|
====================================================================================
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:
22.10.00
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The hopes
for peace have been dashed and the crisis in the Middle East is getting
worse. What next? I'll be asking the Foreign Office Minister Peter Hain.
The Labour Party in Scotland has a new leader and I'll be talking to him.
And we'll be looking at the prospects for another fuel blockade when the
protestors' deadline expires in three weeks from now. That's after the
news read by Peter Sissons.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: The deadline's approaching
for more fuel blockades .. can the government talk the protestors out of
it?
CLIVE HOYLAND: We can't be responsible
if they act spontaneously again, if the government don't come forward with
a positive solution to the problem we've presented to them.
HUMPHRYS: And a new leader for
Labour in Scotland but he'll face the old problems ... and a few more
besides.
JOHN SWINNEY: I think Henry McLeish starts
off fatally wounded by the fact that he's the product of a political fix.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first the Middle
East. As we've just been hearing in the news there has been more violence,
more deaths as the fighting continues between Israelis and Palestinians.
Leaders of the Arab world have been meeting in Cairo, they issued some
strong words but not a lot in the way of action. As for the rest of the
world..? Well is there anything that this country can do to bring pressure
to bear or would we be better keep out of it? The Foreign Office Minister
Peter Hain is in our Swansea studio.
Can we look first, Mr.
Hain, at the suggestions that came, or requests if you like, that came
out of that Arab summit, a war crimes tribunal? Does that have any appeal
to the British Government.
PETER HAIN MP: Well, that's a matter for
the security council. It's understandable, as I experienced myself in
the region in Cairo last week that with passions running very high and
feelings inflamed about these awful scenes of violence which we've all
observed, that that demand perhaps should have come from the summit. Far
more important, however, and far more encouraging, is that the summit,
despite the background of bitterness that exists, has called for a resumption
of the peace process, building upon the Sharm el-Sheikh Agreement last
week, and has committed itself and shown in a very statesmanlike way, that
the Arab nations want to see the peace process resumed, as does Britain,
and it's vital that, with all the difficulties we face, and they are enormous,
that we get people back around talking, rather than shooting at each other.
HUMPHRYS: I take your point that
it is ultimately a matter for the United Nations, but clearly Britain,
as a member of the Security Council has a large say in these affairs.
Do we in principle, would we, might we, support the idea of a war crimes
tribunal?
HAIN: No, I don't think
so, because the circumstances in which war crimes tribunals have been established
don't compare with the dreadful violence, yes, that we've seen over the
last few weeks, but don't compare with the situation in Cambodia, or the
genocide in Kosovo, or Bosnia, and so on. So what we have to focus on
is how we get the peace process resumed and although I think the Israelis
perhaps will want to look at their rules of engagement and see whether
they have been properly followed by their own soldiers involved in these
clashes, the Palestinians will also want in terms of their own command
structure in the Palestinian Authority to see whether their own people
have behaved responsibly. These issues can all be addressed through the
enquiry which came out of the Sharm el-Sheikh Agreement, and is under the
auspices of the UN Secretary General, together with President Clinton.
What we want to do is look forward. We can all look backwards forever,
we can all look backwards and blame everybody, and obviously everybody's
been horrified by the violence there, but what matters is that we recognise
there is literally no alternative for either the Israelis, or the Palestinians,
to talking rather than shooting.
HUMPHRYS: Well let's look forward
at a way perhaps of stopping that shooting, and another suggestion that
came out of that summit of Arab leaders, and that was that there should
be some sort of United Nations protection force. A lot of people have
been killed. What about a United Nations protection force, would we support
that?
HAIN: Well, that will probably
be considered by the United Nations Security Council...
HUMPHRYS: ...and our view would
be what?
HAIN: Well, if you look
at the circumstances in which protection forces, peace-keeping forces,
as they are more commonly described, have gone in. Sierre Leone, for example,
that followed an admittedly fragile of peace agreement. Similarly, other
circumstances in which the UN has been deployed have followed peace agreements,
so I am not saying that this won't happen, but I am saying that what we
need to concentrate upon is getting both sides to disengage, and particularly,
to ensure that their own hardliners admits the bitterness and the violence,
obviously people's passions are enflamed and there's tremendous bitterness
as I experienced for myself in Cairo last week, in the Arab community,
and there's also bitterness in the Israeli community and we have to encourage
the fundamentalists to take a back seat, and those who are committed to
peace, President Arafat himself, Prime Minister Barak, to take the front
seat. That is our priority at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: Well, yeah, but I mean
nothing is going to happen along those lines unless and until the violence
stops. Obviously because it feeds itself, doesn't it and then people react
to the violence and we are in the sort of mess we are now and the Arab
leaders clearly thought that one way of doing that might be to put a buffer
in between the two sides and such a buffer could be a United Nations protection
force, peace-keeping force, whatever you call it. You seem to be suggesting
that it is not, you wouldn't rule that yourself, you wouldn't rule that
out.
HAIN: Well, we need to
look at everything that could help to produce a better situation, but all
I'm describing is the very difficult circumstances of first of all, getting
any United Nations peace-keeping force anywhere in the world, and we've
experienced that in Sierre Leone and in the Congo. Now to suddenly intersperse
one, overnight almost, into the situation there, would be incredibly difficult,
even if there were support for it. So what I'm saying is that we need to
use our best officers and Robin Cook was in the region only ten days ago,
I was there last week, working as hard as we can for peace, and I think
if anything else has come out of these awful events, it has been that both
sides now realise, if they didn't before, that there is no alternative
to peace, because shooting and violence and killing doesn't succeed. And
there's one other, there's one other conclusion that I think we might draw
from this John, that people sometimes ought to understand that as near
as, the nearer you come to peace, the more difficult it becomes.
I was in the region talking
successively to Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat at the end of
August, just two months ago. It was quite clear that they were tantalisingly
close to peace, but then the fundamentalists on both sides, and the hardliners
who were always opposed to the peace process have managed to insert themselves
between the peace-makers. Now we need to create circumstances in which
the peace-makers take the lead and in which the hardliners are put back
into the shadows.
HUMPHRYS: Well, maybe if we have
any say in these matters at all, and many people would argue that we don't,
there's no point, with the best will in the world of people like you and
Robin Cook going there, because they don't listen to us, but if we are
going to there...
HAIN: ...that's not true...
HUMPHRYS: Well, look at the history
of the last few days and the last few weeks, clearly they have not listened
to you. I mean Sharon is...Barak is now talking about bringing, has been
for a while, talking about bringing Sharon into his government. Arafat
is not telling his boys to lay off, so we're seeing a continuation of all
of this, I mean, have you not, if you are going to get involved, and many
people say there is absolutely no point in you getting involved, but if
you are, have you not got to take a much firmer line, just talking doesn't
seem to be achieving anything?
HAIN: Well, you know a
country like Britain which is a close friend of both the Israelis and the
Palestinians and which has a high standing, as I know myself, throughout
the Arab world, and is also friends with the other key player in this,
the US, and is a member of the European Union, which is very influential.
We can play a pivotal role and if the parties want us to do so and to do
more than we've done in the past which has been to be very closely engaged,
then obviously we will want to look at that very creatively and constructively.
But, you know, it's much better to exert influence by staying on the inside
track than to stand outside and issue denunciatory statements or to take
strong actions that would simply play into the hands of those who want
to back away from the peace process and want a war to the end.
HUMPHRYS: Are there any circumstances
in which we would recognise a Palestinian state if that's what Arafat wants
us to do.?
HAIN: Well we have made
it clear as signatories to the European Declaration that we support Palestinian
self-determination and ultimately an independent Palestinian state.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but if he calls
it, if Arafat says right that's it now, you know this is the road we are
going down, what will be say?
HAIN: I know the point
you are making but what is interesting is that the Arab summit did not
urge that upon him and our view is and I have expressed this very firmly
to him as a friend of the Palestinians and a long standing supporter of
Palestinian rights, that a unilateral declaration of independence would
create a crippled Palestinian state without secure borders, without an
agreement with the Israelis, without as much territory than was on offer
only a few weeks ago and still is, if the peace process can be resumed.
So what.. by far, miles preferable alternative is for an agreed Palestinian
state that I am convinced will come and could come sooner rather than later,
despite the awful events of the last few weeks if the agreed peace process
can be got back on track because it is quite clear that all the parties
know that a Palestinian state is inevitable and it exists in such close
proximity to the Israelis that they cannot do anything else other than
move together as partners rather than as enemies and so that is the objective
which we need to move towards.
HUMPHRYS: Peter Hain, thank you
very much indeed for joining us this morning.
HAIN: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: The Scottish Labour Party
has a new leader. Henry McLeish. And this week he will be approved, almost
certainly anyway, as the First Minister of Scotland. Not the easiest
time to take over. Labour has big problems in Scotland, the fiasco over
exams still lingers on and the NATIONALISTS have a new leader too and he's
really putting the pressure on. There's also the fact that Mr McLeish
is succeeding Donald Dewar. Although Mr Dewar had plenty of problems he,
at least, had years of experience in the front rank of Westminster politics.
I'll be talking to Mr McLeish after this report from Iain Watson.
HUMPHRYS: The Scottish Labour
Party has a new leader, Henry McLeish. And this week he will be approved
- almost certainly anyway - as the First Minister of Scotland. Not the
easiest time to take over. Labour has big problems in Scotland, the fiasco
over exams still lingers on and the Nationalists have a new leader too
and he's really putting the pressure on. There's also the fact that Mr
McLeish is succeeding Donald Dewar. Although Mr Dewar had plenty of problems
he, at least, had years of experience in the front rank of Westminster
politics. I'll be talking to Mr McLeish after this report from Iain Watson.
IAIN WATSON: On Wednesday, Scotland
was a nation united in grief. It wasn't just the great and the good who
turned out to bury the country's first ever First Minister, but people
without rank or title. Although people from all parties and none were present,
the funeral itself had the air of a Labour movement event. Tribute after
tribute which flowed from Glasgow's gothic cathedral, praised Donald Dewar's
lifelong commitment to social justice. But, as night fell over his home
city, Labour colleagues were already discussing how best to safeguard his
legacy in the face of a resurgent opposition.
Donald Dewar did much
to turn the promise of a Scottish Parliament into reality. But his successor
as Labour leader faces huge challenges if devolution isn't to rebound on
the party which made it all possible. The Labour led coalition has been
buffeted by bad headlines, even on those issues which play well for the
party south of the border, such as education and health. And the Scottish
National Party, under a new leader, are shifting their ground to exploit
Labour's difficulties at the ballot box. Henry McLeish has the opportunity
to offer Labour a fresh start in Scotland, but some of his colleagues are
warning him of the threat posed by the SNP
JOHN McALLION: In the Scottish elections
they are a very serious contender indeed and indeed it may well suit voters
in Scotland to have a Labour government at Westminster, and an SNP led
administration in Holyrood. Because in that way they can get the best for
Scotland from both sides
JOHN CURTICE: Henry McLeish may well be
regarded by some people in Scotland, and he will certainly be criticised
by his opponents in the SNP, as yet another predominately Westminster import
WATSON: Henry McLeish has to prove
that a Labour led coalition can deliver on the people's priorities but
it's been hit by bad publicity over, for example, the decision to abolish
Clause 28, which prevented councils from promoting homosexuality. But
it's on Labour's core issues that the problems are continuing. The health
minister and the finance minister fell out over spending on the NHS, and
with hospital waiting lists rising, Labour is in danger of not delivering
on its pledge to get them down in time for the next General Election. On
education, some pupils received inaccurate exam results which caused a
crisis of confidence in the whole system. With an inquiry due to report
on the fiasco, pressure may increase on the Labour education minister to
go.
ACTUALITY:
WATSON: In England, if Labour's
core voters feel disappointed, they tend to stay at home, here in Scotland
they have an alternative.
John Swinney is the new leader of the Scottish National Party, seen as
a more reassuring figure than his predecessor Alex Salmond. He's pro-independence,
of course, but his strategy is to perk up the SNP vote by talking about
a wider range of issues and watering down the emphasis on separation from
England.
JOHN SWINNEY: We've got to get across to
people the key lines of argument that we would put forward on the issues
that concern the voters, about education or about health or crime or poverty
or these other core social and economic concerns. And by setting that out
to the public, I think we've sent out a message that's in tune with their
own ambitions and the ambitions of their communities. And that's where
the prospects for success for the SNP will come from.
WATSON: The SNP will have an early
opportunity to test their message in what was traditional Labour territory.
There will be three by-elections in Scotland in the near future - two of
them will be in the Glasgow Anniesland constituency of the late Donald
Dewar. That's because his seat in the Westminster, as well as the Scottish
Parliament will have to be filled. Labour may well attract a sympathy vote
there, but here in West Falkirk, at the very heart of central Scotland,
a bitter battle lies ahead
The motto of this town is 'better meddle wi' the devil than wi' the bairns
of Falkirk.' For those of you south of the border, roughly translated,
that means 'don't mess with us mate'. Unfortunately for Labour, they didn't
take that advice. The local MP Dennis Canavan wanted to stand for the Scottish
Parliament but he was kept off the list of approved candidates. He stood
anyway, as an Independent, and gave his former party a drubbing, and now
he's about to resign his Westminster seat causing more problems for Labour
at a difficult time.
CURTICE: The SNP certainly have
clearly signaled that Falkirk West is a clear target for them, although
he's now leader John Sweeney has decided to put himself personally in charge
of the campaign.
WATSON: The SNP leader is confident
that Labour's vote will decrease because they've surrendered their traditional
ground to his party.
SWINNEY: I think the SNP's values
as a moderate left of centre political party are absolutely the right values
within mainstream Scotland and which allows us to fight contests in Falkirk
West or Anniesland or any of the other particular part of Scotland, in
the central belt. The problem for the Labour Party is the fact that they've
actually moved to the right in their political agenda.
WATSON: Labour are the largest
party at the Scottish Parliament here in Edinburgh. But their predominance
may not persist. Recent opinion polls are suggesting that Scottish voters
might vote a different way at elections to the Edinburgh parliament than
to the Westminster parliament. Labour are in little danger of losing too
many seats to the SNP at a UK General Election, but when it comes to the
Scottish parliament - known locally as Holyrood - their support could drift
away.
CURTICE: We're still seeing persistently
far fewer people preferring Labour for the Holyrood elections, than would
do for a Westminster election, whereas in contrast the SNP are more popular
when it comes to Holyrood elections. So as a result of this we're seeing
the opinions polls showing fairly consistently the SNP at least neck and
neck with Labour in recent months and occasionally well ahead. So when
it comes to the contest for the next Scottish election in 2003, Labour
certainly look as though they do have a serious challenge on their hands.
WATSON: Dundee may look like the
sort of place where Labour should be weighing its votes rather than counting
it, but the SNP are creeping up - Labour fended them off by just 121 votes
in the Dundee West constituency at last year's Scottish elections. The
MSP for the neighbouring seat says that Labour must be seen to be standing
up for Scotland - even if that means that they must argue for yet more
powers to come north from Westminster.
McALLION: If again the Labour Party
were to allow the SNP in the Scottish parliament to be the party that was
pushing for more powers for the Scottish parliament, while we consistently
defended these powers being reserved to Westminster. Then again that would
just reinforce their message, that they're Scotland's party and we're Westminster's
party. And therefore I think the party in Scotland really has to continue
and accept that it is a process and in the longer term more powers will
come to the Scottish parliament. And rightly come to the Scottish parliament.
WATSON: Opinion polls suggest that
Scottish voters would be happy to see Labour, north of the border,
pursue a more distinctive agenda from Westminster.
CURTICE: All the persistent problems
that Labour seem to have is to be able to convince people in Scotland that
they're willing to use the powers of the Scottish parliament to deploy
a public policy that perhaps is rather different from that which is going
on south of the border.
WATSON: So the argument runs that
the new leader should not just distance himself from Westminster, but should
also battle more strongly for Labour's heartlands, by reoccupying their
traditional left wing territory.
MARGARET CURRAN; I think in this area we get a
real example of the kind of challenges that we face. Here we can graphically
see the poverty that people have had to live with.
WATSON: Margaret Curran's constituency
includes the sprawling Easterhouse estate. She believes the SNP are trying
to move opportunistically onto Labour's ground, so her party must demonstrate
that it's delivering for its long-standing supporters.
CURRAN: The big issues I think
the new leader now has to address are the need absolutely for social justice
and inclusion as they have already stated. But it is also the need for
public investment. It is also the need to be loyal to the people that
have always voted for us and to deliver for them.
WATSON: East wood, just south
of Glasgow, is about 15 miles from Margaret Curran's constituency; it too
has a Labour MSP - but it's a very different place. Ken MacIntosh is enjoying
the last few days of the parliamentary recess with his family. Labour snapped
up the seat in 1997 for the first time and retained it in the 1999 Scottish
elections. If Labour is tempted to take on the SNP from the left, it could
leave places like this vulnerable.
KEN MACINTOSH: I'm very aware here in this
constituency that we have a Labour Tory fight as well as the national Labour
SNP fight. Therefore we've got to appeal, make sure that we don't lose
any of the Tory voters that came over to Labour at the last election and
recognise that Labour is a party that can deliver on the economy and is
a sound party of government and at the same time is not deserting any of
our core voters or any of the voters that might think that the SNP in any
way offer a more radical alternative which obviously they are trying to
portray themselves as.
WATSON: Labour's Scottish leader
will have to fend off attacks from his opponents. As an ally of the Chancellor
Gordon Brown some will say he's Westminster's man. But his political stock
is more likely to fall as a result of the way in which he was selected
for his new job.
Labour's new leader in Scotland, Henry McLeish, was elected here in Stirling
yesterday. He's seen as a safe pair of hands with ministerial experience
both at Westminster and at Holyrood - but he can't celebrate his victory
just yet. He has been elected only as interim leader of the party, and
political opponents, and even some allies are calling for a proper contest
involving the whole party membership here in Scotland.
Labour's 54 MSPs along with the party's 27 strong executive had a vote
in yesterday leadership ballot - that's 81 people out of a total membership
of 30,000. The party admits this was a rush job, but say that the law
required a new first minister within a month of Donald Dewar's death.
ACTUALITY: "Jack McConnell 36, and Henry
McLeish 44."
WATSON: In the end it was a narrow
victory for Henry McLeish, currently the Enterprise Minister, over his
challenger, the Finance Minister, Jack McConnell. An electoral college
comprising party members and trade unions will be asked to endorse the
result, but some fear this will be merely an exercise in rubber stamping.
The SNP have been quick to exploit the disquiet.
SWINNEY: I think Henry McLeish
starts off fatally wounded by the fact they he's a product of a political
fix. He's the product of a restricted franchise and a limited election
- there's been virtually no debate about this issue and I think the public
will think a bit too much haste taken to decide on such an important issue.
McALLION: It's a very hard act
to follow, Donald Dewar. But only one way in which you can do that is
by being, like him, elected by the membership of the Scottish Labour party.
That gives them a status and a position in Scottish politics that otherwise
they would not have. And therefore it's absolutely essential that there
is a full democratic election and a contest for leader and deputy leader
of the Labour party.
WATSON: Labour always claimed that
devolution would make the United kingdom stronger, not weaker. But Henry
McLeish faces a difficult task - he has to convince voters he is standing
up for Scotland without provoking too many conflicts with Westminster.
But, after a tight election, he may lack the authority to take on the tough
political challenges which lie ahead.
HUMPHRYS: Iain Watson reporting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: So, Mr McLeish, you've obviously
got a lot of problems, I mean that's clear, all leaders have lots of problems
but you are going to find them rather more difficult aren't you because
you don't have the support that Donald Dewar had. I mean, what was it,
forty-four votes out of eighty-one, not exactly massive.
HENRY MCLEISH: I think the first point
to make John is that there may be some problems around but there are enormous
opportunities and I think what we need to remember is the circumstances
in which this election was fought. First of all the Parliament decided
that they needed twenty-eight days within which the First Minister had
to be elected but secondly the party had its electoral college. So what
we had to do in the circumstances was to come up with the Executive and
the MSPs carrying out their ballot. So I think that was fair, it was very
democratic and of course the outcome of that will go to an electoral college
with a leader and the deputy leader having to be confirmed by the party.
So it's real choices and I think in the circumstances this has been the
correct way forward.
HUMPHRYS: You say very democratic,
eighty-one people voting out of a membership, a party membership of thirty
thousand, doesn't sound very democratic to most people I suspect.
MCLEISH: But I think in the circumstances,
as I have explained to you, extraordinary circumstances following in the
tragic death of Donald. That said you had parliamentary procedures, you
had political procedures and I agree with people about the legitimacy of
the mandate. I have a mandate but at the end of the day the party still
has an electoral college and that will be the binding decision. I think
that shows the Labour Party putting forward democracy in a very positive
way but let's remember that ten days ago we had a leader who was alive.
Donald died very tragically, I think the party has moved quickly and I
believe the public will acknowledge what we have done is the best way forward
in difficult circumstances.
HUMPHRYS: But your difficulty is
that you are, in effect at the moment, an interim leader, you haven't been
probably endorsed have you. I mean you really can't claim that a handful
of votes of parliamentarians and Executive members is an endorsement.
MCLEISH: I think what is important
is that the two contenders, myself and Jack McConnell did agree that in
the circumstances this would be the important decision, this would be the
decision that would bind us. He's taken that away from the decision and
so have I, but what I am concerned about now is not the margin of victory
but the fact we have a victory and we can now push forward. When you consider
that we've lost focus in politics because of the tragic events, I have
a number of immediate tasks to tackle which is what we intend to do.
HUMPHRYS: I'd like to come to some
of those tasks but let's just deal with this issue finally first. And the
problem that you are going to face is that it will be seen, is being seen
by some as a sort of old-fashioned backroom fix. I mean you didn't even
consult every single member of the Executive probably did you?
MCLEISH: No, I think that's not
correct John. I mean I think I've explained, which I think is straightforward
and common sense and I think the people will appreciate that, very difficult
circumstances, very tight timetable being set down. That said the full
Executive of the party was involved...
HUMPHRYS: But not each member,
not each member was asked..
MCLEISH: The full Scottish Executive
was involved in the ballot and of course all the MSPs were involved and
I think in the circumstances the party thought and I supported that, this
was the best way forward. We have democracy within the party, in those
set of circumstances this was the best way forward. But of course and this
is the caveat, we still have an electoral college which will have to confirm
or indeed have a contest for the leader and the deputy leader. That is
democracy in action.
HUMPHRYS: My point about the Executive
was that not every single member of it was consulted. Yes of course they
all had a vote but they weren't all consulted as to whether this was the
best way to do it or not, that was my point.
MCLEISH: But again, I think the
circumstances very much dictated what had to happen and at the end of the
day some people will feel that it should have gone strictly to electoral
college. That could have taken six, eight, maybe twelve weeks, in the circumstances
that was not a possibility. I think we've got a satisfactory compromise
at this stage but subject to the point that the full electoral college
will have to confirm the leader and of course there maybe an electoral
for the deputy leader.
HUMPHRYS: Well yeah, but I mean
the electoral college, it's all very well but all it can do, as you say,
is confirm, it's not going to be a contest. I mean why don't you get on
the phone now. Here's a way, let's see whether this appeals to you in an
exercise in democracy. You could get on the phone now and you could say
to Jack McConnell, look we've had this election, not by your own admission,
not entirely satisfactory because of the time during which it had to happen
and all that. Why don't you stand against me again at a proper electoral
college contest where everybody can get a vote and then that will really
prove it won't it. Why don't you do that?
MCLEISH: John, that may be an interesting
perspective on the lunchtime programme. But let me say this, first of all
it's not just a confirmation, anyone can stand if they wish and that's
still open, that's what democracy is about. But I think secondly....
HUMPHRYS: ...but Jack McConnell
is the only realistic one isn't he?
MCLEISH: ..but secondly, what is
important now is that we have refocused on the real issues, the real priorities
of politics in Scotland. We may have two or three by-elections coming up
within a matter of weeks, we could have a General Election within a matter
of months, it's vitally important that the party unites now and refocuses
and gets on with some of the real issues.
HUMPHRYS: But that's the point
isn't it. It's because of all those elections coming up that you don't
want to rock the boat, that's why you want just a straightforward confirmation
as opposed to a genuine challenge, which of course you would have if Mr
McConnell were to stand against you but he's not going to and that is why
people are able to say, like John Swinney, people are able to say - the
leader of the Scottish Nationalists - they are able to say, this is a bit
of a fix.
MCLEISH: I think John Swinney's
comments were not surprising, that's the nature of the SNP, a one policy
party, a protest party, a party of breaking Scotland up. That said it is
not a matter of merely asking the electoral college to confirm, they have
real choices, there can be a real contest. What Jack McConnell and I have
said is that there are real important issues, not a matter of rocking any
boat John, but actually saying now is the time to move forward after two
difficult political months and ten tragic days involving the death of Donald.
HUMPHRYS: Would you like to see
Jack McConnell stand against you at the electoral college, I mean it would
be a real contest wouldn't it.
MCLEISH: I think we've had a real
contest and I think when you consider...
HUMPHRYS: ...eighty-one people
able to vote...
MCLEISH: When you consider that
Jack McConnell and I have said in the circumstances this is the important
way to go forward and look John I think the important issue is this. People
who are MSPs can stand for the leader, it is not an automatic confirmation
but my hopeful message is that the party has got work to do but secondly
we may have a contest for the deputy leader so this is democracy in action
but any democratic process has got to reflect the changing circumstances.
Indeed there are very few situations in the United Kingdom over the last
fifty years where we've had such a tragic set of circumstances to deal
with and at the same time, allow conflicting pressures from the parliament
to be reconciled with conflicting pressures from the party. So I think
progress has been made.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, well, let's
look at some of those issues that you referred to and one of them, one
of the real problems in Scotland at the moment is the fiasco that there
was over the Highers results, the way all of that was mishandled. Now
an awful lot of people say Sam Galbraith should go. That's it - I mean
he made a mess of it and he should go. Are you going to make a clean sweep
if, when, you become confirmed as leader?
MCLEISH: We're looking at every
aspect of the work ahead John, that includes the cabinet, depute ministers,
it includes how we effectively communicate to the people of Scotland.
There's a whole range of issues. One of the key issues for me of course
is to get more backbench MSPs involved in the work of the project. That
said, I'll look
carefully at what's on the ground and I'm not in a position and certainly
wouldn't be in a position to discuss these matters at this stage.
HUMPHRYS: But I mean as far as
you yourself are concerned you were involved in that exam fiasco weren't
you. I mean you were running the Scottish Qualifications Authority, or
rather you were responsible for the Scottish Qualifications Authority.
You should be eating a bit of humble pie yourself shouldn't you?
MCLEISH: Well, I think all of us
eat humble pie John. I mean I think.....
HUMPHRYS: It's not a thing I've
noticed as a characteristic of politicians!
MCLEISH: Well, it may be up North
John, you might have to come and see us a bit more up here, but no, you're
right, this was an utter fiasco. The key issue is to make sure it doesn't
happen again. There are loads of issues that we've got to tackle with
the SQA itself, there are a number of issues concerning the education aspect,
but these are the subject of inquiries at the present time, these matters
will be resolved, but more importantly everyone is working very hard to
make sure that young people next year don't go through the nightmare of
this year.
HUMPHRYS: But you are part of the
blame, aren't you yourself, I mean that's the difficulty. You carry part
of the can for it?
MCLEISH: Well, we're all collectively
responsible at the end of the day, and I think that's not been hidden up
here, but I think the main point now in politics, you can own up as the
government has done here to a real fiasco, but more importantly the public
are concerned about getting it right. That's what we're doing at the present
time.
HUMPHRYS: Something else that people
regarded as a bit odd, indeed fiasco perhaps might be the word, is your
health spending up there, you under-spent your budget by what was it, thirty-four
million pounds. I mean this sort of thing is unheard of in politics as
a rule. People want more money spent not less. How can you absolutely
guarantee that that isn't going to happen again?
MCLEISH: John, it didn't happen
anyway. I think we're in a situation where we're spending record sums
of money on the Health Service, not only in the United Kingdom but in Scotland.
Very significant extra cash over the next three years. That will benefit
and improve services in every part of Scotland. I think that may be an
issue that you've picked up, but as far as the people of Scotland are concerned
we've got some great policies on health being pursued vigorously and it's
evident when you see the number of hospitals that we're going to open in
the future, the improvements in waiting times and a whole range of other
issues, so that's the big issue in Scotland, not the fact that in any one
year that you can look at expenditure and say it hasn't been spent. We're
just spending simply billions more than we were two or three years ago.
HUMPHRYS: But I mean why, you're
not telling me that that
sort of money wasn't needed in Scotland. I'll bet there's loads of people
who can tell you where and when and how it was needed.
MCLEISH: Well, that's right, and
it is being spent. I mean we're spending as I said, billions of pounds
extra over the next three years, and this has been the product of some
very, very good government at Westminster, sound public finances. And
what we've got in Scotland is a unique set of circumstances where we're
able to tackle child poverty for the first time, full employment, giving
everyone a job, and at the same time record levels of spending on health
and education. You may say there are some problems around, but on the
other hand there's some excellent opportunities for us to take that agenda
forward.
HUMPHRYS: And I would say there's
a problem with your new parliament building. It was supposed to cost what
was it, fifty million pounds - it's hit two hundred and thirty million
now, and still rising. What are you going to do about that?
MCLEISH: Well, I think we're doing
a great deal about that John, because what we've got being built at Holyrood
it's a wonderful site at the bottom of the Royal Mile, a unique location
for a unique parliament. After three hundred years there is a sense of
pride emerging about what's going to happen there. Clearly there've been
early problems about costs and technical issues, but we're now seeing that
mature and I think the debate will increasingly focus on what it will provide
for Scotland, that is one of my main tasks, to make sure that the pride
and purpose of the parliament are more to the fore rather than concentrating
on some of the problems of the past.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I'd have thought
that pride had it price, doesn't it. I mean, two-hundred and thirty million
pounds is an awful lot of money to spend on a building, and you can't guarantee
can you that it is not going to rise above two-hundred and thirty million
pounds, bearing in mind it was meant to be fifty.
MCLEISH: I think that that product
will be...will justify the investment in it.
HUMPHRYS: Even if it's more - might
it be more?
MCLEISH: I think that at the present
time John there's firm management, they've got a vision for the project,
great architectural designs, it's moving forward. Of course there were
difficulties in the early days, but when you consider in ninety-seven we
were elected, we had to get a White Paper, a referendum, a bill, and act
to get it all forward. In addition to that the early day of designing
and planning the parliament. I think when you step back from the Scotland
project you can see that after three hundred years this is quite a phenomenal
accomplishment. I just hope now to build on the legacy that Donald has
left and try with colleagues to develop that further.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I wonder whether
that's true, certainly as far as the Labour Party is concerned. I mean
devolution was going to be a good thing for your party as well as for Scotland
of course. I mean every politician has selfish interests. The fact is
it doesn't seem to be doing you very much good at all does it? I mean
look at your standing in the polls, as far as the SNP is concerned with
the Holyrood Parliament. I mean they're hammering you at the moment according
to the polls, and of course polls change, but nonetheless it's not done
you any favours has it?
MCLEISH: Well, I think John, when
you look at this in the round, the achievement of the parliament has been
widely welcomed in Scotland and a resounding success, but of course you
don't start up an institution as enormous as that without some early difficulties,
and we've had some and let's be honest enough to admit that. But on the
other hand we're now deciding major issues in Scotland with Scottish elected
representatives and working more closely with the people of Scotland, and
let's remember that from the SNP point of view they don't want devolution,
they just want the breaking up of the United Kingdom, they want a seat
on every world authority. That would involve enormous costs at a time
when we need to be unified and get the best out of devolution. So I've
no doubt that the people in Scotland appreciate what's happening, devolution
is and will be a huge success, and I'm quite willing in my new role to
take that argument to every part of Scotland where I'm sure it will be
endorsed, especially in the run up to the general election.
HUMPHRYS: Henry McLeish, thank
you very much indeed.
MCLEISH: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: And I was speaking to
Mr McLeish a little earlier this morning.
Three weeks to go
before the deadline set by the fuel protestors expires. And then they'll
be back on the barricades and we'll all be queuing for petrol again, or
will we? The government is taking a firm stand this time, or so it says,
and will not give in to blackmail. The Chancellor is going to reveal his
pre-Budget report any time now. Terry Dignan has been looking at what
Mr Brown is offering, and whether it will prove acceptable.
TERRY DIGNAN: Preparing for the first journey
of the day at a haulier's depot in Huntingdon. The outlook for the economy
here, as elsewhere, is bright. But not for hauliers.
The Government is desperate to wipe away memories of the fuel blockades
when Labour was seen as arrogant and out of touch. So Gordon Brown's dilemma
is acute. If he does cut fuel taxes, the Government will be accused of
doing the one thing it said it wouldn't do - give into blackmail. But do
nothing and ministers again risk the wrath of hauliers, farmers - and voters.
The train from Huntingdon arrives in London. On board, one of the hauliers'
leaders, John Bridge. During the blockades his drivers joined protests
in the capital. He's come here to join a delegation of hauliers and farmers
meeting Treasury ministers. The Government blames world oil prices for
the high cost of their fuel. They blame the Government, saying the public
backs hauliers' complaints that more than seventy pence of every pound
spent on fuel goes to the Treasury.
JOHN BRIDGE: My message is very clear.
It is fuel duty, fuel duty, fuel duty. That is what has got to be dealt
with. And nothing else will suffice. I don't think that the Government
has any option and, clearly, they risk very drastic consequences if they
ignore not only our industry but now most of the people in the United Kingdom.
DIGNAN: Farmers enjoy lower duties
but only on red diesel used on agricultural land. Day-to-day supplies and
deliveries are made by hauliers who are passing on their rising fuel costs.
Here in Nottinghamshire farmers' leaders say it's a further blow to a
struggling industry. So they support hauliers' demands for an immediate
15p per litre cut in diesel used by lorries.
PETER GADD: Things like fertilizers, things
like fuel itself. Things like animal feeding stuffs, all come to the farm
by road haulage, and the potential from increased haulage costs passed
back to the farmer directly, is significant in the recent rise in fuel
prices. Not only haulage to the farm, but haulage away from the farm.
DIGNAN: In a quiet cul-de-sac in
a London suburb, a group representing motorists also lobby against high
fuel prices - using the internet. They want 10p off the duty on a litre
of petrol. The Conservatives promise a 3p reduction. Not enough, say these
campaigners. But at least it's a start. And Labour should take heed. Failure
to cut the tax could trigger another sharp fall in the party's popularity.
GARRY RUSSELL: During the last direct action,
the Conservatives actually took a lead which was unheard of for the past
few years, for certain. And if you think in terms of the present Government,
it will have an election next year, there was a huge amount of anti-Government
sentiment that runs through the country, certainly from people that support
the various fuel protests.
DIGNAN: At John Bridge's depot
no driver can be certain about his future. The economy's on course to produce
fifteen billion pounds of extra tax revenue. It could pay for cuts in fuel
duties. But Labour MP's say there are more important priorities.
CALUM MACDONALD, MP: The Government has got a whole range
of priorities that it has to try to tackle. Its got its investment programmes
- massive investment programmes - in education, in health, in transport
itself, in a range of public services, which the public want to see happen.
It's got to try to help pensioners, its got to try to tackle the problems
of the inner city.
CARL EMMERSON: The fact that taxes on petrol
have continued to go up but motorists are still buying fuel, means that
its a very good revenue raiser for the Treasury. In total it raises about
twenty-two billion pounds. That's one of the largest taxes in the UK. And
it also means if the government wants to cut it, its going to be expensive,
it would have to find the money from somewhere else.
DIGNAN: And according to Nottingham
MP Alan Simpson, it could also send the wrong message about reducing traffic
pollution, said to cause global warming. While ministers appear reluctant
to argue that high fuel duties are meant to deter vehicle use, this Labour
politician believes taxation is a powerful weapon against global warming.
ALAN SIMPSON, MP: Climate change is a direct consequence
of the way we have been using recklessly, the fossil fuel resources that
the planet has. And it's starting to kick back, and if we want to understand
the real priorities of our time, its to begin to repair the damage and
to change our whole view about transport systems. We need those revenues
to pay for a huge investment in public transport infrastructures.
DIGNAN: If the Chancellor decides
against an across-the-board cut in fuel taxation, is there anything he
can offer hauliers - and farmers and motorists. Well, there might be, because
the Government is currently considering a series of measures to try to
take the sting out of the issue. It could choose to cut Vehicle Excise
Duty for smaller cars. Some Labour MPs also want rebates on the tax for
motorists in rural areas who have little choice but to use a car. This
would especially help those on low incomes.
MACDONALD: We could use post codes to target
help towards motorists who live in remote rural areas. So, if you lived
in one of those post codes, you'd be eligible for a reduction on your Vehicle
Excise Duty.
SIMPSON: What do you do at the
dividing line between the street that gets the concession and the street
that doesn't. How do you stop people saying oh well I'm just moving across
here. It just doesn't work.
DIGNAN: Hauliers, too, are trying
to position themselves as a special case. They say they can't compete with
foreign operators who pay much lower fuel duties. An essential user rebate
would allow them to claim back the difference between the UK and the Continental
price of fuel.
BRIDGE: In France they use a particular
method whereby you can claim back on so many litres per year and there
are proper forms and procedures for doing it. The bus industry has a, formula
which is based on tachographs. The administrative factor is not a problem.
EMMERSON: This would clearly be
cheaper than cutting taxes for everybody, but it would still have quite
a considerable cost. Because, as you might expect, a lot of the miles driven
in the UK are done by hauliers. And also it would be very difficult to
square environmentally.
DIGNAN: The Government might try
to meet the haulage industry halfway. The Freight Transport Association
- and the farmers - want to cut both fuel and road taxes. While fearing
the environmental cost of cutting fuel duty, some Labour MP's favour reducing
hauliers' Vehicle Excise Duty if they minimise pollution from their engines.
SIMPSON: What we have to be saying
to hauliers is whether it's reduced pollution on existing engine types,
or whether it's the introduction of new fuel systems altogether, the concessions
have to be environmentally connected.
DIGNAN: Hauliers also want Government
action against unfair competition from abroad. They say foreign hauliers
should be taxed when they arrive here, although under EU law British lorries
would have to pay too. Stricter checks on foreign vehicles are also demanded
with stiffer penalties for breaches of environmental and safety standards.
SIMPSON: Well, hauliers are legitimate
in claiming that it would be a real help if Britain had the same rigorous
approach to both testing and taxing the most polluting of vehicles. We
owe them that level playing field.
DIGNAN: There's little sign yet
ministers will meet hauliers' demand for cuts in duty at the pump. Concerned
there are too many hauliers and not enough orders, ministers may try to
restructure the industry by increasing the cost of a licence to new entrants.
Yet this, and other measures, might not be enough to satisfy those who
protested against high fuel taxes.
Here at Westminster Gordon Brown will be taking a calculated risk if he
decides to reject calls by motorists, hauliers and farmers to cut the price
of fuel. Instead Mr Brown may attempt to buy off one group in particular,
the hauliers, with a series of complex measures to help their industry.
But if the hauliers are unimpressed will they again try to bring Britain
grinding to a halt.
The meeting with the minister at the Treasury lasts an hour. The hauliers
leave without a promise that fuel taxes will be cut. But they're convinced
the Government has got the message that other issues are of secondary importance.
BRIDGE: I don't think the minister
can be in any doubt whatsoever, that that is the key issue, the one issue
they've got to address, and that they ignore that at their peril.
JOHN STEARS: All we'd like the Government
to do is come back with more talks, and listen more so when this sixty-day
deadline comes up, no haulier has to go out there and protest.
CLIVE HOYLAND: There's none of my colleagues
here asked them to go and do it, they did it spontaneously. We can't be
responsible if they act spontaneously again, if the government don't come
forward with a positive solution to the problem we've presented to them.
DIGNAN: Ministers are determined
this time to keep the tankers moving. They've learnt from September's crisis.
They don't intend allowing protestors to bring the country to a standstill.
There's also a doubt over whether there's the stomach for more direct action.
A package falling short of a cut in duty may be enough to buy off discontent.
But it's a strategy fraught with uncertainty.
MACDONALD: The Government is right to say
that there will not be simply giving in, to economic blackmail. Whether
its from hauliers or from any other group. I think that is absolutely the
right approach to take.
PETER GADD: I can see people that have
got basically nothing to lose that are going out of business, because they
are so frustrated while they're back in their own farms trying to struggle
to keep their businesses alive. They're going to take their own individual
action.
RUSSELL: It just seems, incredible
that the, the Government have just taken the line of how are we going to
keep the fuel supplies moving, rather than what are we going to do about
trying to pacify the huge amount of people that feel that fuel is too expensive.
DIGNAN: The world oil markets can't
be relied on to come to the Government's rescue with prices at record levels.
There's growing pressure to reduce fuel duty using the extra revenue from
faster economic growth. Ministers would rather spend the money on other
causes. That could mean facing down those who would reject anything other
than a cut in the duty on fuel.
HUMPHRYS: Terry Dignan reporting.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The ruling body of the Ulster
Unionist Party - the council - is holding a special meeting at the end
of the week to decide what to do about the flagging peace process. But
the real business of the meeting is what to do about David Trimble, the
leader. The party is divided over whether to keep him or whether to get
rid of him because he has not taken a firm enough stand with Sinn Fein
and the British government. It's not the first time Mr Trimble's future
has been called into question. He was challenged for the leadership in
March by the Reverend Martin Smyth. Mr Smyth is in our Belfast studio.
Mr Smyth, what is the
point of this meeting. You're not going to get the IRA to give up its
weapons unless the peace process, the Good Friday Agreement continues and
Mr Trimble says he needs more time.
MARTYN SMYTH: Well with respect to everyone
especially the government and the United States' government, they have
entered into a scheme, a peace process which I always call a political
process, because it was not moving towards peace because right through
concessions have been made to terrorists to such an extent that the retiring
ACC responsible for Belfast has today according to the press, said he reported
in July two-thirds of this city was controlled by paramilitaries. We have
created a Mafiosi, and what we're saying to David Trimble, it's the only
way we can express our views, that you said David at the conference that
John Taylor was given three months, you weren't giving them three months.
We're asking for action, we are actually saying that it is near time that
the government saw that those we are causing the problems in Ulster and
actually adding to the economic problems with the smuggling rackets that
are going on costing the Treasury something like four-hundred-and-fifty
million pounds at least a year in lost revenue in Northern Ireland alone.
It's at that level we're
saying it's near time that the Sinn Fein - SDLP who said that if the Sinn
Fein IRA did not implement the agreement two years have gone when it should
have been implemented, we're now six months down the road and the only
thing that's happened in that six months down the road to next June's deadline
is that several arms dumps have been actually inspected. There is no inventories
actually taken, and we don't even know where they were, and it is suspected
from all accounts that they are old arms and that new weapons are now being
used.
HUMPHRYS: So what is your deadline.
Are you talking about a matter of weeks now or what?
SMYTH: I'm saying that David would
be asked I'm sure when is his deadline because the latest coming through
from some of his supporters is that they're now talking about March, not
within the three months that David Trimble spoke to us....
HUMPHRYS: And you wouldn't settle
for that?
SMYTH: I don't believe that the
country can settle for that because we have developed a Mafiosi which is
destroying our country irrespective of whether we come from a Roman Catholic
or a Protestant community, we're seeing death and destruction continuing
on the street as these men flaunt the law because the law has been soft
pedalled to try to placate terrorists.
HUMPHRYS: So, if the deadline isn't
met, the original deadline that was set isn't met and we are talking just
about weeks now aren't we, then what you are saying is that's it.
SMYTH: I'm saying that the council
will be asked to vote on a motion which I haven't yet seen, but I suspect
it will be a balanced motion. It is not about coming out of the executive,
it is not about destroying the agreement, it is actually asking people
to implement what they signed up to and to maintain proper democracy in
Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
HUMPHRYS: But it would mean the
destruction in the end of the executive wouldn't it because what - and
indeed of the agreement because what the agreement insists on is power-sharing,
a power-sharing executive, so if Sinn Fein is slung out of it because it
hasn't given up its - the IRA hasn't given up its weapons then that is
in practical terms, that's the end of it isn't it?
SMYTH: With respect it shouldn't
be, because Tony Blair himself assured Parliament and assured the leader
of the Ulster Unionists that if it wasn't being implemented according to
the agreement then he would take steps to see that it was. And all we're
asking is that if people have not decommissioned, if they've not turned
to support the legal weapons of the state, if they're not turned in that
direction there's something wrong that two ministers from that faction
has over sixty per cent of the budget of the Northern Ireland consolidated
front at their disposal, there's something wrong and it's near time that
there was deliverance on it. It's not a question actually of destroying
the executive, the executive under the D'Hondt principle can be re-run
with those who have not lived up to their commitments. Outside it, they
are still within the assembly, they can still be on the committees, nobody's
arguing about that. We're asking for the implementation - by the way when
people will say, but the Loyalists have not decommissioned, we say, quite
right, they haven't and we've been against that as well. We say that all
weapons except the lawful weapons of the state should be out of commission.
HUMPHRYS: If David Trimble sticks
to the policies that he has already enunciated, if he doesn't do what this,
what, what you would like to see him do, then, and he is voted down, should
he resign?
SMYTH: I believe he will have to
make that decision when it comes, he may decide that he no longer has the
confidence of the Council, but if he has the confidence of his Assembly
party, he may decide to go in that direction and we would refute his allegations
that we cannot take decisions because we lost a seat in Southampton, we're
saying that we should be taking decisions, because those with whom we entered
into agreements have not fulfilled them, whereas as Unionists, we have
fulfilled ours.
HUMPHRYS: You believe clearly from,
based on that answer that the answer to my question is yes, he should go.
SMYTH: I believe that he will have
to make a decision, what he wants, if the Council actually vote against
his policy at this moment.
HUMPHRYS: And your view, of the
decision he should take is that he should go.
SMYTH: I would say that he will
have to change his policies to abide by the policies of the Council, which
they agreed and he was the one who led them in that direction and has slipped
right along the way yielding to the pressures of America, and by the way,
there are no votes for any of our constituencies really in Washington,
or in the United States.
HUMPHRYS: In practical terms, again,
it would be inconceivable wouldn't it, for a man, a leader of a party,
to say, those are my policies, vote for them, if they reject them, he can't
then say, well alright, I'll change my policy, he can't do that, can he?
So in practice, if that vote goes against him, and I gather you believe
it will go against him, that's the end of Mr. Trimble, isn't it?
SMYTH: I would say that that is
a possibility, but since he says he's not a quitter, we've got to wait
and see what happens next Saturday.
HUMPHRYS: And, just into the last
thirty-seconds that we have, would you yourself, you have stood against
him once of course, you ran him a very, very close second, would you stand
against him again?
SMYTH: I have said that I am ruling
nothing in and nothing out, and it will be up to the Council to make their
decision of what they want.
HUMPHRYS: So there is the possibility,
we are facing the possibility that Mr. Trimble will be forced out, that
you might indeed yourself, or somebody else will take over from him and
that could effectively could be the end of the Good Friday Agreement, couldn't
it?
SMYTH: Well, it was a Belfast agreement,
we get away from this emotionalism about Good Friday because the only Good
Friday agreement I am aware of was when Herod and Pilot actually joined
together to crucify the carpenter of Nazareth who I own as my Lord.
HUMPHRYS: Martin Smyth, thank you
very much indeed.
And that's it for this week. Before we go, a reminder about our web-site,
for those of you on the internet, you can see it there at the bottom of
the screen. We are back to our usual time next week, that's twelve-o-clock,
until then, good-afternoon.
...oooOOOooo...
23
FoLdEd
|