|
====================================================================================
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:
05.11.00
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The
government's going to reveal the next stage in its anti-drugs campaign
this week. I'll be asking Mo Mowlem if this is a war they can win without
changing their strategy.
And Britain's
bosses tell the government: our costs are too high. I'll be asking Stephen
Byers what he's going to do about that. That's after the news read by
Peter Sissons.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Britain's bosses
are meeting this week for the annual conference of the CBI. Later in the
programme I'll be talking to the Trade and Industry Secretary, Stephen
Byers about why they're getting so cross with the government.
But first, drugs.
On Tuesday the government's drugs czar Keith Hellawell will present his
annual report. He will tell us how well they've been doing in combating
the threat of drugs in this country. And he'll tell us about the next
stage in this "successful" strategy. But is it successful? More of our
young people are using soft drugs like cannabis today than in any other
European country. The Cabinet Office Minister co-ordinating drugs policy
is Mo Mowlam.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Doctor Mowlam, good news,
is this what we're going to hear today, or on Tuesday rather from Keith
Hellawell, and from you I daresay?
MO MOWLAM: Well, what you will hear is
that we have a ten-year strategy in place and we are beginning to make
progress. Drug addiction is a problem that isn't solved in weeks or months,
it takes time and what you'll hear from Keith and from others is that we
have the strategy in place and we are beginning to make progress. Let
me give you two quick examples. One is that in terms of what we call drug
treatment, testing and treatment orders, where young people if they're
taken into custody for drugs and taken to court can choose not to go to
prison but can go on a drug treatment scheme. Now if they do that we,
on the pilot's we've done about eighty per cent success rate of them not
going back. Now with that we're going to roll that out across the country
along with rest referrals which happens at the bail stage, again we've
got a pilot on that and some incredible results. So those are very clear
results. Another good example is that we're beginning to do better with
co-ordination between our intelligence, our police, our customs. To this
year we had a thirty-three per cent increase in what we managed to seize
before it came in, that was about a million pound's worth, and across Europe
we're working - we're working very hard with our European neighbours to
seek, because drugs cross boundaries and we've go to stop them coming in
to all European countries and between us stopped forty-three tonnes of
coke and fourteen tonnes of heroin in Europe last year. So we're beginning
to make progress, it's not quick, we're not complacent, we've got a long
way to go but we are beginning with the structure in place of drug action
teams in every district council area, with joined up teams between home,
office and other departments of Health and Education.
We've got a wonderful
scheme happening called Positive Futures where we've taken money from -
that we've confiscated from traffickers, we've recycled it back into a
programme for young people so they don't have to take the peer group pressure
of drugs on the street, truancy etcetera, policy in the round that says
in conjunction with local football teams, basket-ball, baseball, young
kids are being taken off the streets and on to a positive future. We've
got a wonderful one on Teesside called Reach for Success, and I know it's
working because many of the kids that I used to see on the streets in some
of my poorest neighbourhoods in my constituency, I now go and see how
Reach for Success is doing and they come up to me and say: Hey, look what
I'm doing. And you know that the one thing that addicts often lack is confidence
in the feelings that they're doing something they can respect themselves
for. It's wonderful.
HUMPHRYS: I want to touch on several
of those things later, but you mention heroin and cocaine in that answer.
Is part of the reason why you think you're beginning to get somewhere
now that you seem to be, the Government seems to be taking a slightly different
approach towards drugs, and that's to say no longer trying to pretend that
all drugs heroin and cocaine, are the same as all other drugs, cannabis,
softer drugs for instance. Is this part of what's going on here?
MOWLAM: No. Are you implying in
some way John that our strategy, the ten year strategy has changed. The
ten year strategy is always applied to all drugs, but what there was, was
an emphasis on the hard drugs, the killers, heroin and cocaine. So that
emphasis hasn't changed but if , I think that you're probably referring
to our cream announcement this week where we said that in the night-clubs
of this country the Just Say No policy, which has never been ours, is being
expanded to provide information, because if young people don't listen
to the arguments about not taking drugs, but go ahead in clubs and do so,
it seems to me practical common sense that you put leaflets out saying
these are the impacts of that. That's what we're doing.
HUMPHRYS: But it's gone a bit further
than that hasn't it. I mean Keith Hellawell himself said in October:
I've never thought if you take cannabis you end up injecting heroin and
one of your own colleagues, whose son tragically died as a result of taking
drugs, said Just Say No doesn't work, I wish it did. I mean this does
imply a very clear difference in emphasis.
MOWLAM: No. It says Just Say No
has never been our policy. It was the Tories'. I was listening to one
of the Tory ministers on the telly this morning, it seems not to be theirs
anymore, but it has never been ours. Ours has always been, you have to
deal with the problem in the round, poor neighbourhoods, crime, poor housing
leads to problems where people are more exposed to drugs. What we have
to do is make sure that we deal with the root causes which we are trying
to do, and one of the main aspects of dealing with the drug problem is
better treatment.
HUMPHRYS: But there is another
aspect isn't there, and that is that many people feel there should be a
slightly different approach. I mean the Daily Mail did a survey, and that
wouldn't surprise you I daresay as much as it would surprise anybody else.
I mean Daily Mail readers and here we are saying, six out of ten of them
saying that the personal use of cannabis should not be treated as a criminal
offence
MOWLAM: Yes, but two points. The
first is that we haven't changed our strategy. We have always had bits
that say we've got to deal with the reality on the ground. That is why
Just Say No is not the only one, we're talking about education, we now
have eighty-six per cent of our secondary schools in a drug programme,
seventy-five per cent of our Primaries with a good preventative message,
and in addition to that, we have always focussed on cocaine and heroin
as the big killers and we treat cannabis as a drug that is part of the
drugs that must be dealt with, but we are acknowledging the fact that it
may not be an addictive process but the scientific evidence is not yet
available to suggest that some people say the cannabis leads to taking
heroin. Well, it could be that the pusher who gives people cannabis finds
that heroin - tells them heroin is three pounds cheaper, why not try that?
So we don't know the causal factors, but what we're making very clear
is our policy will be based on factual scientific evidence, and if that
changes we'll look at it. But that goes for the area you're talking about.
HUMPHRYS: But I mean we used to
be told that one whiff of wacky baccy meant you were going to end up injecting
heroin in you know, the next five years or something. That isn't accepted
any longer as you say, and you might even argue might you not, that one
whiff of wacky baccy or whatever you want to call the stuff is better than
to pluck a figure out of the air - fourteen pints of beer?
MOWLAM: Er - Far be from me - no,
let's be clear that I think the wacky baccy one whiff ending in heroin
has always been an over-statement. We base our policies on scientific
fact and evidence and we don't base it on that. Your second point that
there are damaging effects of alcohol, amphetamines is absolutely true
and the effects of long-term addiction to alcohol are much worse than the
evidence available now, although it's not conclusive, on the long-term
effects of cannabis.
HUMPHRYS: So shouldn't we make
it a little bit more explicit than we have done then as a matter of public
policy?
MOWLAM: Well I think we are making
it explicit that we concentrated on heroin and cocaine but that we don't
condone the smoking of cannabis. It is illegal, but as I say we are looking
at the facts and we base our policy on evidence and facts, and if it changes
we'll look at it. We're looking at the moment, let me say John in Europe,
where there's a whole host of different approaches being taken by European
countries, that as you said at the beginning, are suffering from young
people addicted to drugs, but not as high as ours, and they're trying a
whole host of things, some are tougher than ours, their policies are tougher
than ours, others are looking at legalisation, others are looking at decriminalisation.
HUMPHRYS: But you don't need to
go to Europe in a sense, do you. I mean, you can look here, where you
see different police forces with completely different attitudes. I mean
you said you don't condone, but what I was suggesting, not condoning it,
one would hardly expect a Cabinet Minister to sit here and say, I think
it's a jolly good idea to go out and get a spliff after the programme or
something. But it's a question of how you approach it, isn't it. And
we have some Chief Constables saying, yes I take it seriously, we have
others saying absolutely no. We had the Chief Constable of Cumbria, Colin
Phillips, saying I wouldn't do anything if I saw cannabis being smoked,
it is inevitable in due course that legalisation will happen. Well now
this is a Chief Constable in this country.
MOWLAM: Yes and he's not the first.
And the Runciman Report made the point exactly the same as Colin Phillips.
HUMPHRYS: Did you approve of the
Runciman Report?
MOWLAM: I think it was a very useful
report, but the overall response of the government were rejection of certain
recommendations and not of others, but I thought she'd done a very good
job. But let me say yes there are different interpretations of the law
in different parts of the country, which I think is very unhelpful, but
we're looking at the research, we're looking at the evidence, we're looking
at the material that is available so that we can see which is the best
way forward. The scientific evidence on addiction of cannabis that people
say it happens, with cannabis, that they do end up addicted...
HUMPHRYS: ...some say, others don't.
MOWLAM: ...some say, others don't.
We're looking at that evidence. We're looking at the evidence from other
countries and as Jack Straw said, I think it was yesterday, he says this
very often, we base our present policy on the evidence and facts we have
and if those change we'll look at it.
HUMPHRYS: So if the preponderance
of scientific evidence over the next six months, year, whatever it happens
to be, said on balance, there is no great case to be made for cannabis
use, leading, you know the question that's coming...
MOWLAM: ...I know what's coming...
HUMPHRYS: ...cannabis users leading
to heroin addiction, for instance. The government is perfectly prepared
to say, we will not legalise it, not condone it, but we will stop prosecuting
its use.
MOWLAM: I think the best answer
to that is we've..I've made the position clear that we'll look at the evidence
and facts and I think it best to leave it to the point that that decision
is made. It won't just be made by me...
HUMPHRYS: ...I know but...
MOWLAM: ...it will be made by a
whole host and I think that, I can't answer that now, without having talked
it through with colleagues.
HUMPHRYS: Quite so, but I mean...
MOWLAM: You're asking me to pre-judge
the outcome of what I've just said.
HUMPHRYS: Well, not really because
there would be no point, would there, in pursuing this approach, in other
words saying we are now going to take a very serious look. I mean, until
now let's be honest about it, until now, the approach of governments has
been to say, cannabis bad, forget it. We're going to prosecute its use
and it's..and all the rest of it and that's that. No arguing about it.
MOWLAM: And that is our position
now.
HUMPHRYS: But, but your position
has changed as I understand you this morning to this extent and what you're
saying this morning is we are looking at the scientific evidence here.
MOWLAM: We always have John.
HUMPHRYS: Well no with greatest
respect, I think previous ministers to whom I have spoken have said, now
look, there is absolutely no, this is not a matter of debate even, cannabis
is illegal and it's going to stay illegal and now you're saying
we are looking at the scientific facts, clearly with the implication there
that things may change if the scientific evidence suggests a change in
course.
MOWLAM: But I don't see your first
two points as contradictory. You're trying to make this point that we're
different, we've shifted. When you say that we are staying...that cannabis
stays illegal, it does. The ten-year strategy stays in place.
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
MOWLAM: But you wouldn't expect
every government to ignore, when you make policy on the basis of facts
and scientific research, we do that with GM..
HUMPHRYS: Well, fine, exactly....
MOWLAM: ...we do it with drugs,
we do it across the board.
HUMPHRYS: ...well in that case...
MOWLAM: ...we're not a closed government
to new ideas, but it doesn't mean that any decision has been made and it
doesn't mean that I can pre-judge any review of the facts now...
HUMPHRYS: ...no, I fully understand
that, but the point I am really trying to make is this, clearly the public
mood has changed, there's no doubt about that is there, the public attitude
has changed, every single poll tells that is the case and indeed the police
attitudes have changed, that also is quite clear. Given all of that and
indeed many political attitudes have changed if you talk to people privately
as opposed ...so given all of that, isn't it now time to say, bearing in
mind that you are prepared to listen very seriously to scientific evidence.
Isn't it time to say, let's have another look at the possibility of some
sort of Commission, a Royal Commission, or whatever it may be, to consider
the issue of soft drug use.
MOWLAM: I don't think there's a
point for a Royal Commission. We've had the select committee of the Lords,
we've had the Runciman Report, I think a Royal Commission is a waste of
space because we've had commissions looking at it, and I think we ought
to just look at the evidence of which is coming from Europe, which is coming
from research being done here and in many other countries and that is what
we should use for the basis of policy making. Now, that's what we do in
a lot of policy areas and it's nothing very different.
HUMPHRYS: But you're keeping an
open mind, I mean that's the essence of this.
MOWLAM: Well, if I say I'm keeping
an open mind, it'll be portrayed as we're changing policy, if I don't say
I've got an open mind, it'll be portrayed as we're not listening. We do
what we do in all policy areas, which is look at the facts, look at the
evidence and keep an ongoing review taking place and if it changes radically,
we'll clearly look at what's said.
HUMPHRYS: You talked about testing
and treatment earlier. One of the problems seems to be that pretty well
everybody who now comes into contact with the law in one way or another,
not if you've got a parking fine or something, but the criminal law, gets
treated, gets tested and then maybe with a bit of luck later, will get
treated. It can take a very very long time indeed even for the assessment
properly to take place, wouldn't it again be sensible to distinguish between
hard and soft drugs here. There is not a great deal of point in testing
somebody for cannabis, apart from anything else cannabis stays in the blood
for a very long time indeed, shouldn't you be taking a slightly different
approach here as well.
MOWLAM: Well, I think it's up to
the prison services around the country that now have a variety of programmes
in place and they will, they'll make their own priorities in terms of the
resources they have. So if they have so many treatment units, they will
then use them accordingly to the level of demand they have. And they will
make their own distinguishes...distinctions between different drugs, different
drug...different drugs that people come into prison with. But the underlying
problem we have in this area, whether it be people being tested in prisons,
or people referring themselves or their doctor, or self-referral in communities,
is we don't have enough beds, your first point.
HUMPHRYS: Yes.
MOWLAM: Now is some areas of the
country we do. Some, there aren't waiting lists, in other parts of the
country there are. Now we've just responded to this by, we treat I guess,
latest estimates I've seen is sixty-thousand people we treat. Now, the
demand that we have as far as we count people walking in off the streets,
etcetera, they don't walk in off too many streets in the same areas, as
there's different units, but it's about a hundred thousand. We've just
put ninety-four million in place, so that the treatment can increase for
prisons and across the country and that should mean another thirty-thousand
treatments being available. It doesn't match the hundred thousand but
that should deal with what is a serious problem at the moment, that somebody
wants to be referred and the treatment isn't available. By the middle
of next year I hope to be able to say to you, if I'm still here doing this,
which I won't be, that this is a problem of the past.
HUMPHRYS: Keith Hellawell wants
to see many more people tested and he talked about politics as well and
he said why not ministers, that should include everybody, himself and indeed
he said the Cabinet, "we mean everyone" I quote from him. Good idea?
MOWLAM: I think random testing
on a voluntary basis at the place of work is not a handicap, but if it's
voluntary and random then it's for people themselves to choose.
HUMPHRYS: Would you go along with
that idea for yourself. I mean popping on Tuesday morning and having a
quick test for whatever it is?
MOWLAM: Yeah of course but that
wasn't the point of it. The point of it was to do what we can be it at
the workplace, be it the education at the schools, be it prisons, be it
confiscating the health authorities. That we do everything we can to tackle
a really serious problem which isn't going to have a uni-causal origins,
we've got to do whatever we can to cut the drug population down. I think
it would do for drug and drink in the workplace, I think there are certain
occupations where it is more necessary. People who drive, our fire-fighters,
ambulance fighters, police. I think that would be random, voluntary, but
it would have some use.
HUMPHRYS: ...and MPs because we
see from The Sunday Times this morning that apparently you've all been
snorting cocaine in the loos and all that. I say you've all been - present
company excepted of course. A slight exaggeration I grant you...
MOWLAM: ...a gross exaggeration...
HUMPHRYS: ..they did find evidence
of cocaine in some of the loos at Westminster..
MOWLAM: ..they found evidence in
one loo and as I understand it from what I've read but I haven't read the
full detail, two lines as it's called. Now I don't consider that you can
say they've all been snorting coke in the House of Commons, there's some
evidence that somebody was, we don't even know it was an MP. But if that
means that random testing would help solve the problem, I would support
random voluntary testing.
HUMPHRYS: What's the point of voluntary,
if you've been doing it you won't agree to be tested will you?
MOWLAM: No, but if people aren't
tested and it's quite clear that they are outside of it, then I think signals
will be given. What we are trying to do is get a balance between the individual
freedom that people have to make choices in their own lives and do what
they want and at the same time do what we can to stop a serious problem
with addiction which kills. We are focussing on young people but it goes
throughout the age groups, we want to see what we can do to help. We are
doing a lot internationally too, not just co-operating with countries.
I've spent..a visit to Columbia twice recently because that's our main,
seventy four to seventy five per cent of our coke and much more of that
of our heroin comes from Columbia and we are trying hard to see what we
can do to support Columbia in trying to cut supply to help them with their
army, their police force...
HUMPHRYS: They want more money
don't they, they want help from people like us, our country, we're not
going to give it to them are we?
MOWLAM: No, what they want, I mean
they've got a lot of money from America. What they need is help in the
talks because you are not going to make progress with the drugs until you
get peace, so there's a whole host of areas and we are helping not by throwing
money at the problem but by talking to the government, helping with the
peace talks, helping by suggesting individuals that could talk to their
generals, to help in the Army. We are trying to put practical changes
on the ground, we have some money in Europe and Europe is committed to
helping in countries like Columbia that produce the drugs for everybody
in Europe and we may put some European money in. But, we as a country
are trying to get..the money from Europe will be, if you can get the campesinos
and the peasants to stop growing coke and to stop growing poppies you have
to give them something else. So we are looking at alternative economic
packages so that their lives aren't dependant on guerrilla threats to keep
growing those drugs.
HUMPHRYS: Mo Mowlam, thank you
very much indeed.
MOWLAM: Thank you very much John.
HUMPHRYS: This week the men and women
who run Britain's biggest companies are meeting in Birmingham for the annual
conference of the Confederation of British Industry, the CBI. They will
use the occasion to deliver a message to the government. In a nutshell:
We need help and you must get off our backs. We are over-regulated and
over-taxed and the strength of the pound is crippling us. I'll be talking
to the Trade and Industry Secretary Stephen Byers after this report from
Iain Watson.
IAIN WATSON: When we come to remember,
remember the 5th of November 2000, it may be as much for the floods and
the transport chaos as bonfire night. But businesses are much more worried
about the underlying costs which companies face. The high price of fuel,
an uncompetitive pound against the Euro and to make matters worse, they
say the government is stoking up discontent by piling on costly regulations.
There's been a long tradition
of challenging the government in Britain. But, over the centuries, the
methods have changed somewhat. The CBI are saying the government has simply
lost the plot when it comes to intervening in industry, introducing fifteen
major pieces of employment legislation since 1997 and the TUC say the government
should listen more to the voice of the workers than the bosses but both
sides are capable of ganging up when it comes to criticising the Government's
record on helping industry.
DIGBY JONES: To have a regulatory frame
work that becomes more burdensome by the day, is very damaging, not maybe,
it is damaging to the growth of the UK economy.
JOHN MONKS: At the moment they're crying
about red tape, when what they should be crying about is an over valued
pound, a lack of skills in this country and a productivity gap that's alarmingly
wide compared to France, Germany and the United States.
WATSON: The biggest employers'
organisation, the CBI, say regulation is a problem and their member companies
are more concerned than ever about the impact of the government's employment
laws. These give workers new rights, but business says those rights come
at a price. They're having to bear the cost of administration. In a new
CBI survey, fewer than one per cent of companies felt the administrative
burden had decreased over the past year, twelve and a half per cent of
those surveyed said it had remained constant. But 86.7% - nearly nine out
of every ten companies - believe that the impact of the government's employment
policies was hitting them harder than before, diverting resources from
running their businesses.
JONES: At the end of the day a
lot of that energy and enthusiasm is being dissipated in to complying with
administration, complying with regulation and what worries me, is if we
carry on like this, they will start to actually ignore it
WATSON: Those concerns are reflected
here in Huddersfield, in West Yorkshire, at the Black Cat Fireworks factory,
one of the CBI's member companies. The technical director, Ron Rapley,
says that more and more of his time is taken up by paperwork and if he's
to get through it, he needs a breathing space without yet more rules imposed
by government.
RON RAPLEY: The fact that it must take
fifty per cent of my time to comply with regulations, if not maybe even
more than that, it takes a lot of time and a lot of resource from a company
that's relatively small, more regulations would take more resource.
WATSON: The CBI have set off a
series of complaints about red tape. Labour's own supporters in business
are now striking a discordant note too, including the spokesman for the
Small Business Federation, who is on Labour's list of approved candidates.
STEPHEN ALLEMBRITIS: The worry of course is that
if we want to move to full employment, as the Chancellor seems to want
to do, then the basis of that is on small employers, say one million of
them taking on an extra person each. Now if their eye is taken off the
ball in terms of regulations and they worry about red tape, then they may
not just take on that extra person.
WATSON: The government has given
the job of suggesting how to streamline regulation to the Labour peer Lord
Haskins, the chairman of Northern Foods. He says while the government is
attempting to listen to business concerns, they still display a tendency
to step in and regulate too quickly
LORD HASKINS: Most business people want
to do the right thing. Let's be clear on it. The number of people who
want to get it wrong is quite small. And if we've encouraged the vast majority
to get on with and do and carry out what the government, what the public
wants them to do, without regulation, so much the better
WATSON: The CBI says that unless
the government restricts the future volume of regulation, products such
as these fireworks, could become uncompetitive. They're not asking the
government to repeal existing employment legislation, instead they want
to stave off whatever is in the pipeline. But that includes a Green Paper
as a first step into delivering paid parental leave.
RAPLEY: Paid parental leave will
affect our business. We have a very specific industry, explosives and
the staff are trained, and take a long time to train. We just can't go
and replace them by somebody down the Job Centre, they won't have that
necessary experience and by the time you've trained them, they'll be replaced
by the people coming back from that leave.
WATSON: The European Commission
wants to force companies such as Black Cat - with more than fifty workers
- to open up business decisions to consultation. The CBI wants Britain
to go on blocking this move.
JONES: Those European union members
who are currently holding the line on information and consultation, have
got to stand firm. They understand just what something like that could
do to harm this big surge for productivity that every western democracy
is having to make.
WATSON: So British businesses are
saying there's too much regulation at the moment and they fear there's
more on the way, they say this will hit employment levels and diminishes
economic performance. But now the fur is flying - Labour's more traditional
allies are saying British business is taking too blinkered an attitude.
This is a medium sized enterprise, not dissimilar in size to Black Cat
Fireworks in Huddersfield. But here staff have very generous parental leave
as of right and are consulted over all issues that affect the workplace.
That's because of regulation. So where is this proletarian paradise? Well,
as you've probably guessed, it's not in Huddersfield. It's in Holland.
The Brakel Group employs
around two hundred people at their factory in Hilversum, near Amsterdam.
They design and manufacture office equipment. The Bank of England and the
Palace of Westminster are amongst their clients. There are a series of
works committees here where management and unions come face to face to
discuss any problems. The company says that regulations are fine - so long
as they are implemented flexibly. They can cope with workers taking far
more time away for parental leave than in Britain.
PAUL TERLOUW: The overall entitlement is
a period of six months, and usually what happens in our company is that
the person that wants to take that kind of leave discusses with his or
her manager if he wants to do that in one period of six months, or maybe
three periods of two months and then come back for a month in between,
or maybe even to start to work three days a week, instead of five.
WATSON: The TUC says a lesson from
Holland is that the government should be less defensive about regulation.
They say good employment rights don't diminish economic performance, in
fact they can be the building blocks of a strong economy.
MONKS: Well the Dutch performance
on unemployment, the Dutch performance on productivity, the Dutch performance
on skills are better than ours. And their living standards are higher
and they're not afraid of regulation. They've just brought in a rule saying
that people have got a choice of working part time if they wish. Now
Britain's employers would hold up their hands in horror at such a thing.
But actually the Dutch cope with it. It's about giving people extra freedom,
giving them extra choice and they trust their people if they're treated
well, to work well and they do.
WATSON: The TUC point to a range
of recent statistics to claim that heavy regulation in economies such as
the Netherlands does not stem the flow of wealth. Throughout the Nineties
lightly regulated Britain created new jobs at a much slower rate than the
more regulated Dutch economy although once in employment, the Dutch worked
fewer hours. Last year in the UK we worked on average more than forty three
hours a week, while the Dutch put in just thirty nine. Despite this,
we took home on average �1,700 a year less than our Dutch counterparts
and while Britain has relatively few people out of work by international
standards, last year our unemployment rate was twice as high as the Dutch,
who had the lowest levels in the European Union.
It's not just the TUC
who are saying it's only fair that we start enjoying similar rights to
the Europeans. The argument is also being taken in that direction by some
of Labour's young modernisers. They say that the party should not be put
off by complaints from business, if people are encouraged to take more
time off with their families, then that's a message which could pay dividends
at election time but parental leave must be paid at a rewarding rate.
RUTH KELLY: I've been arguing for a rate
of about a hundred and fifty pounds a week, which surveys show would attract
reasonable numbers of both women and men to take up the leave. I also think
that businesses when they reflect on the issues and the detail of any proposed
legislation, will realise that it's in their interests as well, to take
on board these legitimate demands from people right across the country.
Certainly parental leave, paid at an appropriate rate, could improve the
morale of the workforce, could improve recruitment and retention and certainly
reduce absenteeism and casual sickness rates.
MONKS: The government's a bit nervous
about offending employer opinion and employer lobbyists by shouting long
and hard about parental leave in particular at the moment and about information
and consultation rights from Europe. They're seeking to exploit the government's
rather tentative approach. I hope they will be bolder and knock it for
six and get on with some good regulation.
WATSON: But the government is also
being urged to turn its attention elsewhere. Labour prides itself these
days on being the party of one nation but recently perhaps they've had
a rougher ride than they would have anticipated. Business and the traditional
trade union allies seem to be far apart on the issue of future regulation.
In order to rebuild that kind of consensus, the government may need some
political courage, they'll have to start talking about the sort of issues
that the wider public perhaps don't find too popular.
Most of the big unions
along with many of Britain's biggest exporters are worried about the high
level of the pound against the Euro. Although the new single currency
isn't popular with the public, one of Labour's big business backers thinks
that staying out will increasingly cause problems for British industry.
LORD HASKINS: I think it's going to put
us at an increasing competitive disadvantage against other members of that
European single market and eventually I have no doubt that most of the
great British public say this, even if they're not very enthusiastic about
it, they say in the long term, we'll have to join the Euro. Now from my
point of view I'd prefer to see that sooner rather than later.
WATSON: Small businesses who employ
six out of ten UK workers are sounding off about the cost of fuel. They
want to see a signal from the Chancellor that he's listening to them.
ALLEMBRTIS: We would like to see on behalf
of all small businesses a straight cut, in the tax on fuel. I think helping
just hauliers or helping just farmers, or motorists in rural community
is all very well, but the fuel protests were across the country fairly
supported by most people and therefore a tax measure that would benefit
most people is one that would actually be better received.
WATSON: Business wants the government's
plans for new workers' rights to be put to the torch, while Labour's supporters
say the flame of Socialism mustn't be extinguished entirely. But unless
the government shows that it understands business concerns over rising
costs, their previously warm relationship could turn cold.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: And now then, we are going
to talk to Stephen Byers. Mr Byers, petrol, the cost of petrol, massive
political issue at the moment and the truckers are saying you've got to
cut the price but they are not alone in this any longer. The Daily Mail
did their own survey as you may have seen this morning and they discovered
that the majority of people - the Mail on Sunday obviously - the majority
of people are on their side. Now (A) did this surprise you and (B) are
you going to listen to them?
STEPHEN BYERS MP: Not really a surprise. I think
those of us that witnessed the events in early September knew that there
was a depth of feeling about the level of duty on fuel. I think what we've
got to do in government is to put it really in the round and to say we
look at the whole panoply of taxes rather than just looking at one particular
aspect. I think that what was interesting is that we had on Friday the
report from the OECD which looked at taxes in the round and said that as
far as the United Kingdom was concerned, compared to the major European
countries, we had lower income tax, lower taxes on business, lower rates
of VAT and so on. So I think that when people look at the overall tax burden
they should recognise that in fact we have been able to reduce tax, reduce
corporation tax, reduce income tax and they get the benefits from that.
HUMPHRYS: Well reduce some taxes
but no by any means all and we'll come on to that in a moment. But Stephen
Allembritis, you maybe heard him in the film back there, who runs the Small
Business Association, he said we would like to see a straight cut, a straight
fuel duty cut.
BYERS: I've got no doubt that everybody
would like to see their taxes reduced. I mean no-one actually likes volunteering
to pay income tax or pay any form of tax. What we've got to do is to have
a fair system of taxation which also balances the need for good public
services and on Wednesday, when the Chancellor has his pre-budget report,
he'll have to balance a number of competing demands. You know we want more
money for pensioners, we want to make sure money goes into our schools
and hospitals. We'd like to see other taxes reduced and it's a question
of balance and it's a question of making the right decisions. But the important
thing is that we don't make decisions for good headlines next Thursday
in four days' time. We make decisions that in four years will be in the
interests of the United Kingdom, our economy and our public services.
HUMPHRYS: I think what puzzles
people about that answer and obviously it's entirely in line with what
Tony Blair and everybody else says, is that it's not as if Gordon Brown
doesn't have a large amount of money to, to I say give away, I mean give
away is hardly what Chancellor do is it - but maybe sixteen billion pounds,
who knows, I don't suppose you're going to tell me what the figure is.
But it's not as if cutting a little bit off tax, fuel tax, would actually
mean they'd be no money left for schools or hospitals. I mean he does
have an awful lot of money there doesn't he?
BYERS: Well the campaigners are
arguing for a twenty-six pence reduction in a litre, that's actually twelve
billion pounds...
HUMPHRYS: ..but everybody says
that's entirely unrealistic. I mean you're not going to cut it by twenty-six
pence a litre are you, but they are saying, you know, Stephen Allembritis
says let's have a little cut, let's have a little cut.
BYERS: Well that's, sorry that's
the figure that the campaigners are arguing round. What we need to do
and I looked at the figures before I came on, if you turn the clock back
to 1989, there was a budget surplus then of seven billion pounds. We know
what Nigel Lawson did, he played for the short term and what happened was
that three years later there was a budget deficit of twenty-one billion.
In 1993, a budget deficit of forty-seven billion, so what we can't afford
to do, is to take short term measures which will be popular in three or
four days' time but in fact would not be in the long term best interests
of our economy and that's what we've got to do. These are difficult decisions
but we've got to plan for the long term, no short term measures, planning
for the long term is what we're about.
HUMPHRYS: What business wants to
do is to plan for the long term as well and they say it isn't just cost
that concern them but it's regulation, you have over burdened industry,
the CBI says the cost of new measures and administering them is thirteen
billion pounds, that's what it's costing them, the British Chambers of
Commerce say ten billion pounds and that's based on your own regulatory
impact units figures. These are enormous costs and you came into office
saying we are going to reduce regulation, not increase it.
BYERS: Well the difficulty with
those figures is that they mix up two quite different issues...
HUMPHRYS: ..Chambers of Commerce
using their own figures?
BYERS: What they've done though
is they've included not just the bureaucratic burden, the cost of administration,
they've also included the cost for example of paid holiday entitlement.
Now we make no apology for introducing the right to four weeks paid holiday,
we make no apology for introducing a national minimum wage or for extending
the period of maternity leave, those are basic decent standards that people
in work should have. Those costs reflect delivering on those obligations.
HUMPHRYS: They reflect both things
don't they..
BYERS: ...well they do because
if you strip out the administration, it comes down to what three million
pounds a year to administer the National Minimum Wage, three million pounds
a year to administer the Working Time Directive, that's administration.
HUMPHRYS: The Institute of Directors,
another organisation that knows a thing or two about these things, says
sixty-two per cent of smaller firms have taken on more staff to deal with
the extra red tape, sixty-two per cent?
BYERS: I find that figure almost
unbelievable in fact because we are taking about small amounts of money
being committed to provide these very important decent standards...
HUMPHRYS: Small companies, I mean
that's the point and they can't afford it. I mean many of them are on
the brink anyway, you know how many go bust as it is.
BYERS: I think if you look at the
figures you'll see that there are actually a million more people in work
today than there was in May 1997 so clearly the economy is doing very well.
I think when we look at what we have been able to achieve the economic
stability that we are delivering, most businesses say that's the real prize
because they don't want inflation to be shooting ahead or interest rates,
they want to be able to plan ahead with confidence and we've been able
to provide that with the economic stability that we now have.
HUMPHRYS: But you can't suggest
they're not concerned about this regulation, they say, let me just give
you a little list, I mean for the benefit of viewers as much as anything,
fifteen, fifteen major measures have come in since you've been in office.
Now they are things like the Minimum Wage which you would defend, of course,
on the basis of social justice and all that, but Working Time Directive,
Maternity Leave, Parental Leave, Family Emergency Leave, Trade Union regulation...
I could go on and on...
BYERS: ..giving decent rights to
part-timers..
HUMPHRYS: ..and you may say that
in every single case these are justified. You can pick out each one but
if you add them all together and then go to the companies that have to
administrate it all, it becomes a great burden on them. You wouldn't deny
that?
BYERS: What we've got to distinguish
is that all too often and the Conservative Party does this, is that they
talk about cutting red tape and in fact it's code for attacking decent
standards in the workplace. Now if people say to me there is red tape,
there's a bureaucratic burden on business, I would be the first to take
action to stop that. I've done it, I've done it in relation to the National
Minimum Wage, I've done it in relation to the Working Time Directive. But
what I will not do is compromise decent standards in the workplace. The
Minimum Wage is here to stay, the right to paid holidays is here to stay,
extending Maternity Leave is here to stay, giving decent rights to part-time
workers is here to stay. It doesn't just benefit the individual, it's actually
good for business as well.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, the thing is
you have set up your own regulatory taskforce and look at the different
units that are involved here. We have a Regulatory Impact Unit run by Mo
Mowlam on the programme a few minutes ago, a Better Regulation Taskforce
led by Lord Haskins, Small Business services, regulatory reform ministers
in each department and so on and so on and so on. And it sounds excellent.
When you look at it you say because what all these different things are
meant to be doing is cutting red tape and making life easier for businesses
and all that, in truth they are not doing anything, they are not stemming
the flow of new regulation and red tape. Lord Haskins himself has said
as much.
BYERS: Well what they are doing,
I think you are confusing the two issues as well John, if I can say so,
what they are doing is making sure that we don't introduce regulations
that create the sort of burdens which I can understand why business...
HUMPHRYS: So you are not concerned
about cutting out old regulation?
BYERS: Well I certainly am concerned
about that and that's what these various bodies are doing, they are reviewing
the regulations which are there already and I have to say every government
has over-regulated. That's my view. And I think there should be a presumption
against regulation.
HUMPHRYS: But why aren't we seeing
a bonfire of the regulations then?
BYERS: Well because that's that's
the sort of language which Michael Heseltine used and wasn't terribly successful
so we are not going to repeat his mistakes, but what we are doing, systematically,
is reviewing the regulations that are already there and we will repeal
them when it is appropriate to do so.
HUMPHRYS: When?
BYERS: And most...well there is,
I think, we'll wait until the Queen's Speech, there may be some proposals
there. In terms of new measures, we're making sure that we don't regulate
as a first option, but we'll look at other ways first, so codes of practice,
incentives is often a more desirable way than regulation.
HUMPHRYS: Well, yes, but what they
want you to do is to get rid of a lot of regulations that exists and that
are a pain in the neck for them. You acknowledge that there, let's make
this point, because you said, oh, bonfire, no, no, no, Heseltine tried
that, and that was no good. I mean, we haven't even had the beginnings
of a little smouldering fire in a kitchen stove have we, I mean, nothing
is going on here.
BYERS: Well, I think the important
issue here, and this is why these figures I think are so misleading...
HUMPHRYS: ...as long as you don't
deny that....
BYERS: ...well, I, there are some
regulations which are being repealed. I mean, we can, we can do more,
or course we can. I think we've now got measures in place which will ensure
that we can do that, however, what we mustn't do is to make the mistake,
and these costs actually do that, when you talk about thirteen-billion
pounds of red tape, that includes providing decent standards for people,
probably includes things like, the entitlement to paid holiday, like extending
maternity leave. Now we are not going to change those basic policies because
they deliver decent standards for people in the workplace. Now if there
is a real debate to be had about regulation, about administration, about
bureaucracy, then let's have it. But don't let's use that as code for
an attack on the rights of literally millions of working people.
HUMPHRYS: What happened to your
regulatory reform bill. That was going to be a key part of your de-regulation
agenda. We, we had a draft bill published in April, since then it seems
to have disappeared, or ..INTERRUPTION ...I wrong?
Can you guarantee it's gonna come about very soon.
BYERS: Well, I can't tell you what's
in the Queen's Speech, that's er at the beginning of December...
HUMPHRYS: ...no, but you know very
well what the attitude to it is in government.
BYERS: Well, I think we need to
find, if we can find parliamentary time, for what is a very important bill,
then we can bring it before the House of Commons and I am hopeful that
given the priority we attach to this particular area, that it may well
appear in the Queen's Speech.
HUMPHRYS: On the other hand it
may not, in which case of course, it's not going to happen before the election.
BYERS: Well I can't tell you on
the programme what will be in the Queen's Speech. Let's just wait a few
more weeks. But given the priority we attach to this area, I think the
Queen's Speech will be, will be of interest.
HUMPHRYS: Hmm. But a bit worrying,
isn't it, because this was as you said a key part of your deregular...,
I mean if you are telling me now that, that, that it is going to happen,
absolutely fine, a lot of people will be relieved at that, but, is that
the message?
BYERS: Well, I can't tell you that,
because I can't tell you what's in the Queen's Speech...
HUMPHRYS: ...well I know you can't
but what...
BYERS: ...but what I can say is
that we've had a bill in draft, so we've been able to consult on that,
it's been widely welcomed, I think if we're looking towards the Queen's
Speech, I would hope someone with responsibility in this area that their
space will be found for the measure. But we'll have to wait 'til the beginning
of December.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. And in the
meantime business wants a moratorium on new regulations.
BYERS: Some business actually wants
us to introduce more regulations, and this is the great dilemma. Some
businesses say they need minimum standards so that there's fair competition.
What we need to have I think is a presumption against regulation. We
need to look at alternative means, like for example, codes of practice
and incentives for the sorts of conduct that we want to promote, and only
when it's essential should we look at regulation, but there are circumstances
when business itself says yes, this is an appropriate situation in which
regulations should take place.
HUMPHRYS: But the problem is there
are more in the pipeline, aren't there?
BYERS: Potentially, there may be
other measures. I mean, we want to, we've said clear in terms of employment,
we want to ensure that there's a proper balance in the workplace, but before
we introduce any new measures, there will be full and effective consultation.
I'm particularly aware of the way in which small businesses have to deal
with these matters, so I think we want to think small first, to make sure
we don't introduce measures that may be quite easy for big business to
accommodate but which would cause great difficulties for small businesses
and we're looking at ways in which we can achieve that.
HUMPHRYS: And where in that category
does the paid parental leave come in? Because of course, many companies
do not want it, more people will take it up, if it is paid. Where does
it come? How important is it for you?
BYERS: Well, I'm leading a review
across government in this whole area of maternity leave and pay, and also
parental leave. What we're trying to do is to make sure that working parents
can balance the responsibility of being a good parent with holding down
a job. We don't do very well in the United Kingdom in this area at the
moment, I think we can make substantial progress, I want to do it with
business, working alongside us, to ensure that we can provide good opportunities
and basic standards for working parents. I think we can achieve that with
business support.
HUMPHRYS: Well, with business support,
but as I say, many business people, we saw one of them in the film, say,
we just can't afford, we'd have to administer it, once again, this is the
problem, isn't it? Once again, business would have to do the administering.
It would cost us a lot of money because an awful lot of people would take
it, so (a), we would have to administer it and (b), we would have to pay
one-hundred-and-fifty pounds a week maybe, that's er, that's what some
people are saying I think, we would have to pay that to the people who
want to take it. It's a problem.
BYERS: Well, the challenge, I think,
for me, is to, is to take business with me in delivering on this very exciting
and very important agenda. And what struck me, and we've had a round of
consultation over the last ten weeks, is that business is beginning to
recognise that there is a business case for having better provision for
working parents, and I've been very struck by the positive response that
we've received. Now what that means is that when I, we introduce a Green
Paper, probably before Christmas, outlining our proposals, it'll be one
that will be balanced, recognising the needs of working parents, but also
recognising that if we get it wrong, there will be an unacceptable burden
placed on business, and it's getting the balance between the two, that
will be the real challenge. But I think from the meetings that I've had,
that there is an agenda that we can move forward on, which will be of great
benefit to working parents, but is one that business will sign up to as
well.
HUMPHRYS: How, how might that work
then? I mean, it's hard quite to see where the compromise could be here?
BYERS: Well I think there are a
number of ways in which an active government working alongside business
can perhaps take some of the burdens off business that you've touched on,
taking our own responsibility in this area, and ensuring that business
can recognise that it's in their long-term interests to have more family
friendly policies in the workplace.
HUMPHRYS: What about workers' councils?
Again, something that business is totally opposed to. They think it would
make life hugely more difficult for them. You were opposed to it. You
fought it in the council of ministers in Europe. It now seems you may
be dropping your opposition.
BYERS: We don't agree with the
directive on information and consultation which I think is the particular
directive that you're referring to, we think that we should be developing
a partnership approach in the United Kingdom, which suits our own labour
market, and that's the direction in which we intend to go. There is a
minority, a blocking minority, in the European Commission, which will means
that, means that we believe we can protect our position, now but it is
an area where we think we should come up with our own domestic arrangements..INTERRUPTION..and
developing a sort of partnership approach, one where there is effective
consultation so that people know exactly where they stand is the direction
in which we would wish to go, but once again, it's doing it with business
and with the trade unions.
HUMPHRYS: So what are we looking
at here, legislation on that?
BYERS: We have no proposals to
legislate, we've said very clearly that there will be no new legislation
in this whole area of employment law this side of a General Election, what
we have said though is that we will obviously review the steps that we've
taken so far and if there are deficiencies, or if changes need to take
place, then obviously we will need to reflect upon them.
HUMPHRYS: The Euro, something else
that the CBI and everybody else gets very agitated about, we heard from
Peter Mandelson this week, who, along with yourself is regarded as a great
enthusiast for the Euro, when the time is right, I accept all of that,
however, what Mr Mandelson said this week was talking about firing the
starting pistol, that was his phrase, firing the starting pistol for the
referendum which, if it comes, it won't be coming for years ahead, it seemed
to be a considerable rowing back from his previous position, are you rowing
back as well?.
BYERS: Well, I'm a Euro pragmatist,
which is the same position as Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of
England, and what I do believe is that we've got to take this decision.
HUMPHRYS: Eddie George does not
want the Euro. But there you are...
BYERS: No, no, he made it very
clear, He placed some very interesting evidence before the House of Lords
Select Committee on this particular matter, where he said he was sort of
pragmatic, and that's the right position to be in because this whole area
has been dominated by dogma for far too long, and what we've got to do
is simply put our national interests first and I happen to believe the
policy of the Government, which is very clear, we'll do an early test in
the next parliament....
HUMPHRYS: Not very early seemingly!
BYERS: No. the policy is the same.
Early in the next parliament we will test the five conditions laid down
by the Chancellor. I think what Peter was saying reflecting the point
the Prime Minister made just a couple of weeks ago was if there was to
be a referendum today or tomorrow then certainly I wouldn't be voting in
favour of joining because the conditions are not right.....
HUMPHRYS: Nobody's suggesting a
referendum today or tomorrow the question is what early in the next parliament
means, and what Mr Mandelson seemed to be suggesting was it was some years
away, even if you win the next election, some years away from that.
BYERS: Well, I don't know when
the next election is to be.
HUMPHRYS: Let's guess at May....
BYERS: Well, you can't just guess
John. What - May two-thousand and two? Or May two-thousand and one.
You see it becomes a bit of a foolish question.
HUMPHRYS: We know from Mo Mowlam
that she's not going to be in a job in whenever it is - whatever time next
year she said, so ....
BYERS: Well if Mo knows....
HUMPHRYS: Well, anyway there we
are...
BYERS: Well, if Mo knows when.....
HUMPHRYS: We've only got fifteen
seconds left, so tell us then what you, how you... in one sentence how
you define early in the next government.
BYERS: The important thing is to
explain to people why joining a successful single currency would be in
the national interests because of currency stability, but also to say that
the conditions have to be right, the economic conditions have to be right,
and we'll keep the option open, there'll be a genuine choice for the British
people, that's what we're offering.
HUMPHRYS: Stephen Byers, thank
you very much indeed.
HUMPHRYS: And that's it for this week.
If you're on the Internet don't forget about our web site. See you at
the same time next week. Good afternoon.
22
FoLdEd
|