues like decommissioning,
that's what's important at this time, not personality....
HUMPHRYS: But if Mr Trimble continues
to resist the sort of changes that you want made will there be a challenge?
DONALDSON: I don't think that that's in
the offing. I think that what needs to happen is that the Ulster Unionist
council meets and considers its policy and takes decisions on these key
issues. There won't be a debate at the next meeting of Ulster Unionist
council about who should be the leader and I think that's absolutely right.
These issues are far too important for that.
HUMPHRYS: Jeffrey Donaldson, many
thanks.
DONALDSON: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: There are nine black and
Asian MP's in the House of Commons. If their numbers reflected the population
of this country there would be forty. All nine of them are from one party
... Labour. This week the Commission for Racial Equality will produce a
report that says that situation cannot be allowed to continue.... and there
are plenty of LABOUR MP's who agree with that. As Terry Dignan reports,
they want tougher action to get more black and Asian people into parliament.
TERRY DIGNAN: It's a big night at London's
Hilton Hotel. More than six hundred guests are arriving for a dinner to
celebrate the achievements of Britain's ethnic minorities. Awards are to
be presented to those who've had an outstanding year in their chosen career
or profession. It's further evidence that many blacks and Asians are breaking
the glass ceiling. But in politics it's a different story.
If tonight's dinner had
been to celebrate the success of Britain's ethnic minorities in politics,
the organisers might have chosen a much smaller venue. For while there
are many black and Asian success stories in the arts, entertainment, business,
the professions, the public sector, in politics, it seems, the barriers
have still to come down. The Labour Party argues, in truth, that it's record
is much superior to that of the other main parties. Yet the fact remains
that many black and Asian members of the Labour Party feel deeply let down.
Tonight's hosts, the
Asian Marketing Group, have invited big name employers who've promised
ethnic minorities equal treatment. If party leaders followed this policy,
there'd be forty non-white Members of Parliament. In fact, there are less
than a dozen and although they represent Labour, the party's record receives
faint praise.
DIANE ABBOTT: We have a much better record
than the other parties, but that's nothing to boast about. I was elected
thirteen years ago. Progress since then has been pitifully slow.
TREVOR PHILLIPS: There is a tendency to
say, 'Well, if we wait a bit longer, if people work a bit harder, it will
happen". But the truth of the matter is for two generations, black and
Asian people have been coming forward but not being selected.
VALERIE VAZ I think we should change a
system if it isn't working, and we know it isn't working now so we have
to look at different ways.
DIGNAN: Our society is multiracial
but you wouldn't think so from looking at our three main parties. In the
House of Commons, out of six hundred and fifty-nine MPs only nine - all
Labour - are from ethnic minority communities. In Scotland's new parliament
not one of its a hundred and twenty-nine members are black or Asian. There
are none in the sixty-member Welsh assembly. There are only two, both Labour,
in the twenty-five strong Greater London Assembly. In the European Parliament
there are only four - two Labour and two Conservative - among the eighty-four
members from England, Scotland and Wales. So out of nearly a thousand seats,
only fifteen are held by ethnic minority representatives. Of these thirteen
are Labour and two Conservative. The Liberal Democrats have none.
Valerie Vaz has been trying
for fourteen years to become a Labour MP. Persuading members of local constituency
parties to select her for a winnable seat has so far proved impossible.
In her attempts to get to Westminster she's often competing against white
candidates who already wield considerable local influence. Few blacks and
Asians have this kind of clout.
VAZ: You may come across,
what's known as the favoured son, and they will have links with the council,
and there may be sort of like deals done, which will favour them, and people
will feel they owe them certain things to support them, rather than support
someone from the outside.
DIGNAN: Trevor Phillips has at
least got elected to one of the new devolved bodies, the Greater London
Assembly, which is currently holding a black history exhibition. He says
constituency activists - who are mainly white - look for a Parliamentary
candidate who has a record of campaigning for the party. They ignore the
kind of campaigning experience gained by blacks and Asians.
PHILLIPS: For black and Asian people
who've been active in campaigns which have nothing to do with party politics,
but may be immigration or something like that, they don't quite have the
credentials that are recognised by the Labour Party at the moment. Now
that's a problem, and it's our problem.
DIGNAN: In Tower Hamlets a board
is elected to decide how a local estate should be regenerated. This part
of London's inner city has a large ethnic minority presence in the local
Labour Party. They wanted a black or Asian candidate at the last election.
They chose Oona King who says she would have had little chance in a constituency
party dominated by whites.
OONA KING: Overwhelmingly when
there are black candidates there, they will vote for the white candidate
again and again and again. That's because overwhelmingly you know, on
the whole, the majority of Labour party members in most of the seats are
white and often you vote with your friends or who you're familiar with.
It doesn't mean you're racist. But it does mean that there can be institutional
racism, that prevents one group from getting elected.
DIGNAN: All but one of Britain's
non-white MPs won their seats in multiracial areas like this one. Is the
refusal of white members of the Labour Party to select black candidates
in other areas more than just institutional racism?
SHAMIT SAAGAR: I think what is taking place
in the Labour Party like other parties, is a form of imputed racism. That
is to say, selectors who are mainly white, are taking the view that whilst
they are not racist, and do not discriminate against black and Asian candidates,
their fear is - entirely unfounded by the way - that voters will discriminate
on that basis, and for those reasons, selectors play safe and shy away
from adopting black and Asian candidates, particularly in marginal seats.
VAZ: Sometimes it is used
as a factor. There are - I mean it's like everything. When you look at
a candidate, you look at what their characteristics are and, and it has
been used as a factor.
DIGNAN: Race has been used as an
argument against selecting you?
VAZ: It has been mentioned
yes.
DIGNAN: It's hardly surprising
that ambitious black and Asian members of the Labour Party should gravitate
to inner city seats like this one. Understandably they feel they've a better
chance of being selected for these constituencies. Some fear though this
could lead to the ghettoisation of British politics with white MPs representing
mainly white areas and black and Asian MPs representing mainly ethnic minority
areas.
PHILLIPS: I think people have got
to be realistic. First of all, seats like Tottenham, say, want a black
MP. But you know, white people in Tottenham felt like they wanted a black
MP. They had a good experience with Bernie Grant, and I think they'll have
an excellent one with David Lammy. Secondly, if someone from an ethnic
minority background goes for a seat like Southall or Perry Barr, or indeed
Tottenham, there is no worry in anybody's mind that what they're going
to do is lose votes because of their colour.
DR SAAGAR: One has fostered a mentality
that black and Asian candidates are only suitable, are only plausible and
only legitimate in such inner city areas containing large numbers of minority
voters. Where does that then leave the aspiring black or Asian candidate
who seeks to represent constituencies that are predominantly white in terms
of their social make-up? If we don't tackle this question, if the Labour
Party doesn't address it, ultimately we are in a sense going down the road
of assuming that same ethnicity candidates are by definition a good thing.
That whites will be represented by whites and non whites by non whites.
And there can be very few people in modern multi cultural Britain, who'd
actually think that's a desirable end in itself.
DIGNAN: As the electorate becomes
ethnically more diverse, an iron law of politics becomes clearer. Britain's
ethnic minorities vote overwhelmingly Labour. In 1979 eighty-six per cent
supported the party, eight per cent the Conservatives and six per cent
the Liberal Democrats and others. Nearly twenty years later, according
to research, little had changed with eighty-five per cent backing Labour,
eleven per cent the Conservatives and four per cent the Liberal Democrats
and others. Increasingly, there are demands on Labour to repay this loyalty
by selecting more ethnic minority candidates for winnable seats.
DR SAAGAR: On the one hand the Labour party
has profited enormously in the course of a quarter century, from effectively
owning the lion share of the ethnic minority vote. On the other hand,
some in the black and Asian community argue what precisely has been the
dividend, the pay off, in response to that close relationship between minority
voters and the Labour party.
DIGNAN: The employers who attended
last Tuesday's dinner say they want more job applicants from ethnic minority
communities. Labour says it wants the same. Yet when they do put their
names forward, many fail to get selected because, it's argued, not enough
training is given to them on how to perform effectively when they are called
for interview by party officials.
PHILLIPS: What we know from business
and from other organisations is that when you go through that rather rigorous,
that demanding selection procedure you do have to be properly prepared
for it. You do have to understand the culture of that kind of selection.
And I think that to some extent, people who come up from the black and
ethnic minority communities, often aren't quite as prepared as other kind
of candidates are.
KING: Well training and
advice is always very helpful, but it's not going to get you the votes
if people have got a favoured candidate who has been around for twenty
odd years.
VAZ: We've sort of been
out-trained really. We've done as much training as we possibly can and
we're there ready as good candidates and good MP material. So I think
for some people they feel that we're there. We don't need any more training.
DIGNAN: London like other cities
has a growing ethnic minority population but few ethnic minority MPs. One
answer would be to set targets for selecting black and Asian candidates.
Yet there's disagreement over this suggestion, too.
PHILLIPS: For example, in London,
if we were to reflect the population of London, or the population that
votes labour, we would find that something like forty, forty-five per cent
of labour MPs should be black or Asian or Chinese. And that would mean,
twenty to twenty five. The point of setting a target is that party members
know that's where we're going. And when they come to cast their votes,
they will have in the back of their mind, that we've got to reach this
target.
KING: You can have as many
targets as you want. If you don't have a system that is capable of delivering
that, it really doesn't mean anything. It's just hot air. So, although
I would say yes, it's important that people know what we're aiming for,
common sense should tell you that. You know I don't think it will make
that much difference.
DIGNAN: At the offices of Operation
Black Vote there's growing frustration at what is seen as Labour's timidity.
Campaigners here are trying to persuade all the parties to select more
ethnic minority candidates for winnable seats. They believe Labour could
take the lead by discriminating, for a limited period only, in favour of
blacks.
WOOLLEY: We shouldn't be afraid
to discuss a time-limited positive discrimination. I've been to America
and I've seen black judges, black mayors, black congressmen, playing a
role at the highest level. Why? because the political will was there, and
they used positive discrimination to ensure that their democracy reflected
the people that it served. So let's be bold and let's be brave.
DIGNAN: Black activists at Labour
conferences in the eighties argued for positive discrimination with a demand
for black-only shortlists to select candidates.
ABBOTT: All-white parties in multiracial
constituencies - that's apartheid.
DIGNAN: The party rejected the
idea yet later imposed all women shortlists.
ABBOTT: I think the party has to
bite the bullet and do what we were demanding fourteen, fifteen years ago
and go for all black shortlists. It is all women shortlists that improved
sharply the numbers of women, and you're gonna need that to put up the
numbers of black and Asian candidates. You have to remember that New Labour
inherited a policy for women's shortlists, as kind of one of the left wing
policies of the eighties which people like me were successful in pushing.
When we got knocked back by the industrial tribunal, which deemed the shortlists
illegal, leadership did nothing about it. Now belatedly, they're talking
about changing the law to make all women shortlists legal and that opens
the door for all black shortlists as well.
KING: I think the party
has to consider black only short-lists. My gut instinct is that I don't
like them. My gut instinct also is that one thing I dislike even more,
is the fact that we don't have a representative democracy. That's very
important to me. You know my gut instinct is I don't like women only short
lists. But, they are the best and the only mechanism we've had to right
a very long wrong that's been going on for a thousand-odd years. So, if
you're actually going to try and change the system, then you do have to
take some very tough measures.
DIGNAN: Some fear the party leadership
would only pick seats with large ethnic minority populations for all-black
shortlists. There'd then be less pressure to select non-white candidates
for other seats.
PHILLIPS: I'm really against the
idea of colour-coding constituencies because that essentially means that
we are shut out of ninety-five per cent of the possibilities. You would
not get the situation for example that you've got in Gloucester where we
have Parmagit Singh Gunder an Asian candidate, who's won you know, on his
own merits in a seat which is, has a very small proportion of ethnic minorities.
ABBOTT: All black shortlists would
ensure black and Asian MPs everywhere not just in ghetto areas. And just
as with all women shortlists, the women were just as good and just as able
as the men, the black and Asian MPs will be just as good and able as anybody.
DIGNAN: It's unlikely there'd be
time to impose all-black shortlists before these voters next go to the
polls. So the party is facing demands to impose minority candidates in
seats where the sitting Labour MP decides to stand down just as the election
is called.
VAZ: There has been a precedent
in the past when you come near an election, for people with a track record
to be put in to seats, and, and I don't see any problem with that. And
so I think that would be a good way of showing that the party wants more
ethnic minority candidates in parliament, by saying, look, we'll put you
through a by-election panel because you have a track record, and then put
you in to seats.
DIGNAN: After winning the last
election Tony Blair admitted there were too few black and Asian MPs in
Parliament.
TONY BLAIR: We can't be a beacon to the
world unless the talents of all the people shine through. Not one black
High Court judge. Not one black Chief Constable or Permanent Secretary.
Not one black army officer above the rank of Colonel. Not one Asian either.
Not a record of pride for the British Establishment and not a record of
pride for a British Parliament that there are so few black and Asian MPs.
DIGNAN: Three years on, and there's
frustration that there's been little in the way of action to match the
rhetoric.
WOOLLEY: If he passionately believes
in it, then he has to ensure, that his troops deliver on the representation
front, they haven't and the responsibility lies with him.
KING: I want Number Ten
to look at these issues. I want the Labour Party to set up a commission,
to look at these issues. Tony Blair has said that he will be involved,
that Number Ten will be involved. We need to look at this from the very
top of the party, because we are committed to greater representation for
all groups but we haven't been able to get past the system, which trips
you up every time.
VAZ: The numbers show that
we're not coming through in this way, so there's got to be another way,
they've got to look at different ways. And they have over the years tried
to make it much more equal and much more fairer and I think they're going
to have to look at it again.
DIGNAN: The prizes in our society
are no longer monopolised by the majority. Politics, though, remains hard
to break into. Labour has a better record than the others. Yet many believe
it represents a poor return on the loyalty shown to the party by Britain's
ethnic minorities.
HUMPHRYS: Terry Dignan reporting.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Even by her own fiery standards,
Ann Widdecombe raised a real storm when she made her speech to the Tories
in Bournemouth last week. She said that a much tougher approach should
be taken against people who possess or use soft drugs such as cannabis.
They should be fined and end up with a criminal record. Well that brought
the wrath of the liberal establishment down on her head but not only the
liberal establishment. Many of her own colleagues in the Tory Party were
horrified. This morning we discover from the Mail on Sunday that seven
members of the Shadow Cabinet no less have admitted they tried smoking
a bit of pot when they were youngsters. What's interesting about all is
that the tone of the debate, though the drugs seem to be changing, no so
long ago we'd have seen enormous political support for such a hard-line.
So have things changed,
well previous few MPs are prepared to argue for a positively liberal approach
on soft drugs, one of those who is is the Labour MP Paul Flynn and he's
in our Cardiff studio, and we're joined on the phone by the Conservative
MP Julian Brazier, sorry we didn't have time to get you into a studio Mr
Brazier, but are you one of those, I'm tempted to say, rare breed of Tories
who seem, who support Ann Widdecombe down the line on this?
JULIAN BRAZIER MP: Well John, I don't support this
particular measure very enthusiastically but I do support the principle
that something has to be done. Yesterday morning I had at my constituency
surgery a frightened family with two young children. The house next door
to them has a tenant who shares it with seven or eight others all of whom
take drugs, mostly cannabis, but from time to time they throw their needles
over the fence, and people from leafy suburbs can raise their noses at
Ann, but they have to say what are their answers to the problems?
HUMPHYRS: Well she's offered one
hasn't she and that's to say, let's effectively, let's criminalise anybody
who uses a bit of pot or something, but you are saying that you don't go
that far?
BRAZIER: Well it is of course already
criminal, what she was proposing was a minimum of a hundred pound fine
and no more cautions. That's an idea which she suggested we trail and
by all means let's trial it. It may be that a different approach is needed
but the present situation in which the drug culture which starts with soft
drugs is taking over parts of our inner cities needs to be tackled and
that's why so few Labour MPs are willing... because they represent most
of the inner city seats, are willing to speak out in favour of liberalising
cannabis.
HUMPHRYS: Well Paul Flynn, you
are one of those who does. Are you a bit surprised, as think many people
are by the lack of support, or outspoken support at any rate, for Ann Widdecombe.
PAUL FLYNN: No, I think the public opinion
has moved on and I believe the taboo has now been broken. The first two
Tory MPs who spoke out in this way a couple of years ago had their mouths
bandaged by the whips and they weren't allowed to mention the subject again.
But now we've got more truth, more honesty and I believe they are going
to have a fair debate. The problem that Julian refers to is the present
situation and I am against what is happening now but it's the result of
Britain having the so-called toughest policies in Europe. We jail more
people, we punish them more severely than anywhere else, that why we've
got the problems that we have now. And I've written to Tony Blair and said
Tony, when we go to the country, we'll have a great deal to boast about
but one thing we will be ashamed of, is that when we leave office, like
every other government since the war, there will be more deaths from drugs
in Britain, than there were when we came into office. And I want to make
this charge as serious as I can, I believe that the result of the ignorance,
the prejudice, the cowardice of British politicians, because of that people
are dying. And in the next ten years I believe there will be at least a
thousand avoidable deaths in Britain from heroin because the British politicians
have refused to see that the argument that prohibition is the problem,
it hasn't be recognised. That's happened in Holland. In Holland they decriminalised
cannabis, soft drugs, twenty years ago. The result is that there's less
use of soft drugs there and they are often used in a safer way than they
are here. But the dramatic success of that is that they have separated
the two markets and the hard drug deaths are a tenth of what they are here.
Forty people per
million die in Britain from heroin use, it's less than four and we've got
to realise that what we are doing at the moment, is throwing the majority
of our young people into a market of soft drugs that's run by criminals,
people who are totally irresponsible. The best way to solve the problem
is to collapse that market by replacing it by a market that can be legalised,
licensed, policed, controlled, that will reduce all drug use.
HUMPHRYS: But there is a big difference
isn't there, between what you have just talked about and between turning
a blind eye as we are at the moment.
FLYNN: Well yes, we've got decriminalisation
on a completely irrational scale...
HUMPHRYS: But the point I'm making
though is that you are not actually winning the argument are you because
what you are talking about is something much more liberal.
FLYNN: But the Daily Telegraph
of all papers, where seventy-six per cent of their readers are saying they
disagree with Ann Widdecombe, but the public are far in advance of opinion
than the politicians are and I believe that now we can say in parliament,
for goodness sake, the majority of politicians have probably used cannabis
at one time, it wasn't any great thing, it's nothing like as dangerous
as alcohol or tobacco or maybe medicinal drugs, why do we allow this black
market to continue to poison and corrupt our young people. Decriminalisation
will reduce drug use.
HUMPHRYS: Julian Brazier, isn't
that a fair point?
BRAZIER: I don't really share Paul's
view of the picture in Holland. I mean the French perspective, as was reported
a couple of years ago rather widely in the papers of Holland, is that under
the Shenngin arrangement they've got real problems with drugs now coming
across the border from Holland. The central issue really is this: Is the
best way to tackle the hard drugs culture to liberalise soft drugs as Paul
proposes or is it to find another way to try and persuade people not to
get involved in drugs at all?
HUMPHRYS: What's the other way,
that's the trick isn't it. I mean what is the other way?
BRAZIER: Well I think we should
have much more in the way of programmes in schools, I also think...
HUMPHRYS: ..tried it...
BRAZIER: ...I also think though,
we have to look at ways of breaking up the culture in the inner cities.
I mean I have advocated in the past looking at housing policy. In some
states in America if you are convicted of a drug offence, certainly if
you are convicted more than one of a drug offence you can get evicted from
your house. That would provide a real disincentive of the kind of people
who are ruining the lives of many young families and elderly people in
the middle of my constituency.
HUMPHRYS: Isn't - Paul Flynn, isn't
this the thing that you have not tried everything yet, at least this is
the argument, you haven't tried everything yet, try and few more things
before you...
FLYNN: Everything that Julian has
suggested has been tried for forty years in America. They have drug education,
they bombed and defoliated the drugs fields, they even put drug offenders
into prison for longer terms than murderers in some states in America,
but nothing has worked. Prohibition is the problem and prohibition like
the prohibition of alcohol, builds up an empire of crime and allows the
customers of prohibition which is the majority of young people to be exploited.
On the question of Europe, I spent a large part of last year as the rapporteur
for the Health Committee of the Council of Europe making a comparison between
drug outcomes in the forty countries in the Council of Europe and the result
of that is Britain is the worst - can we get this through - will Julian
see himself as a British politician as responsible for the terrible number
of deaths we have here. The Dutch government have just had a debate in
which they have voted to strengthen their decriminalisation policies there,
they want more decriminalisation there because the evidence is there, incontrovertible,
that cannabis use goes down if you decriminalise it, you take away the
attraction of forbidden fruit, you take away the attraction of illegality,
young people don't use it in the same way but it means that young people
can have their experiments with soft drugs without being pressurised by
people in the illegal hard market and they don't become addicted to drugs.
The evidence is overwhelming.
HUMPHRYS: Okay, Mr Brazier, it
does seem, doesn't it, can I just ask you this point, we don't have too
long, he - Paul Flynn - seems to be winning this argument doesn't he, even
with your own Shadow Cabinet. I mean you saw what we saw this morning in
the newspapers.
BRAZIER: Well I'd only say this,
as far as I know there's nobody in the Shadow Cabinet who wants to decriminalise
drugs. To return to the America point, a generation ago America's inner
cities were by far the worst in the world, the crime rate in some small
American cities was more than entire countries in Europe. With the kinds
of approaches they have adopted now, their crime rates have dropped in
many parts of America and in some parts are lower than many categories
than in many European countries. Holland isn't a country that I would offer
as an example in a whole string of different ways and the problems that
their neighbours are having with the liberalisation in Holland indicates
that, What I am the first to say that we've got to recognise our approach
to drugs in the past hasn't worked but I do think we should look at some
of the experiments in America where whole states have made very substantial
progress in coping with this.
HUMPHRYS: Thanks very much. Paul
Flynn, should the cabinet now do the same as a large chunk of the shadow
cabinet has done this morning and tell us whether they have tried pot or
not?
FLYNN: I wish they would. We know
that Alan Duncan as advocated the legalisation of all drugs. We know that
David Prior has advocated the decriminalisation of cannabis and said that
he has used it. All we want is for politicians to do something that they
rarely do - tell the plain honest truth and let's have a proper debate.
HUMPHRYS: Paul Flynn, Julian Brazier,
thank you both very much indeed.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Tony Blair made an important
speech on Europe on Friday. It was a bit overshadowed by the events in
Belgrade but what he was saying was that the European Union is out of touch
with what people in the member states want. What's raised a few eyebrows
is his solution. Mr Blair wants to send even more politicians to Brussels,
this time our own MPs would sit alongside MPs from other countries in a
second chamber - a senate. And he wants national governments to play a
bigger part in the way Europe is run. So where would this leave the European
Parliament and indeed the European Commission? Simon Murphy is the leader
of Labour in that parliament and Edward McMillan Scott leads the Conservatives.
They both join us from our Birmingham studio.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Mr Murphy, if this happened,
if we had this senate it would reduce the authority of the European parliament
would it not?
SIMON MURPHY: No. The Prime Minister made
it very clear that what he is looking at is strengthening the existing
institutions with the European Union, that the second chamber may have
a role to play there, but you know certainly if we can get national MPs
better understanding what we can do jointly to improve the European Union,
to deliver on people's priorities, then I think that's got to be an idea
worth looking at.
HUMPHRYS: But the European parliament
is directly elected. I mean Mr Blair talks about this democratic deficit,
that's the vogue phrase isn't it. The European parliament is at least
directly elected by people who go - who send people like you there to sit
there on our behalf. If we had this other system of MPs from national
parliaments they would have to be nominated one way or the other, would
they not. I mean that would actually be a weakening of democracy wouldn't
it?
MURPHY: Well, I'm very much an
ends-orientated politician. I want to see people better understanding
what we do in the European Union. We do a lot of important work particularly
in the European parliament that benefits ordinary people and if the second
chamber has a role to play then I'm very keen to explore that, and it's
something which has been offered as a solution by the Belgian Prime Minister,
by the President of the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic hasn't even
joined the European Union yet, and indeed the President of Germany, so
I think we need to look at it. It's a very important part of a contribution
to a debate that is going on.
HUMPHRYS: Mr McMillan-Scott, why
not. Why not have a second chamber, a senate?
EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT: Because first of all before the
European parliament was elected we used to have a nominated parliament.
That was a real talking shop and it really ill behoves Tony Blair who
has unwound the upper house in this country now to try and suggest there
should be a European senate. And what's interesting about Simon Murphy's
replies is the complete lack of enthusiasm on his part for his own leader's
proposition. What I think Tony Blair should have done on Friday, and incidentally
it depends what version of the speech you read, the one that was issued
by the Foreign Office or the one that came from Downing Street, but what
he seems to be suggesting is this European senate and greater involvement
of national politicians. Do you know at the present time there is a NATO
parliamentary assembly, an OSCE parliamentary assembly, a Western European
Union parliamentary assembly, not to speak of the one that Paul Flynn was
just talking about, the Council of Europe. So we don't need another tier
of politicians acting at a European level. What I think Blair should have
suggested, and I'm sure Simon Murphy would agree with me is that we should
move the European parliament to Brussels and scrap Strasbourg and that
all Council of Ministers meetings should be in public. Those are the two
suggestions I think he should have made.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I think I saw him
nodding his head at both of those last ones, but shaking his head rather
vigorously when you said there wasn't a great deal of enthusiasm on his
part. It didn't sound a desperately enthusiastic endorsement for your
leader's speech to be honest, Mr Murphy.
MURPHY: Well, I don't want us to
get hung up on just one part of the Prime Minister's speech. He did address
an awful lot of other issues, in particular this idea that the government
should play a more direct role in the governing of the European Union,
of the institutions of the European Union, the parliament, the Commission
and the Council. I think the Council has the lowest profile, and any
raising of its profile will only help people better understand what we're
actually doing in the European Union on their behalf.
HUMPHRYS: Come to that in a second.
To just go back to this second chamber, I mean it would be a recipe would
it not for an endless power struggle between senate and senators, or whatever
we call them, I don't know because they'd be MPs already - senators and
MEPs, it would be a mess wouldn't it?
MURPHY: Well my understanding of
what the second chamber will do, is it would meet fairly infrequently,
it would be only a small body and would have a very limited job to do.
It wouldn't get involved in the day to day legislation which again the
Prime Minister quite rightly pointed out is the job of the European Parliament.
HUMPHRYS: Not exactly dramatic
stuff this then, not exactly radical - a little chamber, hardly ever meets.
You wonder why you bother really.
MURPHY: Well, it's part of this
trying to re-connect us with the citizens of the European Union. Clearly
when you have only one in four people voting in the European election here
in Britain last year, you know it was not restricted to the UK. There
were very low turnouts in all member states of the European Union. We
have to find ways of actually reaching out to the citizens so they understand
what we're doing. The Prime Minister also raised this idea of a charter
of competence so that we could clearly understand who does what at European
level and what should be at national level and regional level and this
may be an area that a second chamber could get involved in.
HUMPHRYS: Mr McMillan-Scott, council
of ministers doing a bit more, maybe clipping the wings indeed of the Commission.
What do you think of that?
McMILLAN-SCOTT: I think that the balance of the
moment is about right. I don't think we need to make any changes, certainly
no more tiers of administration or tiers of politicians.
HUMPHRYS: Well that wouldn't be
adding a tier on would it, if you gave the Council a bit more...
McMILLAN-SCOTT: No, indeed, that's what I'm saying
I think we should open up the Council of Ministers. This is the most extraordinary
situation. The European Union is the only place in the world where legislation
is made in secret by the Council of Ministers making decisions. We never
know in detail what goes on there, rather slender minutes are published
and we're not supposed to know who voted and which way, although that has
been.....
HUMPHRYS: What not even you as
MEPs are supposed not to know this?
McMILLAN-SCOTT: You can now get the information.
But as I say it's not a formal part of the treaty, so what you have is
a very secretive ministerial meeting which is why incidentally the national
parliaments directly should get involved, I believe there should be much
wider debates in the House of Commons about European matters both before
key decisions are taken and indeed a report back afterwards where the minister
has to explain why he voted in a particular way. So there's a lot more
transparency that could come in at a national level, but let me just make
one other point. There already exists as I've said, a number of organisations
at a European level dealing with security matters, dealing with general
political issues. There is also a committee of national politicians meeting
under the aegis of the European parliament, so it's not as if we're short
of mechanisms for making national parliamentarians more involved. I think
the problem is that the House of Commons already emasculated by Tony Blair
is not particularly interested in debating matters at a European level,
I think the European parliament has a long way to go in not only reforming
itself but also making itself better understood, but it is not going to
be helped by the rather daft idea culled from a rather silly pamphlet that
was published last week about a range of propositions for a Europe of the
future. A European senate is not what we need.
HUMPHRYS: So perhaps Mr Murphy,
you should go back to Tony Blair and say: Look, we've all been - perhaps
you've already done this, I don't know - we've been looking at what you've
said, and yes there are some changes that ought to be made, the Council
of Ministers for instance, open it up, make it a bit more powerful or at
least give it more to do, but some of these things are really a bit pointless.
I mean you've rather damned it if I may say so, with faint praise yourself
today.
MURPHY: Well I think there is a
danger that we get hung up on this one idea that this is the most important
speech that's been made by a British Prime Minister in over a generation.
It is very much an active contribution to the debate that's going on about
how Europe should be organised as we bring in new member states. Just
to concentrate on this one issue is, I think, to miss the point and the
sort of other issues that the Prime Minister raised of raising the profile
of the Council, of having enhanced co-operation where different member
states can go off and do different things but within the institutional
framework with the extra role for the European Parliament there of actually
vetting this idea of enhanced co-operation. You know it was a very wide
ranging speech and one that will be looked back on in years to come as
a very important contribution from Britain to the debate on the future
of Europe.
HUMPHRYS: He doesn't want this
hard core though does he, at least he doesn't want it at the moment and
one wonders whether he doesn't want this hard core pressing ahead because
we're not actually in it because we're not in the Euro.
MURPHY: No, I think this idea of
a hard core is a wrong idea, can you imagine......
HUMPHRYS: It would change if we
got in the Euro though wouldn't it?
MURPHY: Well the point I was going
to make is that why the Prime Minister is in favour of enhanced co-operation
within the existing institutional frame work is that it is very much a
clear signal I think to the applicant countries who are about to join us.
If they felt that the existing countries of the European Union had actually
gone ahead and set something up that they could never join then that wouldn't
be right. So I very much agree with the Prime Minister - we need a flexible
enhanced co-operation but I mean on the Euro, the policy stays the same,
we must do what is in Britain's interest, that's something that the Conservative
party is refusing to do.
HUMPHRYS: Well we've no time to
go into all of that but one of the thoughts that he raised was a super
power. 'European Union ought to be a super power and not a super state'.
Mr McMillan-Scott, do you know what that means.
McMILLAN-SCOTT: I know exactly what he means and
it's very interesting because here we actually have the Blair agenda revealed.
This is the most extraordinary statement. I mean you're quite right,
the speech has a lot in it which is, to my mind, a rather shallow speech
ill put together as I've said already, badly edited by the Foreign Office
and by Downing Street. But, it contains this extraordinary statement that
he wants a super power. Admittedly he says he doesn't want a super state
but what I think the people of Europe want is to be super people not to
be in a super power or super state. So this is really an extraordinary
exposure of Tony Blair's real aspiration for the European Union and that
to my mind really undermines the whole thing. It was billed as a sort
of Bruges type speech. Let's remember that in nineteen eighty-eight, Mrs
Thatcher had some extremely important things to say about the future of
Europe which in fact in many cases have come true and what I think Tony
Blair should have been doing in Warsaw, and incidentally why not make a
speech like this in Warsall instead of Warsaw - it would save a lot of
people a lot of money, he should have been talking much more about enlargement,
if he was going to do so from the capital of one of the applicant countries.
You know what's happened in the past few years? In eleven years no single
country apart from Eastern Germany has come into the European Union as
a result of the collapse of the Berlin Wall - that is a shame and it's
a scandal.
HUMPHRYS: Okay. Twenty seconds
to defend that Mr Murphy.
MURPHY: The Prime Minister had
to make that statement in Warsaw because.....
HUMPHRYS: ..... no the superpower
bit. That's the thing that matters - the super power.
MURPHY: The super power, the super
state - clearly Europe has to play its part on the global stage and if
we're going to combat international crime, the sort of drugs racketeering,
the sort of racketeering in people that we see we do need that co-operation.
So what the Prime Minister was saying I think was a very important contribution
to the debate on the future of Europe.
HUMPHRYS: Thank you both very much
indeed. Simon Murphy and Edward McMillan-Scott
And that's it for this
week. If you're on the internet a quick reminder about our website which
you can see there. Until the same time next week, good afternoon.
22
FoLdEd
|