|
====================================================================================
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:
19.11.00
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Political leaders
are meeting in Holland this week to save the world from global warming.
I'll be asking John Prescott if Britain's effort is running out of energy.
AND is he really planning a big shake-up of the railways? I'll also be
asking the Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon why we're prepared to send so many
British troops to fight with a European force. And are Britain's council
houses going under the auctioneer's hammer? That's after the news read
by Nicholas Witchell.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Will Britain's defences be
weakened if we commit ourselves to sending a quarter of our army to fight
with a European force?
And is the government
planning a big sale of Britain's council houses?
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Most scientists seem
to agree that the world is getting warmer and that it's our fault. We
use too much energy and pump too much carbon dioxide and other chemicals
into the atmosphere. They've been meeting in Holland this past week for
another summit on global warming and the political leaders are joining
them now for another week of talks. The scientists will tell them that
the situation is even worse than we'd been led to believe and that the
earth is likely to get a lot hotter over the next fifty years than they'd
thought. Britain is the good guy in all of this. We were set a target
in Kyoto two years ago for cuts in CO2 emissions but the government says
we might even double that. But we've had it easy so far. We've switched
from burning coal to generate electricity to burning gas and we can only
do that once. And we still have nuclear power stations generating electricity,
and they are going. The other big factor in all this of course is transport.
We need to use our cars less and there's no sign of that happening. On
the contrary. But at least WE are trying. Unlike the world's biggest
polluter, the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott is
responsible for all this and he's in the Hague now.
Good afternoon Mr Prescott.
JOHN PRESCOTT: Good afternoon John.
HUMPHRYS: We'll come back to Britain
later in this chat if we may, but let's look at the world picture first,
and that's fairly bleak isn't it, because without America we can't make
the progress that we need. America must reduce its emissions and that
it seems isn't going to happen.
PRESCOTT: Well John I think everybody's
got a veto here. You can be a developing country and you've got certain
things that you want from it. Europe has a clearly different agenda to
the American and what we call the umbrella group, so everybody could veto
it, and that's precisely what was at Kyoto and I remember you and I being
on the Today programme talking about whether the Americans would move from
a zero cut, and you said no, they won't. Well we got seven per cent on
their nineteen-ninety levels and that was an improvement and that's why
we clinched the deal. So at this stage we are facing everybody putting
their negotiation positions forward and the politicians now have to find
an agreement.
HUMPHRYS: Yes. And that was the
principle, but this is now the practice isn't it, and what we want is for
America to make fifty per cent of their cuts at home, actually to cut pollution
as opposed to doing it in every other clever way. And there's no chance
of that is there?
PRESCOTT: Well you've just put
a condition on that. I mean the Americans are not very happy at setting
ceilings. What they say is that if we can achieve the targets that we've
set for ourselves by other means, which are being discussed here, than
simply domestic policies, that's not very acceptable to Europe of course,
and that's one of the arguments that will take place and we'll have to
find agreements about it. But you know America has already been softening
its position from the last time at Kyoto. I'll wait and see what their
final negotiation position is before I come to a conclusion. I do think
you can get an agreement and I've started my walking and talking that I
had at Kyoto. I've talked to the chairman of conference, I've talked to
the Americans and I'm talking to other countries, and hopefully, by mid-week,
we'll get an idea where the real difficulties lie and that we can concentrate
our minds on.
HUMPHRYS: And the difficulties
with those other means as you sort of suggest there is that what many people
believe that means is exploiting loopholes in essence. I mean for instance
they're going to buy permits from places like Russia and the Ukraine which
will in effect allow them to pollute, and many people say, people like
Greenpeace say that's a sort of cheat's charter.
PRESCOTT: Well, these are the arguments
going on at the present time, but at Kyoto we were very clear. We said
the use of forests, which are called sinks here, carbon sinks, would be
part of it and they would be the new trees. Since then during the last
two years since they've been negotiating the bits and pieces that make
up these agreements they've taken it further, and said well, all trees
should be involved in it, and there is an estimate made and a number of
the NGO's, that's the green groups are saying, if you look at the forests
America got and you take everything into account they wouldn't have to
do anything in their own domestic economy, like something on cars or fuel.
Now that's an argument, the Americans are strong about it, so is Europe,
but these are negotiated positions at the moment and there are some signs
that some give is coming in this situation.
HUMPHRYS: But that's an argument
that you clearly from what you're saying, are not prepared to accept. I
mean they've got to make cuts haven't they?
PRESCOTT: Well, I would say my
main judge in this John is to say I look in the agreement for it to have
any credibility whatsoever, it must reduce the greenhouse gases below the
levels of nineteen-ninety by twenty-ten. Now if any agreement doesn't
do that it will lose all forms of environmental credibility. Now I know
the greens say sometimes to me: But you know the advance isn't much John,
you're not talking - five per cent's very small compared to the kind of
the scale of the problem. What I would say in answer, as long as we've
got a programme legally binding that will reduce it, at least we've made
the start, we've changed the direction, we're going globally to deal with
the global solution which has legal implications for all the developed
countries signed up to it.
HUMPHRYS: And that would mean that
America would have to make real cuts as opposed to simply saying you know,
let's exploit these loopholes?
PRESCOTT: Well, I think that's
what we've always said to the Americans. You know when we signed at Kyoto
we made it clear that Europe was always feeling strongly that you have
to take certain domestic actions and you can't solve it by these kind of
mechanisms on their own. And that is the nature of the disputes at this
stage between us which negotiations have to settle. You do remember John
that they weren't going to make any change in their gas cuts when we started
at Kyoto, and they went to a seven per cent which means effectively something
like a twenty-five to thirty per cent cut in their gases in ten years'
time.
HUMPHRYS: Yes. The trouble with
that though is the political situation has changed hasn't it. It looks
as though we're going to have a President Bush. It's going to be more
difficult with him isn't it?
PRESCOTT: That's an interesting
point John. I mean you can only have one President at one time really
can't you.
HUMPHRYS: At the moment.... Quite!
PRESCOTT: No, no, but there's only
one President at the moment, and that's President Clinton, and I just wonder
- you know it was President Reagan that took American into better relations
with China when you wouldn't have thought that, and Nader has made an effect
in those elections that the green groups, and I disagree with what the
green groups have done there, but in Florida it's shown that it was a balance
that it could have been for Gore and not for Bush. Now that might change
the political terrain whoever wins this presidency, but they are the difficulties
we have to take into account and they are only one small part of them,
there are many.
HUMPHRYS: Well that's certainly
true. Let's go to the United Kingdom now. We've done well, so far obviously
better than pretty well anybody else, but....
PRESCOTT: ...we're leading the
world...
HUMPHRYS: Absolutely, but it is
now going to get tougher isn't it. From here on in, it gets really tough?
PRESCOTT: Well, in the sense that
we have now mapped out our programme on climate change. We launched it
on Friday and a lot of attention was given to it, and indeed I think the
floods have concentrated people's minds on the connection between climate
change and how it can affect you at home. Now we set that programme out
and the commission have reviewed all that nations' contributions in the
European community and we come out the best with Germany. Now I'm very
proud of that, it shows that we've set a programme, we will achieve more
than was actually set up under the Kyoto agreements and we've set out where
they can come, and I think people have agreed it's a realistic programme
and I'm proud that we're leading the way in that. It gives me a stronger
negotiating hand over here to say, Listen, we led the way when we came
at Kyoto. We continue to lead the way and it's not simply because the
coal industry was closed down. We've made very practical promises which
industry now recognise. More efficient industry is better for them, warmer
houses are better for people to work in, more efficient cars, less polluting
is better for everyone and even the industry accepts that so there is a
major change coming about, so technology, style of living, all these will
contribute to achieving our targets.
HUMPHRYS: But it is going to get
tougher from now on isn't it. There is more to do and it is going to
get more difficult now, because we've made the great savings as it were,
converting coal-fired power stations into gas. We can't keep doing that,
we can only do that once, and it is going to get more difficult now isn't
it?
PRESCOTT: Yes, but certainly the
decimation of the coal industry by the previous administration allowed
you to claim you'd done something on that side, and achieved our targets
that we set are real. But all the other areas now, efficiency gains, the
climate change levy, all these are major contributing parts to which we
have agreement with industries and sectors now to implement it, and I'm
looking forward to doing that.
HUMPHRYS: But the reason I say
it's going to get more difficult in future, is we are going to face some
sort of energy gap aren't we. By two-thousand and twenty our nuclear energy
is going to drop from what it is at the moment about a quarter of our total
energy supplies, electricity supplies, down to three per cent. We have
to fill that gap. It's going to be terribly difficult to do that isn't
it?
PRESCOTT: Oh yes, there are many
alternatives we can use, one of the things about Britain of course, it
has had tremendous energy alternatives but it's not easy. Of course none
of these programmes are easy but neither is it easy living with the fact
of floods and the kind of climate change problems that are occurring in
Britain as we've seen quite recently and I think that's educated quite
a few of our public to say there is something wrong here, that we have
to make changes. And I've got to argue those. For example, if I say why
is it certain towns didn't build their flood defences when the money was
there and those that did were protected. I think you have to convince the
electorate and I have to argue the case, trying to argue to use public
transport more than your private car I'm bound to say has not been an easy
argument John as you know, on your Today programme. But I argue it and
we are going in the right direction and we are leading the world in making
a change. Yes, it's a global problem and it needs a global solution, that's
why I'm here in the Hague. But it also needs a transport solution, that's
why I've given a hundred and eighty billion pounds to the whole business
of transport, far more than has ever been given to the transport industry
before.
HUMPHRYS: Come to transport in
a second but as far as that energy gap that I was talking about is concerned,
we are not going to be able to plug that gap are we. It's a very big gap,
we are not going to be able to plug it with what they call renewal sources
of energy, wind power and all the rest of it...
PRESCOTT: ...that's under par...
HUMPHRYS: ..but only ten per
cent by two thousand and twenty, that's not going to be enough to fill
it, is it. So I'm not quite sure how we are going to plug that gap.
PRESCOTT: We have spelt out in
a number of our programmes where we think the demands for energy can be
met but of course the increasing demand for energy and any modern economy
continues to increase, but one of the things we want to do, we don't use
energy efficiently enough. You know, as an example, when I came in in
nineteen ninety seven, we were leaking so much water I called the water
companies and said I'm not going to agree reservoirs, stop the leaks. Nearly
a quarter of the leaks actually were reduced, that's enough water to keep
London for a year. We are changing and that's the same with fuel, cars
will not use as much fuel, they were be much more efficient, different
types of technology. So it is a challenge and that's what the Climate Levy
is about, getting people to use energy much more effectively.
HUMPHRYS: But are we changing fast
enough. Germany for instance, tells...
PRESCOTT: ...I'll be there chasing...
HUMPHRYS: I'm sure you will, but
I mean here's one you can chase, Germany says look you've got to treble
gaze your house, saves a lot of energy. Are we prepared to say to people
you've got to treble gaze your house, or triple gaze it, whatever you call
it.
PRESCOTT: We have got programmes
for improving energy. I'm actually putting quite a lot of money into housing
to achieve that, that's one of our measures we announced on Friday...
HUMPHRYS: ...making them do it
is...
PRESCOTT: ..pardon?
HUMPHRYS: Making them do it is
the thing.
PRESCOTT: But we are doing it John.
HUMPHRYS: I'm sorry if you've got
a problem there - what I am saying is that we don't actually insist upon
it, do we, we don't say to people, you know this is how it has to be with
new houses in future.
PRESCOTT: Perhaps we don't give
the instructions in the same way the Germans do, what we say to the Local
Authorities is here is the programme, here's the money, we want you to
do it and we are already beginning to see it happen. We also want new rules
and regulations about the design and quality of houses which we are changing.
And all that we set out in Friday's programme and that programme has been
accepted as the most realistic and acceptable by the commission and most
of the observers note that it's a good programme and one that this party..this
government has put in to achieve in the long term.
HUMPHRYS: Let's look at transport
now then. This is terribly difficult isn't it. Your own projections tell
us that carbon dioxide....
PRESCOTT: ..you can say that again...
HUMPHRYS: ..carbon dioxide emissions
from all road transport, including lorries and all the rest of it are going
to increase by fifteen per cent by two thousand and ten, thirty per cent
by two thousand and twenty and we are actually, there are no signs at all
of us using our cars less. So how on earth do you square this circle?
PRESCOTT: Well first of all there's
a technological advance and what the Europeans have done and this is where
the European card is quite important, they have negotiated with all the
motor car manufacturers who want to sell cars in Europe, massive increase
in the efficiency of the motor vehicle itself, the reduction of CO2 gases.
And I think even the Tories argue that's all you have to do. But let me
just say, that is an important step forward and on the alternatives, are
the public transport. Where we have things like in Manchester, where you
have got for example light railway systems, where the very convenient and
good alternative transport show that people leave their cars at home on
a number of occasions and use the public transport. In Europe they have
more cars per head than we have but they use public transport more and
the basic reason is we allowed public transport to run down. I've got to
provide better choices, better quality, more reliable. And as you can see,
and everyday on the television that is not easy to do, but I've found the
resources, I've found the legislation, now it's the timetable to reverse
all the dis-investment that has taken place in our transport and forced
people to use their cars more because they couldn't rely on the public
transport system.
HUMPHRYS: Exactly, but you talk
about forcing people. I mean there do have to be sticks as well as carrots
doesn't there and Gordon...
PRESCOTT: ..I'm not forcing people...
HUMPHRYS: ..some people of course
that you should. But let me just look at what Gordon Brown did, well alright,
but let's look at what Gordon Brown did in his mini-Budget, he cut the
price of fuel. Well now that's not exactly a disincentive to using cars
is it, Imperial College reckons that that adds 1.5 per cent to car journeys.
So he didn't help you very much there did he?
PRESCOTT: Well John, I've got to
say that that's part of a kind of disingenuous argument that's going on
at the moment. If the argument is that the cost of fuel, however it is
made up, its world price and its tax, has an effect on reducing the vehicle..use
of vehicles right, and you can argue about that, if that is the argument,
then I'm bound to say it has increased despite whatever tax has gone because
fuel prices internationally have gone up. So that has not changed in regard
to that, all that's changed is the refusal to continue the Fuel Duty Escalator.
HUMPHRYS: But I mean you're not
suggesting are you, that the price of fuel is not a considerable factor
in the extent to which we use our cars? - fuel is more expensive we use
less.
PRESCOTT: It is one of the main
reasons but if I look at the costs of cars, whether it's the RAC or the
AA surveys, it's a lot cheaper to run a car now because the level of efficiencies
and technologies have made private transport still much cheaper again because
of that. And people will just judge the car on the fuel price, I understand
it but it's not the total price, but I have to live with what they think.
But we are back to the same point, fuel is still costing you more than
it did twelve months ago and that's nothing to do with our tax policy.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, but Gordon Brown
cut the price of fuel in his last Budget and Imperial College calculated...
PRESCOTT: ...environmental, yes
to reduce the amount of gases and make our air cleaner with the sulphur
proposal and that is one step towards getting even better fuels to be used
in other different cars in the future. And it's a step in the right direction
but it's still got a carbon...
HUMPHRYS: ...doesn't help the CO2..
PRESCOTT: ..well it has that problem
I agree but there are a number of changes coming and as I understand it
in the new technologies coming in the cars and new fuels, you need to make
that step to improve it first. But all in all, John, it is advance in the
right direction, it is putting environment at the top of the list and making
sure we get it at the top of the list, keep it at the top of the list and
begin to get the kind of changes in public opinion that we are beginning
to see..
HUMPHRYS: The trouble is, even
with all of those things, and I've got your great big DETR, your department's
document in front of me, Climate Change the UK Programme. Even allowing
for all of that there is going to be a big increase in the amount of CO2
that we emit from road transport over the next ten and then, over the next
twenty years. This is a very serious problem for us, we'll have to something
more than we've done, in other words.
PRESCOTT: Well, I think there are
lots of things and indeed trying to get a public transport in a decent
state like they have in Europe is one thing that I am trying to do. And
planning our estates so you don't have to get in a car to go to a hospital
or schools, the new millennium estate that I've developed up on, in Greenwich,
means that you can have a lot of these facilities near to where people
live without having to get in the car to go to them. Now you have got
to change a whole kind of life-style, the way we plan our houses, the way
we meet the services people require, the new Urban White Paper, which I've
just launched is partly about that, there's the Rural Paper in the next
or so. All these are changes. I can find the framework, but governments
can't do it on their own. It's about how we get people to recognise, do
you still want to have the kind of extreme weathers we have, with the consequences
we've seen with floods, or do we want to make a change?
HUMPHRYS: Well...
PRESCOTT: It was a man-made solution,
let's find a man-made solution to solve that difficulty of climate change.
HUMPHRYS: And they might well say
we'd love to use public transport. We'd like to use the railways, but
look at the state of them, there is a crisis of confidence in the railways
at the moment, you...
PRESCOTT: ....massive dis-investment
over a long time...
HUMPHRYS: ...absolutely, and you've
acknowledged that, but then over the last few months we have seen that
crisis of confidence increase. People have lost confidence entirely.
Do you, yourself, feel that Railtrack, the people who are after all responsible
for the railways, the railway infrastructure, do you think they've let
you down?
PRESCOTT: Well first of all, John,
people travelling by rail has gone up by eighteen per cent over these last
two or three years ...
HUMPHRYS: ...starting to fall now,
though isn't it?...
PRESCOTT: ...so they have been
using the rail. But
there's an increase, before it was a decline, now we've seen an increase.
But your point generally about have we got the organisation on the railways
right - well I've always thought we haven't, that's why I was bringing
legislation in for a strategic rail authority, that's why I've got a massive
amount of money for rail investment, the huge amount that everybody says
has never been there before, sixty billion pounds, so I've got the legislation,
I've got the resources, what I want is a proper organisation that can deliver
it, and I want it to be safe. that's why I've looked at the Cullen Report,
to give me a report on the safety in the industry. Now the Opposition
have said, that the fragmented kind of organisation they've given us was
wrong, that the privatisation solution didn't work. What I have to do
is to make changes. And that's why I brought in the strategic rail authority
to begin to see, with the regulator, to get a kind of railway that is safe,
modern and got the investments and that's what we have now on the table.
HUMPHRYS: And what you're going
to start this week, we understand, using the strategic rail authority and
all the rest of it, is to take a very hard look at Railtrack, and perhaps
to clip their wings, to take some of the responsibilities from them, that
they have at the moment and there is in other words, going to be a fundamental
review. Is that right? Fundamental review?
PRESCOTT: Well, I don't ... no
I hear tales, what's said in the press today, let me just say what the
facts are. When Mr Corbett said that he believed that the actual railways
had a conflict between safety, punctuality and reliability, you'll remember
he said that. I said well, I don't see that so, but I'm prepared to listen
to anything that threatens safety on the railways, so I asked um, Alastair
um...
HUMPHRYS: ...Morton
PRESCOTT: ...Alastair Morton, to
go in and discuss with them what this kind of reorganisation that he was
calling for. He set up five working groups and they've been working for
the last couple of weeks. When he announced his resignation, I then asked
Sir Alastair that would he meet the new Board and find exactly where we
lay, where they lie now in delivering on a programme that was given to
us, a recovery programme, and what their views were in the reorganisation
of Railtrack.
HUMPHRYS: And now he's going to
do that.
PRESCOTT: That was two weeks ago.
HUMPHRYS: Right, right. And where
has that got then. I mean, what's the conclusion of that? Or have you
not got anywhere with it yet?
PRESCOTT: I don't know because
he hasn't reported back to me and he was discussing with Gerald Corbett
then of course, 'cos he was the person who'd made those points, made similar
points about safety should be different inside the Cullen Report, but he
has now left and clearly, Alastair Morton has to ask the Board, since they've
had a change, and a possible change in a Chairman, how does the Board's
policy now relate to the promises they've made, that's quite proper to
do so. Do remember, I have the obligation under legislation to see there's
a safe railway, and I'm advised on that by the Health and Safety Executive,
so I have a direct statutory responsibility, to be assured about that.
HUMPHRYS: Indeed, and you weren't
sorry, as we understand it, to see Gerald Corbett go, for a variety of
reasons. You're now talking through....
PRESCOTT: ....John, don't just
make that assumption. If you say...
HUMPHRYS: ...well, did you beg
him to stay?
PRESCOTT: ...well, it's not up
for me to say who the Chief Officer should be of Railtrack. My obligation
is to see that Railtrack, whoever's the Chief Executive, or Chair, carry
out their obligations that they have on a licence to run the railway from
the Regulator, and in regards to safety, from me as the Secretary of State.
Who they choose to have to run it is their decision. What they do, and
how they do it, I have some responsibility for.
HUMPHRYS: Well indeed and it's
possible for you to offer a bit of support one way or the other if you
want somebody to stay.
PRESCOTT: No, I think it would
be quite wrong. Let me give you an example John. I think it was..was
it your Ed Stourton on your programme having a go whether I support or
didn't support - could you imagine if I said, yes I did support - you'd
have come on to me saying, do you think it's right to sack him when you
said you supported him. It's not for me to make that decision. It's a
decision for the Board. If it was a nationalised industry it would be
a proper one for me...
HUMPHRYS: ...alright, let me just
ask you a straight-forward question then, do you have confidence in the
existing Board, given that it's now got a new Chief Executive, who's an
accountant, and not a railway man, do you have, do you have - hope you
can hear me alright - do you have confidence in the existing Board of Railtrack
to do what is needed in the time that it is needed in?
PRESCOTT: Well I've asked Sir Alastair
to go in and talk to them about their ideas they want for change. Now
I would certainly want to hear what's said about that before whether I've
got an agreement with the Railtrack Board. Let me give you an example.
The Railtrack Board under Sir Gerald Corbett, went to, Gerald Corbett,
went to the Cullen Enquiry and said they want to keep completely safety
in their hands. I disagree with that. There's got to be some independent
safety authority in this. It's a matter of debate. Now I don't know whether
the Board still agrees with that statement that was made there. I'm entitled
to ask, and when I get the reply back from Sir Alastair and other discussions
I'll give you an answer to that judgement, to that question.
HUMPHRYS: John Prescott, many thanks.
PRESCOTT: Thank you.
There are still about five million
council houses in this country. Many of them are in a pretty terrible
state and the government says that's how they'll stay if it's left to the
local councils. THEY say they don't have the money to do all the repairs
that are needed. So the government's solution? Sell them off wholesale.
They've already begun - in Glasgow. But as Iain Watson reports, many Labour
MPs and the tenants themselves are saying: it'll happen only over our dead
bodies.
IAIN WATSON: Glasgow - last year's UK city
of architecture; although it's a fair bet the accolade wasn't based on
the design of the council housing. But now, something on a scale never
attempted before is happening. Labour say it's nothing short of a revolution
but it's not of the traditional, socialist variety.
All of this could soon
become a thing of the past, I'm talking about council housing. Here in
Scotland the Labour/Lib Dem coalition have plans to transfer all of Glasgow's
council homes, lock, stock and barrel, out of local authority control and
in other parts of the UK they are watching eagerly to see if they can get
away with it. But plans for the wholesale sell off of council housing in
some of Britain's biggest cities is provoking strong opposition - both
inside, as well as outside, the Labour Party.
SEAN CLERKIN: The policy of stock transfer
is a policy of gentrification - it's a form of social cleansing.
FIONA HYSLOP: We saw the consequences for
government when Scotland was used as a guinea pig for the poll tax. I
think the size and scale of the Glasgow proposal and the fact this is one
of the first ones will mean it will have big political consequences, both
in Scotland and in the UK.
LYNNE JONES MP: The new organisations will
have to raise finance on the private markets and so it will be the banks
and the financiers that eventually will be calling the shots.
WATSON: Years of under investment
means that around 1.6 billion pounds needs to be spent on Glasgow's 94,000
council homes - a sum beyond the reach of local government, because of
Treasury rules, local authorities are placed under greater supervision
than housing associations. Unlike councils, they can happily borrow large
sums without this counting as public expenditure, that means more cash
for the most needy estates.
JACKIE BAILLIE: I think stock transfers
represent an excellent way of ensuring there is radical new investment
in our stock which is much needed and that we get the wider benefits of
community ownership which is about regenerating communities across Scotland.
At the heart of this is what the tenants themselves decide because the
whole stock transfer proposal is of course subject to a full ballot of
all tenants.
HYSLOP: This whole issue is driven
by finance, by getting housing off the public books and not about tenant
empowerment and involvement. If you want tenant empowerment involvement,
you have small scale transfers, or you make sure you do it under the local
authority through devolved management.
WATSON: With two by-elections in
Glasgow this week - one for the late Donald Dewar's Westminster seat and
another for his place in the Scottish Parliament - the SNP have made housing
a key part of their campaign. But these canvassers are not politicians
- they are tenants. There will be a ballot next year to see if they want
to transfer to a specially-created, not-for-profit housing association
which would have places for residents on its board. But a campaign is
already underway for a NO vote.
ACTUALITY
CLERKIN: The tenants feel that
their rents are going to increase. That housing benefit is going to be
cut. That there's going to be more evictions and homelessness because
they won't be able to pay their rents out of their income support etcetera.
WATSON: Sean Clerkin, the leading
opponent of housing stock transfer, is not actually a tenant himself -
although more than forty tenants and residents groups have affiliated to
his campaign. The Labour-led Scottish Executive say these campaigners are
stirring up irrational fears. They say most tenants, who are on housing
benefit, won't be affected by their plans, while the rest will face only
a modest increase in rent.
BAILLIE: If you consider the experience
with housing associations, they have given guarantees that they will not
increase rent beyond the sort of rate of inflation plus one. All those
commitments have been met and if you take Glasgow as an example, you know
we've given a firm guarantee over the next five years as part of a thirty
year package for housing in Glasgow. So the assurances have been given
and indeed when you compare it to local authorities, council rents have
risen by a greater proportion.
WATSON: The campaigners against
housing stock transfer are inviting all the candidates in the Glasgow by-elections
to a public meeting. The SNP say everything's on hold unless tenants decide
to leave council control.
HYSLOP: It means there is no investment
in Glasgow housing just now, it's been on a starvation diet of investment,
waiting for this ballot. Effectively it's blackmailing the tenants and
that is completely and utterly unsatisfactory.
BAILLIE: This isn't about bribery,
this is about saying we want the best possible housing conditions in Scotland.
Frankly, you know we can achieve it in ten years or you can wait thirty
years, that's not a choice that we're prepared to make. The reality is
by going down the route of community ownership, with all the wider benefits
that that implies we are talking about being able to address all those
concerns about repairs, about improvements in the space of ten years.
WATSON: The Labour/Liberal Democrat
coalition in Scotland is being attacked from both left and right. The SNP
and Scottish Socialists say they lack the political will to invest in council
housing; the Tories blame years of mismanagement by Labour local authorities.
The tenants say there are bigger issues at stake
CLERKIN: The transfer policy is
going to lead to a mass policy of gentrification here in Glasgow, 34,000
council houses are to be knocked down and here in Drumchapel 1,000 council
houses are to be knocked down to be replaced by a thousand private houses
for sale.
WATSON: Tenants believe they are
being used as pawns in a bigger political game. Glasgow has a long history
of housing militancy, the rent strike here during the First World War has
been written into the annals of Socialist struggle. Then after the Second
World War the Local Authority filled more than half the city with council
homes. So if this bastion of old style Labour municipalism can be broken
perhaps other lesser citadels may also fall.
CLERKIN: Essentially Blair's government
wants Glasgow to go private so the rest of Britain goes private on housing.
We are confident that we'll get a No vote next year and that'll stop the
privatisation of public sector housing and essentially all the opinion
polls and all the surveys indicate that there will be a No vote.
MARK STEPHENS: The Glasgow stock transfer
could be very much a sort of Danish referendum of British housing. The
impact in Glasgow could be felt far beyond Scotland's borders - part of
new Labour's agenda is quite clearly to modernise, to use that word, local
government and this is part of it, that local government should perform
a strategic role rather than providing many of these services directly
itself.
WATSON: Birmingham - Britain's
largest landlord after Glasgow, is also looking at ways to get new investment
into housing. They're considering four options - all of which would mean
more private money, in return for less council control. A final decision
will be taken in February following a series of consultants reports. The
council says the present situation can't go on.
COUNCILLOR DENNIS MINNIS: Continuing as we are, really
is a non-starter because we don't have access to the sort of money we need.
What we do at the moment is to patch up some properties, direct some
resources here and there, but we are inundated all the time, every year,
from tenants who are saying, when are you going to get round to putting
central heating in for me, or putting double glazing in somewhere else,
or repairing the roof. The enormous task with eighty-eight thousand properties
is just unbelievable.
COUNCILLOR JOHN LINES: This council is going to spend tens
of millions of pounds in setting up this so called deal, before they've
asked the tenants. The government is not going to give them any more money
because this government doesn't trust this council, any more than the previous
Conservative one did. And what they could do is spend all that money on
carrying out the repairs to our properties for the benefit of our tenants.
WATSON: It may look as though these
repairs and improvements are happening on a council estate - but this,
according to Birmingham's Labour leadership, is really a glimpse into the
future. Tenants on this inner city estate voted by a margin of two to
one to transfer to a new community housing association, called Optima,
a little under two years ago. With a mixture of extra money from the government
and the private sector many of the improvements tenants wanted to see are
now under way. Birmingham is considering transferring all of its eighty-eight
thousand homes out of council control, but unlike Glasgow, it wants to
see ten different community-based landlords take over from day one. These
would be all modelled on Optima and would include high levels of tenant
representation.
MINNIS: Since the properties in
my ward went to Optima, I cannot recall having had one complaint about
any aspect of the housing, in that area, in terms of repairs, in terms
of environmental matters, in terms of grass cutting, in terms of problems
with lifts or doors and the whole lot, which does show that Optima is doing
it right. Now I want to get it right throughout the rest of the city and
the tenants deserve that.
JONES: I can understand why the
tenants wanted to transfer for Optima, because they would guarantee that
there would be extra investment. That is not going to be the case if you
have the whole of the ninety-thousand properties owned by Birmingham City
Council transferring. Nearly all of them need investment and it's going
to take time. It's going to be at least a ten-year programme, so people
voting are not suddenly going to find, if they transfer, that the sort
of investment that they've seen with Optima is going to become into their
homes. So people need to be told the truth.
WATSON: At a meeting in the community
hall at the heart of the estate which the new owners, Optima, now call
Attwood Green, tenants are finding out about future development plans for
their area. Unpopular tower blocks will go; new low-rise private and rented
housing will be built and a lot has already happened in eighteen months
of new ownership.
ACTUALITY
WATSON: But there's also a downside.
Tenants who moved on to the estate after the transfer pay rents that are
five per cent higher than their neighbours. Some say the price of improvement
is just too much.
TENANT 1: We're actually going
round with a petition because they want to come in next year doing fitted
kitchens that we have got to pay for and we're up in arms.
TENANT 2: One thing that Optima's
done is that now we've got the cash in the bank and we are going to do
what we said we're going to do and certainly if they don't, I mean for
one, as a tenant director, part of my job is there to make sure that they
do and I'm happy to sort of take on that role.
WATSON: The government wants to
see two-hundred-thousand homes transferred each year out of the control
of English local authorities. That would mean a decade from now, almost
half the council housing in England would be under new ownership. But
a Labour whip has told On The Record there could be opposition - especially
from northern MPs who've been councillors; they are far from convinced
that a change of ownership can improve the nation's housing. But it's
here in the West Midlands that the fightback has already begun.
JONES: We've got to press the government
to get more investment in areas like this so that...
WATSON: Lynne Jones is the MP for
the Grange Farm Drive Estate. She's being shown the effects of under-investment
by the local housing manager. The government has given undertakings to
write off Birmingham's housing debt of six-hundred-and-fifty million pounds,
but only if the council gives up ownership. Lynne Jones launched a campaign
last week aimed at persuading her own government to stop loading the system
against local councils; tenants, she says, should not feel forced to change
landlord.
JONES: They should be given a real
choice. Not a choice where they're told that the only way you can get
investment is if you vote for a transfer. That is unfair and tenants perceive
it as unfair. The government has committed itself to bringing the social
housing stock up to a decent standard in ten years and that should be available
whether tenants are in the council sector or in the registered social landlord
sector. It's a fair deal that's needed for council tenants.
STEPHENS: The government is clearly
using its powers to set the agenda, it is creating financial incentives
to encourage stock transfers, the big question is could programmes of improvement
such as those that are proposed in cities like Glasgow and Birmingham,
could these improvements be obtained within the current structure? The
answer is almost certainly no.
WATSON: There are two by-elections
this week in Glasgow, but it's the ballot of tenants next year that is
likely to have much wider implications. Their decision on whether to transfer
to a new landlord will be watched closely throughout the UK. Only then
will we know if we are witnessing the beginning of the end of council housing
in Britain.
HUMPHRYS: Iain Watson reporting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Many European leaders
want a European army. Britain says it doesn't - but we are prepared to
contribute to a European rapid reaction force capable of keeping the peace
in situations such as Kosovo. This week European leaders are meeting to
agree on who is prepared to contribute what. It's been reported that we
are prepared to commit a quarter of the British Army, half the Navy. Critics
say it makes no sense because Britain's forces are already stretched too
thinly. It would cost too much money and we simply couldn't afford to meet
that sort of commitment. Well the Defence Secretary, is Geoff Hoon and
he's in our Nottingham studio.
Good afternoon, Mr Hoon.
GEOFF HOON MP: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: It is going to be a big
commitment this isn't it, roughly what sort of numbers are we talking about
here?
HOON: Well I will announce the
precise numbers to Parliament in answer to a question tomorrow...
HUMPHRYS: ..been announced already...
HOON: ..as I go to the European
Conference where each country will make known its own contribution. But
can I emphasise that this is a planning progress, this is not a standing
European Army, I've made it quite clear this is not a European Army. What
we are seeking to do is to prepare our forces for the kind of role that
they will require as they operate alongside the forces of our partners
and allies, something that we have always done and something that we continue
to need to be able to do.
HUMPHRYS: Let me return to the
question of numbers because your officials have been busy briefing the
newspapers over the weekend, telling them how many, we have got precisely
this twenty-four thousand fighting forces and all the rest of it. Why can't
you tell us, in the way that the Germans have told their people, I mean
you know how many it is, why can't you tell us?
HOON: Well I will tell you, but
I think it's right that I tell Parliament first and there is a parliamentary
question tabled for answer tomorrow and I intend to answer it in the proper
Parliamentary way.
HUMPHRYS: Why didn't you tell your
officials not to leak it then?
HOON: This hasn't been leaked and
I make it clear that whatever speculation appears in the newspapers over
the weekend is mere speculation, I will confirm the figures at the appropriate
time in an answer to Parliament.
HUMPHRYS: Right, so long as you
are going to confirm them, I'm going to operate in the assumption that
they are more of less right, that's to say twenty-four thousand people,
seventy-two combat aircraft, eighteen warships, a quarter of our Army and
Air Force strength and half the Navy. Now, are they going to be full time
serving military people or are they going to be TA, Territorial Army people?
HOON: Well obviously, when we deploy,
as we deploy in the Balkans, there is a mixture, predominately they are
regular forces but we do have a number of full time reservists who do a
marvellous job, I've seen for myself in Kosovo, the tremendous role that
they can play, I'm confident that there will be a handful of TA, of full
time reservists who will compliment this force but it will be no more than
a handful.
HUMPHRYS: Right, okay. And they
will operate, and I use the word operate as opposed to fight or whatever,
under some sort of European insignia, you told me there wouldn't be a European
cap badge, won't be fighting under a European flag, but there will be some
sort of European insignia involved here?
HOON: Well that hasn't be confirmed
yet, it's the kind of detailed discussion that we have to have. But certainly,
there is not going to be a European Army, there is not going to be a European
cap badge, British Forces will participate at the decision of the British
Prime Minister, who will be answerable to Parliament. That is always the
case when British Forces deploy and it will continue to be the case.
HUMPHRYS: Exactly, if we are involved
in the United Nations, they wear some sort of UN insignia to identify themselves,
that's bound to be the same here isn't it?
HOON: Well it's the kind of detailed
issue that frankly has yet to be resolved.
HUMPHYRS: Why are you so cautious
about saying yes in answer to that, I mean it's perfectly clear isn't it?
HOON: The reality is that those
kinds of practical day to day decisions will come once a deployment is
taken, it's a military matter in terms of identifying the forces. I don't
believe at this stage that it is necessary to go into those kinds of details,
when frankly there are much more important issues to resolve, the precise
numbers that each country will contribute will be determined in the course
of this week.
HUMPHRYS: And a very important
issue here is they will be required within sixty days. I mean the period
of notice says sixty days, if we need to pull them together you've got
sixty days to get them together. Now let's look at the problem that is
involved in that because of course they will be tied up doing other things.
The forces are already over-stretched, look at where they are all over
the world, we cannot do that as things stand, can we, we cannot say: okay
here is our contribution it will be ready in sixty days, can't do it.
HOON: That's why it's so important
that we approach this sensibly as a planning process in the way that we
approach the same process within NATO and indeed within the United Nations.
We've made it quite clear as every country makes clear, if there is a threat
to Britain's vital national interest, that will always come first, which
is why it is always for a British Prime Minister to decide when to deploy
British Forces, but if there is not such threat it is important that we
give our forces the opportunity of preparing, of planning, for this kind
of deployment. Again, precisely in the way that we plan for a deployment
under NATO or indeed under the United Nations.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, well, it might
not be a threat to our vital national interest, might it? I mean we might
have people in Sierra Leone, for instance, who might be needed for this
force, so it's a question of who takes precedence, isn't it?
HOON: Well, those are the kinds
of decisions that we have to take at the time whenever a requirement arises,
which is why it's so important to get across the fact that this is not
a standing European army, we only have one set of forces and a British
Prime Minister will have to take a decision at the right time...
HUMPHRYS: ...no I've got that point.
But I mean we're going into this exercise without fundamental, and I stress
fundamental, issues resolved. I mean, things like whether we'd have to
pull forces out of place 'A' in order to go to place 'B', I mean those
are key, we can't say, yeah, we'll go along with it, we'll offer you our
twenty-four-thousand or however many it turns out to be and we don't even
know roughly how they're going to be used, I mean, that's preposterous
isn't it.
HOON: Well I simply don't accept
that as part of the normal planning process that we undertake. As I say,
as far as NATO and the UN is concerned and indeed let me make it quite
clear, the only people who are actually against this are the right-wing
Euro-sceptics and their occasional friends in the British press who keep
going on about this as if there's some fundamental issue involved. The
reality is, the last Conservative government supported this, the United
States' administration supports it and our European partners support it,
the only people who are against it are the right-wing fringe of the Conservative
Party.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I don't know whether
you would describe the Chief of Joint Operations, for instance, as a member
of the right-wing, perhaps he is, I don't know, I don't know the gentleman,
but he has said, if the UK wish to go into a major operation, they could
do that and I quote "but clearly back in the three services, that would
lead to considerable pain" because the fact is, we are over-stretched
at the moment.
HOON: But those are the kinds of
decisions that we always have to take before any kind of deployment. We
have to make a judgement, a British Prime Minister would have to make a
judgement as to what we were able to manage in practice at the time. That's
not anything new....
HUMPHRYS: ...so it's not a commitment
then...
HOON: ...what is important is that
we have the capability of deploying, alongside our partners and allies,
when we need to, and frankly, this is a matter of common sense, and I'm
sorry that so many newspapers, and the Conservative Euro-sceptics are determined
to tell lies about this, determined to play politics, with our soldiers.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I don't know whether
that's what they're doing or whether they're just being sensibly cautious
about this, because unless of course, unless of course what you're saying
to me this morning, is that it isn't a commitment, after all, we're not
making a commitment to Europe, we're saying that it might be, given that
the wind's in the right direction, we haven't got the soldiers here, there
and everywhere, it might be that we would be able to send somebody over
there to fight with this European force wherever it might happen to be,
or to operate with this European force wherever it might, or might not
happen to be. But there's absolutely no commitment. I mean, if that's
what you're saying, I'm quite sure that some of your critics would say,
oh well alright, is that what you're saying?
HOON: What I'm saying is that we
are planning for getting a European force quickly, within sixty days, into
a crisis where it's necessary. And that's precisely the lesson that we
learned from Kosovo, we looked carefully at Kosovo, we came to the conclusion
that it wasn't possible for European nations to participate to the extent
that we wanted, and therefore we want to plan for that eventuality, but
certainly, if there were a threat to Britain's vital national interest
or if we were engaged in a way that made it impossible to commit those
forces, then at the time, a British Prime Minister would be faced by taking
that difficult decision - and I'm absolutely clear in my own mind that
a British Prime Minister would put Britain's vital national interest first.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, well, ok, but we've
dealt with the vital national interest question, I mean Sierre Leone, is
probably not, East Timor's probably not, even Iraq is probably not, but
my point to you is this - that we are told this is a commitment, you will
be going to our European partners tomorrow and saying, this is Britain's
commitment, but in truth it is not a commitment.
HOON: But that's why it's vital
to understand that this is a common-sense planning process. When you talk
about a commitment, we are not committing a large-standing European army
to wait for a crisis to the extent that we cannot use those forces for
other things, those soldiers will be training, preparing, deploying, going
about their normal business. But was is important, is if a crisis develops,
we do have the ability to reorganise those forces and send them rapidly
to that emerging crisis. That's something which everyone agrees on, the
last Conservative government, the United States, our European partners,
all recognise that this is an important quality that we require European
forces to have and the only people who are against it are a handful of
Euro extremists, currently unfortunately leading the Conservative Party.
HUMPHRYS: Well, you keep saying
that, but I'm struggling here to discover what is the real difference between
you and them, because they're saying, as you say, in the past they've said
- yes, of course, you know, if we've got the forces available and if we
can help out, goodness knows, they've done it often enough Conservative
governments of the past sent off our forces to fight with the United Nations
or whatever it happens to be. It seems to me that you are saying precisely
the same as them. Given that there's no other crisis anywhere in the world,
given that our forces aren't needed anywhere else, given that they're sort
of sitting around, you know, buffing their fingernails, or whatever it
happens to be in Catterick or somewhere, we'll send them. However, if
there's a problem, we won't send them.
HOON: Well I assure you our forces
are not sitting around...
HUMPHRYS: ...I'm quite sure they're
not
HOON: ...amongst the busiest of
any forces anywhere in the world...
HUMPHRYS: ...precisely, my point
precisely.
HOON: Can I make it quite clear
that this is a planning process which is why I can say with some confidence
that certain elements of the Conservative Party, the Euro-sceptic element,
are turning this into a political issue, because, they in the past have
been involved in precisely this kind of planning process. We learned lessons
from Kosovo, one of the lessons was, that European nations weren't sufficiently
prepared, sufficiently equipped, to deal with that kind of emerging crisis
sufficiently quickly, and what we're doing is learning those lessons and
implementing the results in the planning as we prepare for a future crisis.
It's common sense. And frankly, as I say, it is only the Euro-sceptics
who are trying to turn this into a political issue, because anything that's
involved with the European Union, they have a knee-jerk reaction against.
HUMPHRYS: Well, let's have a look
at what Lionel Jospin has said. I don't suppose even his worst enemy would
describe him as a rabid right-wing Euro-sceptic, but what he says is that
we're going to have to be equipped, have to be equipped, I quote, "with
our own intelligence command control and logistical capabilities". Now
that kind of thing costs very serious money. That sort of thing sounds
much more than you have been describing this morning, and it's certainly
going to cost.
HOON: We are looking at the ways
in which we can equip a force with the necessary intelligence and other
functions. It's obvious we are not going to deploy British soldiers as
part of a European force unless they have access to appropriate intelligence,
which is why we have emphasised so strongly the importance of resorting
to NATO planning procedures. We don't want to see any kind of duplication,
and again that is precisely what we have agreed. There is an absolute
consistency between what we're proposing in an EU context and what already
happens and will continue to happen in a NATO context.
HUMPHRYS: I'm deeply puzzled by
this absolute consistency then, because we've got William Cohen the American
Defence Secretary talking about it would be a highly ineffective seriously
wasteful of resources if NATO and the European Union had their own commanding
control structures, and yet Lionel Jospin's saying precisely that - we
must have them.
HOON: Well, Bill Cohen came to
Birmingham very recently and said how pleased he was with the progress
that was being made and indeed most recently the US administration have
said how delighted they are with the text that have been worked on, so
there is absolutely no division of opinion in NATO or elsewhere. This
is a good thing. The only ones who want to turn this into a political
football are the Euro-sceptics and the Tory party.
HUMPHRYS: Well, but we'd also have
this extra cost of moving these people around. Rapid deployment means precisely
that doesn't it. We'd have to have lots of aeroplanes and all the rest
of it to move these things around. In the past NATO have done it for us.
The Americans have done it for us within NATO, we'd have to have our own
wouldn't we?
HOON: Well, that is why we have
recognised the importance not only as part of our contribution to our European
force but in the light of Britain's own needs and requirements which is
why this government has invested so substantially in extra lift as far
as aircraft are concerned, in extra lift as far as ships are concerned.
We recognise the importance of getting British forces into a crisis quickly,
that's why this government has provided the necessary investment.
HUMPHRYS: But not enough. I mean
George Robertson, Lord Robertson, I beg his pardon as he is now, who runs
NATO, if the Europeans are going to rise to the challenge of the post cold-war
world then more money will have to be invested. Now, when he says more
money will have to be invested he means precisely that, but in Europe less
money is being invested, not more. Yes, we have increased our defence
spending but only in inflationary terms, not in real terms.
HOON: No, that's not right I'm
afraid John. We've actually increased our defence spending in real terms
as well as to compensate for inflation, so there is a substantial amount
of extra money available to defence, planned, allowed for, over the next
three-year period, so it is real increases in real money available for
investment in defence. But equally we also will want to encourage our
European partners to follow our example, but what's key to this and why
this is so important as a sensible, common-sense planning process, is that
actually those other countries reorganise their forces, actually make sure
that their forces are equipped to do the kind of rapid deployment that
we believe is absolutely the right way forward in a much more complex and
challenging modern world.
HUMPHRYS: But George Robertson
said, static defence budgets, and I emphasis budgets, plural here, will
make a mockery of the ambition to tackle trouble spots before they become
a crisis. Well, Europe's defence budgets across the board are not just
static, they're going to fall by six per cent in real terms by next year.
HOON: Well, I agree with Lord Robertson.
We have to ensure that other countries are able to make this extra contribution,
either in financial terms but more importantly in the way in which they
spend their existing defence budget. There is a change, the change is
from the kind of static forces that existed to deal with a threat from
the Soviet Union, to the more complex world that we now have to deal with,
and that's precisely why this government through its strategic defence
review which of course was led very successfully by Lord Robertson have
reorganised our forces to meet these kinds of new challenges, it's important
that other countries now do the same.
HUMPHRYS: Isn't the truth that
we never really wanted to go down this road. I mean I can understand your
reticence in the early parts of this discussion, because we learn from
the Mail on Sunday this morning, they've got another leak of cabinet minutes,
and George Robertson, when he was Secretary of State for Defence, in your
job, he said: we can stop things we don't want such as a European Defence
policy. We didn't want to do it then, we don't really want to do it now,
but we're having to do it because we want to keep our friends in Europe,
and since we can't join the European monetary union, then let's do this.
HOON: Well, the only thing I recognise
in that story as being accurate is the headline, and there are no plans
for a European army, therefore there is no U-turn. To that extent the
Mail on Sunday did get something right.
HUMPHRYS: Ah, but we are going
to have a European Union defence policy aren't we. That is what it is
all about.
HOON: But that was in the Maastricht
Treaty. It was agreed by John Major's government. He actually promoted
that in the House of Commons, it's set out, it's not anything that until
the present Euro-sceptic leadership of the Conservative party came to power,
was a political issue, which is why I've consistently complained to you
about the Euro-sceptics turning this issue, our armed forces, their training,
the planning, into a political football. That's wrong, it's never happened
before, and it shouldn't happen again.
HUMPHRYS: Geoff Hoon, thanks very
much indeed.
HUMPHRYS: And that's it for this week.
Don't forget those of you on the Internet can keep up-to-date with all
the interviews and the rest of the programme on our Web-site. I'll be
back at the same time next week with David Blunkett. Until then, good
afternoon.
14
FoLdEd
|