|
====================================================================================
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:
10.12.00
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Europe's
leaders still haven't agreed on a new treaty, we'll be getting the latest
from Nice as the story breaks. The government says it's cracking down on
crime. But is that just pre-election rhetoric? I'll be talking to the
Home Secretary Jack Straw. And Britain's car industry is in trouble.
Is there anything the government can do to save it? That's after the
news read by GEORGE ALAGIAH.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Later in the programme we'll
be going back to Nice to see if they've made any progress towards that
elusive agreement and we'll also be reporting on the worrying state of
the British car industry. But first something else we all worry about...
crime.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: It used to be the Tories
who were tough on crime... or said they were. Then Labour said: we'll
be even tougher... tough on crime... tough on the CAUSES of crime. But
in the three years since it's been in power the government has grown increasingly
concerned it seems that it is seen by the public as soft rather than tough.
So it's trying to change that perception. No fewer than five different
measures were announced in the Queen's speech. Couldn't have anything
to do with an election coming up, could it? The two main ones are curfews
on young people (under the age of 16) and a crackdown on people drinking
in public. So what effect will all this have... or is it just a gimmick
to attract the headlines? The Home Secretary Jack Straw is with me.
And I suggest that Mr
Straw, that it is more about politics than a truly serious attempt at
tackling crime, partly because of what Tony Blair himself said in that
famous leaked memo back in April, you will remember it no doubt, we should
think of an initiative something tough with immediate bite which sends
a message through the system, and what I'm suggesting to you is that this
is designed to send that message.
JACK STRAW: No, it's part of a continuing
programme which we put in place since May nineteen-ninety-seven, to be
tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and contrary to your introductory
script it's not - we introduced these measures not because people are worried
about the fact we're going soft which is not the case, but because people
are pretty, I think, satisfied or the polls suggest more than they would
be with the Conservatives about the progress we've been making on crime,
but crime is still much too high and we've got to move forward, and we're
dealing with - we've dealt with a series of problems and now we're coming
to the issue of disorder, which partly because of the great increase in
drinking that is taking place, young people particularly becoming more
affluent, many more licensed premises opening, unfortunately more disorder
on the streets on Friday and Saturday nights. We're now dealing with that,
but if - I mean if I can just give you the figures, the British crime survey,
which is the most weighty independent study of all in terms of crime levels,
has shown that crime has gone down, that is overall crime with unrecorded
as well as recorded crime by ten per cent between nineteen-ninety-seven
and nineteen-ninety-nine.
We will be the
first new government for fifty years which sees at the end of our period
of office lower levels of crime then we had at the beginning, and the anxiety
about crime, well that's still too high is also going down. I've just
- I've brought with me because it's received very little publicity, quite
extraordinary results from the housing - Survey of English Housing which
is one of the most independent weighty studies of housing conditions which
includes say questions in Chart Nine, a household saying crime is a serious
problem by type of area, and you'll see that on the low income on council
estates it's gone down by about twenty per cent, in the more affluent areas
anxiety about crime - this is people saying crime is a serious problem
by type of area - ninety-ninety-four-five, nineteen-ninety-seven, eight,
two-thousand, in some areas it's actually halved. Now it's still much
too high but there's no question about the fact that the programme is working,
but it's one which has to continue.
HUMPHRYS: But the reason that I
draw this distinction between genuinely tough measures and appearing to
be tough and after all Mr Blair himself acknowledged in that memo that
you had to be seen to be tough, is let's take your curfew for instance,
now sounds tough, we're going to have a curfew, sweep the under sixteen
year-olds off the streets in certain areas and all that kind of thing.
But you've already done that, we've been there, we've had it before, it
was for under ten-year olds admittedly, but not one single curfew was imposed.
STRAW: There was a great debate
when we began this, excuse me while I clear my throat, this is the only
one of a very wide range of orders we put in place. This is the only one
where no orders have been issued, and I'll come on to the other ones which
have been remarkable successful, but there was a big debate about whether
we should establish the limit at ten in respect of those who could not
be subject to a criminal process or for those below sixteen. In the end
we went for caution. I mean looking back on it we should have arranged
for there to be an order making power so the age could have been increased.
HUMPHRYS: So that was a mistake
to have it as under ten.
STRAW: Yes it was.
HUMPHRYS: And you're sorry that
curfews were not imposed then.
STRAW: Yes, it was a mistake.
We also did not take full account of the conservatism with a small c, for
example the Social Service departments in not wishing to go ahead with
these for their own reasons. Anyway the result is - of this is that you
have to keep learning in government, so yes it was an error, it's certainly
an error not to have put it in as an order-making power, but interestingly
enough the Conservatives were amongst those people who were calling for
it to be sixteen. They're now saying on the same day as they reminded
people of this fact, that I've got the briefing here - that they wanted,
that they had asked for curfew orders to be set at sixteen, - this is the
Conservative briefing which they issued on the day of the Queen's speech,
their spokesman John Bercow was saying they would abandon these altogether,
which I think makes an interesting point about their lack of coherence,
but in the light of what's been going on in Scotland where they've had
curfews - different legal system - they've had curfews for under sixteen,
and they have worked.
HUMPHRYS: Where they a different
sort of thing. I mean you're talking about the Hamilton thing aren't you.
They didn't sweep the streets, that wasn't a curfew as such. Plus they
had all sorts of other things on which they spent a great deal of money.
STRAW: Well, of course, of course,
and this is a power to be given to local authorities and the police to
be used sensibly. You know if I can draw a parallel with something that
is working and very similar by the way, which is the truancy sweeps which
we've established with David Blunkett and the Department for Education
and Employment. David and I talked about this three-and-a-half years ago,
should there be greater powers given to the police to pick up people who
were truanting and hand them over to the local education authority and
the schools. A lot of criticism about this at the time, saying it wouldn't
work, this, that and the other. Anyway, the powers were put in place,
we've worked very co-operatively David and I together and so have local
education authorities and the police, and these powers are now working
to get the truants off the streets and into school. It helps their education,
it also of course means there's very much less crime, and that's the -
and again this is a power to be used locally. If I can just pick up the
point about the other orders there was criticism for example of the introduction
of the parenting order. People were saying this was being Big-brotherish.
In fact the parenting order which is an order which can attach to a parent
of a persistent of even less persistent young offender, those parenting
orders have actually worked extremely well. In the piloted areas scores
of these orders have been issues and far from them Big-brotherish the parents
themselves the valuation suggests have welcomed these orders because they
answer the question, what do you do next when you're faced with a teenager
who is a bit out of control and it's not only serious offender's parents
who were in that position.
HUMPHRYS: But what about this particular
curfew, this curfew for under sixteens. Now there is no reason, as far
as I can see, why you should have any more success with this than you had
with the last one and there are many reasons for that, one of them is that
the police themselves, the people who would have to enforce it, say and
they certainly tell us this, that what you've got to do and particularly
in these difficult areas, is that you've got to build trust with young
people. You have to establish a relationship and the why to do it, they
say, and they are the expects, is not to go around the streets seeing a
kid who is fifteen years old, or twelve or fourteen and saying you're off
home, come on, that's it. I mean what makes you think that people will
actually enforce these orders?
STRAW: (coughing) - I do excuse
myself - of course you have to do it by co-operation, I don't disagree
with the police in saying that. Many local authorities and police officers
told us they wanted the age range...
HUMPHRYS: ..but a curfew is a curfew...a
curfew is prohibitive...
STRAW: ..hang on a sec... but it's
also about, John, the process by which you achieve that and what we are
laying down is not that the Home Office says there will be a curfew in
these areas but that the local authority and the police agree it and what
will happen is that we will have an area where there's a problem of young
kids, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, racketing around very very late at night.
Now the question I put to my critics is what would you do about this,
it can be hugely disruptive for a neighbourhood - when I go to areas of...low
income areas, estates which are frankly often disfunctional..
HUMPHRYS: ...oh sure...we know
they exist..
STRAW: ...you say sure, they exist..
HUMPHRYS: ...they exist...
STRAW: ..this is a huge problem..
HUMPHRYS: ..I'm saying to you that
people will not enforce these curfews because history suggests and all
sorts of comments from the police suggest that we won't do it.
STRAW: We have had no history in
England and Wales. We have had history..
HUMPHRYS: ..we had a ten year one
in England..
STRAW: ..we've dealt with that.
We have had history in Scotland, we've also had history in other countries
where these have worked and what will happen is that there will be area
community meetings about whether the area, the community, should have one
of these in place. Now in many cases, the very process of the community
getting together to discuss this will be a process by which some of the
problems can themselves be resolved, just as the threat in many areas of
the implementation of an anti-social behaviour order, the threat of that
has been enough to deter people from going in for their anti-social behaviour.
And it's also led to a lot of other things, for example the establishment
by a number of local authorities of anti-social behaviour contracts with
people as a precursor, if they don't get the message to going to court.
So these measures can work and on the point about it's not enough just
to sweep kids off the street, of course it's not enough to do that but
if you are concerned about high levels of juvenile delinquency, if you
are also concerned about problems that may be going on inside families,
then leaving the kids on the streets to bring themselves up, ten, eleven,
twelve, one o'clock at night is the worst possible thing that you can do.
HUMPHRYS: I mean the initiative
sounds terribly forceful, terribly grand and all the rest of it. What I
am suggesting to you to...
STRAW: ..it's not grand, it's just
sensible.
HUMPHRYS: ..all right, come to
that. What I am suggesting to you is that it's part of a pattern, last
month you said that this tagging of young people was going to be extended
to youngsters across the country. But the pilots of that showed that the
take-up was relatively low, according to your Home Office research and
your own Home Office research shows that the reason that JPs didn't like
it and of course it was JPs who'd have to have don't that, magistrates
as opposed to councils, is that if you tagged children then it would have
a certain damaging effect on the neighbourhood. Councils will not impose
curfews I am suggesting to you, for the same reason that magistrates were
reluctant, according to your Home Office research, to impose those tagging
orders.
STRAW: My reading of that research
was very different from yours. The arrangements were piloted in Greater
Manchester and in Norfolk and again contrary to expectations the experience
of tagging as a disposal, a sentence of the juvenile courts was much more
successful than anybody had anticipated and there were...
HUMPHRYS: Relatively low says your
Home Office research..
STRAW: ..higher levels of take-up
than we anticipated and high levels of compliance..
HUMPHRYS: ..much that isn't what
your research says...
STRAW: ..I'm sorry I haven't got
the research in front of me...
HUMPHRYS: ..relatively low...
STRAW: ..I can promise you John
that we would not have gone down the road of extending them nationwide
- the whole point of evaluation of these things on a pilot basis is to
see whether they are going to work or not. Now, the disposal of the courts
and one of the points of having this disposal available is to see whether
we can keep these youngsters out of secure accommodation, out of prison.
There's a lot of anxiety about locking up youngsters when it's not necessary.
Now ninety-nine per cent of the youngsters who are locked up, are locked
up because the courts have reached the end of their tether. But is it also
the case that obviously if you can get a child to redemption as it were,
without taking them away from their community and their school and all
the rest of it and you can turn them away from crime, that is much better
and it's also much less expensive..
HUMPHRYS: Yeah..
STRAW: Well you yes with a suck
of the lips but...this is a way of dealing with these kids, of ensuring
that they are..I mean literally not pinned down in their houses but people
know where they are and there are some limits set to their behaviour within
the community and tagging generally has worked.
HUMPHRYS: But, and I quote again
from your own Home Office research, a stable home is a prerequisite and
you talk about the importance of a stable home, all of us recognise the
importance of a stable home for these youngsters. A stable home is a prerequisite
for a curfew. Now the precise problem in the sort of areas that you describe
is that there are not stable homes in many of these cases, particularly
with the sorts of youngsters that we are talking about. So you go around,
assuming that any of these orders are imposed, you go around sweeping these
kids off the street and taking them home to what? - maybe to a step-father
who beat him up them and told him to clear off out of the house in the
first place. You know this is the whole problem isn't it is.
STRAW: That's precisely the point.
If they are out...look time and time again, okay, you get examples of child
abuse, or of examples of the consequences of seriously dysfunctional families
where the evidence is not presented to the Social Services or the courts
until it is too late..
HUMPHRYS: Yeah but it's there and
that's why the councils will not impose these orders...
STRAW: ..hang on, the councils
ought to be doing it because - look, you and I, I don't think, brought
our kids up so that we just let them range around the streets aged ten
or eleven, not coming home until eleven, twelve o'clock at night, okay.
We've got kids in schools, in urban schools particularly who get into school
in the mornings dog tired because they've not slept, alright and yes they
may be living in a dysfunctional family. What is crucially important is
that if that is going on, that those in authority with the duty to deal
with this, including Social Services, find out about it at an earlier stage
so just as with the truancy...
HUMPHRYS: ..well council of perfection..
STRAW: ..no, but it's a council
that is doing something better than we are doing at the moment because
we spend a huge amount of money on these services but at the moment an
awful lot is spent on process rather than on outcome and I come back to
the arrangements that David Blunkett and I have agreed in respect of truancy.
People said take oh take a laissez-faire to truancy but in fact unless
you start with enforcement to find out why the kids are on the streets
and pick them out, then you will not be doing anything for their education
and you will not be doing anything in terms of crime and the same applies
to curfews. But I also say to you, John, and this is extremely important
because you've started off by saying, well has our programme worked, is
it all, to coin a phrase...all spin and not delivery - well the answer
is it is working. If you look across the board at what we have done on
youth justice, we have introduced dramatic reforms...
HUMPHRYS: ...stay with this question
because you've still not dealt with it, if I may say so, satisfactory.
Let me just quote you...
STRAW: ..I think I have...
HUMPHRYS: ..let me quote to you
Sir Jeremy Beecham, you know, Jeremy Beecham, of course you do, the Local
Government Authority Leader, he says that he would prefer a more individualised
approach with difficult children. Now, in other words, don't have curfews,
that is what many authorities say, but let me put this question to you,
if this is a sort of test if you like of your toughness, you say yes of
course these aren't just window dressing, this isn't spin, this is...we
are really being tough. If that is the case, why don't you say, alright,
if the councils won't impose these orders and the evidence suggests that
they won't and that the police are reluctant to do so and there are other
reasons I'll come to why the police are reluctant to do so, why don't you
Jack Straw say okay, then I will impose them, I will say this is what must
happen across the country...that would be tough..
STRAW: No, I'm not possessed of
the information that is needed to decide what should happen locally and
I'm forever aware of what Karl Popper
said in that famous tirade the poverty of a stoicism (sic) against centralisation
of power. You've got to have a proper balance between what you do nationally
and what you do locally.
HUMPHRYS: It becomes rhetoric in
the end though, doesn't it?
STRAW: No, it doesn't. It does
not become rhetoric. I'm sorry John. I want to go back to all the other
things we've been doing because this is one part of a wide range of proposals
and measures which we have already put in place to make this country safer.
And yes, crime and disorder are still too high, but for all of the knocking
that is sometimes occasioned by our policy, what we have done over the
past three and a half years is working....
HUMPHRYS: ...yes, but
STRAW: ...and yes, you know, if
I go back five years ago to a similar kind of programme, people saying
well, will your proposals in respect of youth justice work? The Conservatives
dismissed them altogether, saying they wouldn't work, but they....
HUMPHRYS: ...ah well, go back to
the ten year old curfew. You sat in this studio and I talked to you about
that and you it would work and it hasn't worked.
STRAW: ...they said that they would
work, but I'm talking about, sometimes, including a raft of measures, say
twenty, you may get one that is not working. I don't blame you for picking
on it, but what about the nineteen that are working, that are working very
successfully...
HUMPHRYS: ...I picked on it only
because you have now built on it, you have added in this very important
curfew thing, which, and I'm suggesting to you, it isn't going to happen
and if you wanted to make it happen, as with the drinking ban, drinking
in public, again why not make that nationwide. You know, why not say,
we will not have youngsters drinking on streets - full stop. Make it all...
STRAW: ...because it depends on
the circumstances and you have to be proportionate, but let me come on
to the drinking ban because it has a very, very interesting parallel.
What's happened there is that in some areas, Coventry, one or two other
areas, they've been using local bylaws in respect of on-street drinking.
Liverpool came to me about a year ago, to say they'd run into difficulties
with getting a bylaw out of the Home Office. I knew absolutely nothing
about it, I went into it in detail and finally agreed a bylaw that was
appropriate for parts of Liverpool, not the whole of Liverpool, but the
areas where the local people and the police thought there was a problem.
That bylaw has turned out to be very successful. We are now moving away
from a bylaw based approach, which is actually quite cumbersome in terms
of procedure, to the arrangement in the Bill. But this
is something which will help the local authorities, and we're not saying
what position am I in to tell the people and the police of Liverpool or
Manchester or Blackburn...
HUMPHRYS: ..oh well
STRAW: Well, I'm not...
HUMPHRYS: ...no, you're not, but
I'll tell you one reason why you're not in a position to tell the police
anything and that is because there aren't enough of them.
STRAW: ...let me just finish my
sentence. What position am I in to do that, the answer is that what we
need to be doing is setting up a national framework which is working as
I keep saying to you, and is no question about it, very, very significant
reductions in the overall level of crime and disorder and a reduction too
in anxiety about people who believe that serious crime is a problem in
their area, but we are providing people with powers. Now let me come on
to the issue of police numbers...
HUMPHRYS: ...let me just put the
thing in perspective first...
STRAW: ...since you raise it...
HUMPHRYS: ...well and it's hugely
important because obviously if local authorities are to do the kinds of
things that you want them to do, introduce these curfews, or bans on drinking,
whatever it happens to be, they're going to need more, not fewer policemen.
There is, in the words of Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
there is a crisis in London. There are three thousand police officers
short across the country, most of them in London. It isn't a matter of
our famous friend, resources, this one, it's a question of not being able
to recruit new police officers. It cannot work without more police officers
and you're not going to get them.
STRAW: We are and I'm pleased...
HUMPHRYS: ...where are they going
to come from?
STRAW: ...well, they're now coming
in John. Okay. We've had a period...
HUMPHRYS: ...and they're going
out.
STRAW: ...no sorry. We're now
recruiting more police
officers, I'm very happy to give you the figures, as ever, good news or
bad news, we're now recruiting more...
HUMPHRYS: ...last time it was bad
news, 'cos you said...
STRAW: ...yes it was...
HUMPHRYS: ...yes, they're coming
in but they're out at some speed...
STRAW: ...yes it was bad news the
last time, but time's moved on and there's now better news alright. We
are now recruiting more police officers than we are losing and the figures
which I think are going to come out later this week show that the net change
at September I think it was, was seven, and I can tell you the later figure...
HUMPHRYS: ...three thousand fewer
than when you came into power...
STRAW: ...let me just finish my..the
answer. There are three thousand fewer police officers than when we came
into power and I regret that. There are also two-thousand fewer between
1992/3 and the resources were cut by the Conservatives, we had tight budgets...
HUMPHRYS: ...come on, you've had
three-and-a-half years to...
STRAW: ...well, we had tight budgets
based on Conservative, we said, we told people what would happen, we had
tight budgets for the first two-and-a-half years because we wanted to get
the economy right, now...
HUMPHRYS: ...you made the decision...
STRAW: ...we made the decision...
HUMPHRYS: ...we're paying the price
now...
STRAW: ...we made the decisions
and the consequence of that decision is the economy is now in good order.
We built a platform for proper public spending, we are now turning the
numbers round. And the recruitment of police officers is running at the
full capacity of the training school.
HUMPHRYS: ...you've got to have
those police officers before you can bring in the schemes.
STRAW: ...no, I'm sorry, no, I
don't agree with that and let me tell you why.
HUMPHRYS: ..what!
STRAW: .. I don't agree with it
because, there are a-hundred-and-twenty-five-thousand police officers in
the country, there are sixty-thousand civilians, the change in the number
of police officers has been marginal. And if you look at those areas which
have done the best in terms of crime reduction and those areas which have
lost officers, there is no correlation whatever. Why not? Because everybody
knows that if you've got ninety-eight people in a room who are well-managed,
well-led and are properly motivated, they are better than a hundred who
are less well-managed, right, and less well-led, even though...
HUMPHRYS: ...alright..
STRAW: ...no don't say alright,
because...
HUMPHRYS: ...I was going to allow
you that point, I was going to make another point...
STRAW: ...this is really, really
important, so, what we've been doing is saying, yes, we've got to get the
police numbers up, but the idea that the hundred-and-twenty-five-thousand
police officers can't do anything at all when the marginal change has been
three-thousand is utter nonsense...
HUMPHRYS: ...can I just ask you
this about recruitment, it is quite an important question because I didn't
frankly know that it was happening, but I gather that you are considering
taking another look at the guidelines under which... the criteria under
which police officers are recruited and you may recruit them from European
Union countries. Is that the case? Are you actively looking at that?
STRAW: I'm not actively looking
at that. There have been discussions about it in the past and what we
have done, although it has been a matter for the Chief Officers, is that
for example John Stevens, has very sensibly changed some extraordinarily
antiquated conditions against for example having people recruited who have
tattoos. Apparently there was a ruling in the Metropolitan Police against
people who had too many crowns in their teeth. And I discussed this, well
no I'm serious, discussed this with Sir John Stevens the other day and
one of the problems the Metropolitan Police had faced was that they had
extraordinarily antiquated procedures which were leading to applicants
taking up to nine months to be processed, so one of the things we've done
alongside putting the extra money into the Metropolitan Police is flushed
out all these bureaucratic procedures that were putting people off. But
I've increased the money that police officers get in the Metropolitan Police
Service, so that a new recruit inside the Met now gets six-thousand pounds
more than those outside, twenty-two-and-a-half-thousand for a new recruit
compared with eighteen-and-a-half-thousand for somebody say, going into
teaching in London. And I just want to make this point too, we've been
leading this drive to increase the effectiveness of the Police, seven..
the equivalent of seven-hundred officers are back on the streets as a
direct result of our drive against unnecessary sickness. In London, thanks
to Sir John Stevens cutting out a tier of bureaucracy you've got eight-hundred
additional officers back, so it's not just about overall numbers, it's
about how they're used.
HUMPHRYS: Can I turn to another
area where I would again suggest as I have with some of these other things
that it's about politics as much as anything particularly when an election
is coming up. Now the Fox Hunting Bill. Published on Friday. No chance
of it becoming law, because there's going to be an almighty row with the
Lords. You'd be quite happy to have that almighty row with the Lords,
because you'd be able to look in the face of your grass-roots supporters,
say look at that, look, we're doing this for you. It's politics, this,
isn't it? It's not, it not...
STRAW: ...no, it's not, it's...
HUMPHRYS: ...do you want to see
a ban on fox hunting?
STRAW: No, it's not politics at
all. Indeed this is about a free vote so what we said in the manifesto
was that there would be free votes in respect of a bill on hunting...
HUMPHRYS: Doesn't stop it being
about politics, a free vote or not.
STRAW: Well that's what we said,
it is a matter for a free vote, the government doesn't have a particular
position on the issue of fox hunting. There is then, as you know, difficulties
about getting even a serious discussion to a conclusion inside the House
of Commons, still less the House of Lords. So what we have done, following
the report from Lord Burns is to say that as with a Shops bill measure
which the Conservatives introduced, I think in Nineteen ninety four, we
would lay on government time for this so that's what we are doing. I can't
predict when the general election is going to take place, neither can I
predict what the House of Lords would do about the measure. I mean in the
end, over the last session, the House of Lords, although they took us to
the wire and one understands why because we don't have a majority, we were
able to get all the bills we had delivered. I hope this is the case in
terms of whatever the Commons decides over hunting.
HUMPHRYS: Is it a good idea, do
you think, to encourage, to invite indeed a massive demonstration by the
Countryside Alliance and all their followers, just before an election.
STRAW: I make this clear, this
is a matter for free votes, the government does not have a position...
HUMPHRYS: How are you going to
vote then, because there's a bit of an irony here isn't there.
STRAW: I will make my position
clear to the House of Commons, it's not been an issue - I'm on the record
for saying this - it's not been an issue that I've felt particularly strongly
in the past and because it's been entirely a private members matter I don't
think in my twenty-one years in the House of Commons I've ever voted on
it.
HUMPHRYS: But you have now resolved
this now I understand and the irony is that you will not, yourself, be
voting for a ban.
STRAW: I will make this position
clear to the House of Commons, thank you for the invitation this afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: ...you wouldn't like
to clear it up this morning ....
STRAW: No, I feel I ought...since
I've not in the past dealt with it I feel I ought to make this clear to
the House of Commons.
HUMPHRYS: May I suggest that if
you were going to take, as it were, the party line, though it is...if you
were going to vote for a ban I suspect you'd sit here this morning and
say yes.
STRAW: And don't forget that my
opposite number on the other side, Ann Widdecombe..
HUMPHRYS: ..indeed..
STRAW: ..is famous for wishing
for a ban. That is her privilege and I respect her for that position.
HUMPHRYS: It will be...(both talking
at the same time)..a very quick question if I may, a very quick one about
Europe and what's happening over there in Nice. It seems that you are selling
out, at least to some degree, on the question on border controls. Where
it was supposed to be red lined and all that and you are making concessions.
STRAW: I don't think there's any
truth in that whatsoever. My understanding as you know, I was about to
say it's a fast moving scenario but it's a slow moving scenario out there,
but my understanding from an interview which Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary
gave this morning, I've got the transcript as they say, but Robin said
we've not - I quote - "We've not given anything away in respect of the
British immigration and we are not going to give away any majority voting
that could effect Britain's border controls." And don't forget that at
Amsterdam which was the negotiations, equivalent negotiations three and
a half years ago, the Prime Minister Tony Blair for the first time ever
got embedded into the Treaties, the legal protection for Britain to have
its own opt-out from any kind of immigration or border control arrangements
that we don't like.
HUMPHRYS: I wish I had time to
follow that up, but there we are, even after all this time we can't cover
everything. Jack Straw thank you very much indeed.
HUMPHRYS: There are serious problems
brewing in the car industry. It's a while since there's been a British
mass market car, but foreign companies build a lot here. Now they're planning
to build fewer, to close some plants indeed and lay off thousands of workers.
And the reason for that, they say, is the strength of the pound against
the Euro. That's all very difficult for the government as we approach
an election. Paul Wilenius reports on the concerns in Labour's ranks.
PAUL WILENIUS: Cars - and for the nation's
car lovers there's nothing better than a classic British Mini. But now
there's only one British owned car manufacturer left, Rover, and that's
in trouble. Overproduction, dropping prices and the high pound are hurting
the rest of the motor industry. Union leaders and industry chiefs feel
it needs urgent help before it suffers a serious breakdown.
CHRIS MACGOWAN: I don't think the word crisis actually
is too serious a word to use. I think the motor industry here in the United
Kingdom is in crisis.
SIR KEN JACKSON: If we stay out of the
Euro, then in my view the future of manufacturing, motor manufacturing
in this country would be virtually nil.
WILENIUS: In the Sixties cars like
this Mini Cooper put Britain's car industry in the fast lane. But now
Tony Blair's facing the prospect of thousands of job losses before the
next election and major plant closures afterwards. Many in the industry
feel that the only hope is, if Blair says Britain will join the Euro soon.
It was more than thirty years ago when the Mini put the swing into the
Sixties. Together with a host of other cars, it was stylish and modern.
But now the car industry is in decline. Rover is struggling to survive.
Ford will soon end all car production in the UK after seventy years.
Vauxhall will have a long lay off over Christmas because of falling sales.
The long term future of the Japanese car firms such as Nissan, Honda and
Toyota, is in doubt and union leaders feel this is only the beginning.
JACKSON: It's under extreme difficulty
at the moment - it is facing cutbacks. Every sector of the British manufacturing,
or motor manufacturing is under pressure, people are going, laying off,
looking forward to cutting back investment.
WILENIUS: The go ahead for Japanese
investment was sparked off by the creation of the European Single Market
in the nineteen-nineties. Even though Britain has a highly flexible labour
force, it's losing out. The danger is that, instead of exporting more
cars, it'll export more jobs. On The Record went on the road to test the
scale of the crisis.
MACGOWAN: Nearly every other European nation
is involved in the Euro in one way or the other and what are we seeing
at the moment? We're just seeing jobs migrating away from the UK because
they can't produce the components, they can't produce the products, at
market prices. Now, if we remain outside the Euro and if the pound remains
as strong as it currently is, or the Euro remains as weak as it currently
is for a long, long, time, it has got to have a debilitating effect on
any manufacturing industry.
WILENIUS: Thousands of job losses
could hurt Labour, as it speeds towards the next election. It could alienate
voters in the key swing seats of the South and Midlands and depress turnout
in its industrial heartlands of the North.
KEN PURCHASE MP: We do see an election on the horizon
and no politician with any sense would underestimate the damage that could
be done to any party in power by a considerable level of job losses in
the run up period to that.
WILENIUS: So the run into the election
may not be smooth, as some of the nation's car plants are in areas where
Labour has marginal seats. Luton is the home of Vauxhall. It's also home
to Labour MPs, fighting to hold on to their jobs at the next election.
Workers at the Vauxhall plant have already been given an extended lay
off as demand for their cars has fallen. Local MPs are also worried about
the future of the plant.
MARGARET MORAN MP: It's got a downturn at the moment
over this Christmas period, there will be a five week shutdown, largely
because of the pressures, the global pressures, in the market, there is
massive competition globally and so the smaller car is booming, the medium-sized
car of the sort, the Vectra that Vauxhall produce, has been doing less
well. I'm sure, speaking to Vauxhall managers, that the issue of whether
we are in or out of the Euro is going to be a very significant factor in
the decision making, it will affect the productivity of the plant.
WILENIUS: Further North, up the
M1, we went to South Derbyshire. It's the site of one of the most efficient
car plants in the world, built by the Japanese car giant Toyota. Yet it
can't sell its cars at a profit because of the high value of the pound.
All future investment has been put on hold. One local MP says, if Britain
stays out of the Euro, its long term future could be in doubt.
MARK TODD MP: The issue of membership of
the Euro-zone has been raised with Toyota in the past and they've consistently
said that is a factor in their future planning for this plant, both continued
investment there or indeed its continued existence.
WILENIUS: But even further North
there's more immediate trouble. The Nissan plant in Sunderland is highly
efficient but there are real fears in January it will lose the new Nissan
Micra to France. Labour MPs and union leaders are worried the strength
of the pound against the Euro is the biggest single problem.
SIR JACKSON: I'm extremely worried that
the Nissan Micra could be lost to Britain - it could be built in France,
not only in terms of the problem with the pound and Euro, but also the
political pressure that's being put on Nissan to build the Micra in France.
FRASER KEMP MP: I think if people have
a choice between joining the Euro and having a stable economic environment
or having the Queen's Head on a Pound. I think the vast majority of people
will actually choose to have that economic security.
WILENIUS: So the British car industry
is in trouble. And it needs urgent assistance. The government can dish
out regional aid to help ailing car firms with new investment, to help
keep them on the road. But there are limits to what the government can
do under European regulations, as it's finding out over the proposed aid
package for the Nissan Micra. And there would be fierce political opposition
if the government went down this route.
ALAN DUNCAN MP: I don't believe that any government,
new Labour or otherwise, should issue subsidies or something like that.
What they have to do is keep the country competitive, and the way to do
that is to keep out of the Euro, and to make sure we are a, an under-regulated,
rather than over-regulated country, and keep down taxes.
WILENIUS: But in other parts of
Europe governments have no qualms about giving extra help to their workers.
They will help prop up industry with aid and extra protection for their
employees. The government is under pressure to do the same, making it
harder for companies to dump British workers. The engineering union leader
says this misses the point.
SIR JACKSON: You can always bring in areas
where regulation does defend jobs for a period of time, but you know Nissan
and Toyota are the most productive car plants in the world, they are not
making money, they are not making a profit on the vehicles that they sell,
and so at the end of the day it depends on what you sell, the profit you
make on it, not how hard or how easy it is to sack people.
WILENIUS; The real spanner in the
works for Tony Blair is the Euro. Pro-Europeans want him to promote it,
to keep Britain's car industry on the road. But he can't, because it's
potentially damaging at the next election. The Labour high command does
not want the Euro issue dragged into the centre of the forthcoming election
campaign. Strategists would like to keep the issue low key but they will
find it very difficult in the heat of battle. The Tories feel this is
their trump card and will keeping pushing the issue forward as they feel
it can bring them votes when Britain finally goes to the polls.
DUNCAN: If there's anything to
do with the Euro the Conservative Party will say no, and I think clearly
the Labour Party now has big jitters about it, they know it is not a solution
to problems, but they want to do it, and I think they would be very very
unwise to proceed with it and increasingly, I think people will realise
that the Euro is not a solution, it's potentially a very, very big problem.
PURCHASE: I think my constituents
will understand that we just can't risk the chance that not being in the
Euro would lead to heavy disinvestment in Britain, and what does that mean?
Loss of jobs.
WILENIUS: If Tony Blair does win
the election, his problems with the Euro and the car industry will not
be over. He will come under immense pressure to take personal control
of a pro-Euro bandwagon, and also to go for an early referendum.
SIR JACKSON: My view on the referendum
and when it might happen, it's got to take place within the first year
of a new government. We can't continue to delay making a decision, there's
too many jobs at risk, there's too many companies that actually do need
a decision in order that they can make future plans on investment.
WILENIUS: So in the end it all
comes down to Tony Blair. Euro campaigners feel he must eventually choose
his own destiny. Will he fight for the single currency, or risk reducing
parts of the car industry to scrap?
SIR JACKSON: Every motor manufacturer,
every Chief Executive, every Chairman of every manufacturing company in
the car industry has made that quite plain - they've made it quite plain
to me, they've made it quite plain to Ministers, that they see their future,
their immediate future under threat if we're not in the Euro.
WILENIUS: To rescue the once great
British car industry, and return it to its former glory, Tony Blair will
have to make hard choices. Many inside the motor industry fear the worst
if Britain stays outside the Euro, but the Tories feel people have to accept
the reality of economic change.
DUNCAN: I'd like to think that
we can keep a British car industry but you know as the decades go past,
the structure of industrial life does shift and where particularly wage
rates matter, inevitably things tend to move from the richer countries
to the poorer ones, but at the same time of course, we've got lots of new
investment in high tech companies, new businesses and things like that,
so we should not be afraid of industrial change and we ought to actually
allow things to move and to keep fresh and be refreshed and then innovation
I think will keep us rich, employed, productive, competitive and prosperous.
MACGOWAN: If we don't go into the Euro
it will continue to be an enormous political issue - I have no doubt about
that at all. We're already watching jobs migrate out of the United Kingdom,
because people are having to relocate factories outside the UK, and you
can only imagine this process accelerating, and I'm very fearful, that
if we don't address the Euro issue, jobs will go and of course what does
that mean? Plants will close.
WILENIUS: Euro-sceptics believe
the Euro is not the answer for the British car industry. While the pro-Europeans
feel the only way to halt its decline is to swiftly join the single currency.
It's the stark choice which may face Tony Blair and the British voters
sooner than they think. The fate of the pride of British industry depends
on it.
HUMPHRYS: Paul Wilenius repoting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Half way through the
FOURTH day of a European summit that was supposed to end yesterday and
still no agreement. It's never happened quite like this before. But, then,
the stakes are high: governments have to agree to give up their vetoes
on many important areas of policy if there's to be a new treaty and the
smaller countries are being asked to surrender some of their voting power.
It's particularly difficult for Tony Blair given that we're only a matter
of months away from an election in which attitudes to European integration
will play a big part. The shadow defence secretary Ian Duncan Smith is
with me but let's go first to Nice to find out what, if anything, is happening
now.
And our Political Editor
who's probably been up all night for days and days now, Andrew Marr is
there looking remarkably fit on it. Anything to report Andrew?
ANDREW MARR: Yes well, what is going on
is that the endless process as you say is grinding forward. One minister
told me we have spent three- hundred-and-thirty hours as ministers negotiating
this. Now another twenty-eight hours here and we're still not onto qualified
majority voting, the thing that is of most importance of course to Britain
and the Prime Minister back home. What's happened here this morning is
we're getting nearer to a resolution of the very, very difficult issue
of how many votes each country gets in a new Europe, a wider European Union,
and all the ancient enmities between different parts of Europe are suddenly
re-emerging again. The Dutch and the Belgians and the Spanish and the Portugese
all going at each other hammer and tongs. It's been very very complicated,
and the danger I think is that having been a treaty that was supposed to
make decision-making in Europe quicker and easier and smoother in a wider
Europe, we're actually going to get to a situation where it is much, much
harder to take decisions.
HUMPHRYS: Assuming we get a treaty
at all. It looks at this rate as if we may not!
MARR: Well, it's possible. They're
now talking about maybe signing heads of agreement and then leaving it,
the actual treaty to be signed later on. That happened at Maastricht after
all, it's not entirely unique, but there's a lot of anger behind the scenes
about the way that the French have dealt with this. They've - people are
saying, really they have mucked this up pretty badly, it's been complicated
but they should have been able to get through this much faster than they
have.
HUMPHRYS: Are there any signs at
the moment that the government is prepared, the British Government that
is, is prepared to give ground on any of these areas. They have these
red line areas issues. Is there any sign that they are going to give up
the veto a bit more?
MARR: Not a flicker of a whiff
of any sign of that at all. They believe they would be slaughtered by
the opposition at home and by the newspapers if they even thought of doing
that, and there is a kind of relatively relaxed mood inside the government
camp. They don't think they're going to be put under great pressure about
that. Indeed, you see the Government being more and more aggressive on
these European issues. Not a half-day has passed since I've come here
without the Prime Minister's Press spokesman going full barrel at the members
of the media who he describes as being anti-European, no longer just Euro-sceptic.
The government has clearly decided to take on its critics including its
critics in the media.
HUMPHRYS: Mightn't they try and
slip the odd thing under the tent though, so that we don't notice until
it's too late?
MARR: Well, we're all crawling
over the different texts that are coming out. One area that all of us
I think are focussing on is the question of visas and asylum and immigration.
There are six areas where Britain has said absolutely red lined and we
won't move. Two of them are very well known, tax and social security.
Three of them are not contentious because nobody else wants to move on
them either, and then that leaves this one of asylum and borders and so
on. And the government's got an opt-out that, they seem very relaxed about
it, but that's certainly one area people will be concentrating on, and
then there's the whole question of voting and the numbers of the commissioners.
Again, ministers are very, very relaxed at the moment, all the fire is
concentrated elsewhere, but these negotiations are not over till they're
over. Very often there is an enormous row, a tantrum, a final gotterdammerung
situation late at night when the food has run out and the drink has run
out and everyone's tired. And of course you never know what's going to
happen then.
HUMPHRYS: Andrew Marr, thanks very
much indeed.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Well, Iain Duncan-Smith
as I say is with me.
Mr Duncan-Smith, he's
taking a hard line it seems, Mr Blair, you're not going to have very much
to hit him with when he comes home are you?
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well you say he's a taking
a hard line, in fact the truth is that Mr Blair set up a series of issues
which as Andrew Marr said, no-one was in the slightest bit interested in
talking about QMV over, so that was a give-away, and then he talks about
tax, and he talks also about border controls, but on tax, there was never
any way in which the British were going to be expected to give that up.
So what he raised, was a straw man, that he could then say, there, I stood
up for Britain, we didn't give way on that. But there are questions about
the things he hasn't mentioned, there's a whole raft of them, seventeen
other areas where QMV is on the agenda, and some of them are really quite
important, but we hear nothing at all about that, and now we hear this
business about the possibility of asylum and immigration being slipped
out from under border controls and put back into Schengen so that we would
give up our veto on that, now I don't know...
HUMPHRYS: Well we haven't given
up our veto on that...
DUNCAN-SMITH: ...but that's where it is.
Well no...
HUMPHRYS: ...issue...
DUNCAN-SMITH: ...ah, that's what they say
on border controls, but now we hear the talk is that they might slide the
immigration asylum out, back into the rest of Schengen so that we would
give up our veto on saying whether anybody can go ahead to merge all of
that together, so there's lots and lots going on behind the scenes in that,
we don't know the exact details so I wouldn't read that Mr Blair has won
anything frankly.
HUMPHRYS: But you would have to
say that wouldn't you really, because you're looking for things to have
a crack at them over, and when you say, all these different issues, most
of which they don't even touch on, the fact is that in many of these cases,
many of these areas where we are prepared and to say, let's put an end
to our veto, but there are terribly good reasons for doing so. It might
be the smoother running of the European Union, it might actually be in
our interest in some of those cases, but you seem to be saying, as a matter
of principle, whether it's in our interest or not, let's hold on to all
our vetoes.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, I just don't happen
to think, and nor does my party, and William Hague has made this clear,
that there is any need now for further extension of Qualified Majority
Voting. There isn't, because all the key core areas that are to do with
the market place were done and dusted a long time ago, and there's no need
now to extend. What we're looking at is extensions much wider than about
trade. We're looking at extensions that are to do with politics and to
do with the creation of a greater and more powerful European Union. A
sort of state, call it what you like. And that's in essence what is really
being debated today, and the rows that we're talking about are really rows
about that level of politics, and William's made it clear, we don't think
there is any need to go to this 'one size fits all' type policy, and want
some flexibility to be able to say there are certain arrangements outside
the market place, you know, countries should not necessarily have to sign
up, which actually would help in getting some of those countries in Eastern
Europe in, because this concept is going to make it more difficult.
HUMPHRYS: But nowhere at all should
we give up any more, no way at all should we give up any more vetoes, even
if it is in our interest I am asking, I mean, take just one example and
that's this thing about free movement of professionals around Europe.
It's not going to harm us, it's going to help us if, if we can, our accountants
can do whatever they want in other countries and all the rest.., why not,
why not?
DUNCAN-SMITH: The point that we've made,
and I will reiterate again is that we're talking here about QMV which takes
you into deeper integration, and most of the areas that we're talking about,
if not all of them are about deeper integration. Let me give you an example
that's classic. Here we have for example a policy which is on the table
I gather, so that people, businessmen, and businesses generally, will have
to justify that they are not being discriminatory, and that is going to
be passed over to the European Commission rather than the other way around
which is enshrined in English law, that actually you're innocent until
proven guilty, they're going to reverse that, so that you're guilty now,
and you have to justify that you yourself are not guilty. That is quite
outrageous, but that is on the table, that is one of things that we talked
about, single skies policy has nothing to do with trade, it has to do with
centring up control on various places around Brussels. All sorts of policies
which the Government refuses to talk about, didn't want to raise as their
big red-line issues, they wanted to talk about issues that were not ever
likely to be ceded away, like tax.
HUMPHRYS: But my point to you was
that you're opposing for the sake of opposition here, effectively to score
political points, and...
DUNCAN-SMITH: ...no...
HUMPHRYS: ...well, I mentioned
movement of professionals, you didn't, didn't pick up on that. How is
that going to hurt anybody, it isn't going to hurt anybody, it's a sensible
thing. It might be in Britain's interest, the Government says, it is in
Britain's interest, but you say, no, don't give way on it because, why?
DUNCAN-SMITH: My point was quite clear
from the word go. It's issues that of QMV that lead to deeper integration
that have nothing to do with the market place. That's the key point that
we're making. And so what we're saying is, issues about movement of professionals
etcetera, and what I call little issues around the market place. We're
talking about issues that are not to do with the market place.
HUMPHRYS: ...but at the moment
there's a veto there...
DUNCAN-SMITH: Yes. But I'm talking about
issues that are not to do with the market place. Not to do with making
a market place move more smoothly.
HUMPHRYS: But you'd hold every
veto?
DUNCAN-SMITH: No, no, no. We are talking
about rejecting all the vetoes, the QMVs rather, keeping vetoes, rejecting
the change of the Qualified Majority Voting on areas that lead to deeper
integration. Most of the areas on the table that will be agreed by the
Prime Minister are in that category. That is what Francis Maude has said,
that's what William has said...
HUMPHRYS: ...but not all, but not
all...
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, there may be small
issues that aren't. But they can't raise those as being the epitome of
what this is about. They are not what this treaty negotiation is about.
This treaty negotiation is about large areas of Qualified Majority Voting,
one of which I gave you, which are nothing to do with the concept of the
free movement of cattle and goods, nothing to do with the core market place.
What our policy is, is that we should now have flexibility that beyond
the market place we should now be able to say there are areas that actually
nations should not necessarily have to be bound into. The charter of fundamental
rights which they've agreed, the Government has agreed. They say it's
not legal, legally binding, but I've looked at endless Court judgements,
they will take into consideration the idea that Europe now has a view about
the fundamental rights of individuals and they will rule of the basis that
this Government has signed up to that and could overrule British Courts.
That's a huge move, nothing to do with the market place, agreed by the
Government. Integrationist.
HUMPHRYS: But just to be quite
clear there are some areas where you would be happy to accept QMV that
you are not at the moment. Let's be quite clear about it.
DUNCAN-SMITH: No, we're not happy under
this treaty as a package, that there will be areas of QMV that we will
agree.
HUMPHRYS: Even if it is in Britain's
interest?
DUNCAN-SMITH: What we would say is apply
the test. Is any of this likely to lead to deeper integration that goes
beyond the market place and we will reject that.
HUMPHRYS: How would free moment
of professionals not be part of trade then.....
DUNCAN-SMITH: But you're setting up on
one aspect.
HUMPHRYS: But you did.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Yes, I've given you three
or four actually.. My point is...
HUMPHRYS: I'm happy to settle for
one you see. I'm happy for you to say, yes okay that's one of those areas
that we could....
DUNCAN-SMITH: I've just said that issue
is about the market place, so there's no rejection on that particular small
issue. I'm talking about the vast majority of things that on the table
that we have said are leading to deeper integration, and my point is very
simply this, that as a party we believe the British public have seen that
this has gone far enough. Actually funnily enough John Major was on the
radio the other day, I think it was actually on the Today programme, saying
that instead of all of this it would be far better if they sat down and
said, these are the areas now which frankly are never up for grabs which
cannot be defined. That's what we're talking about.
HUMPHRYS: Right.
DUNCAN-SMITH: We're talking about no further
deeper integration, we're talking about the politics of this being ruled
out, and if you want enlargement somebody has to say to me, what Tony Blair
says endlessly, what single area of qualified majority voting that we are
going to give away at this treaty is likely to help or encourage the integration
of east Europe. Not one of them, and CAP reform is not on the table.
He hasn't asked for it to be on the table and he won't even discuss it
at this point.
HUMPHRYS: If we get to the stage
and we may not have a treaty of course as a result, if you were listening
to what Andy Marr was saying there, but if we get to the stage where we
do have a treaty but it doesn't get ratified, it doesn't get passed by
the British parliament and you get into power, what do you do about it
then?
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, it depends, there are
two aspects of it. If the government has decided after this to ram through
the ratification in parliament then after the next election what we're
going to say is, that as an integrationist treaty we would have to have
a referendum, the British people would have to decide, William Hague has
talked about it. If at the end of the day they don't get it through parliament
and they have an election at which it is discussed, our view is that we
will take the view quite simply that any integrationist treaty we will
not ratify at all. We will go back and say this I not for ratification,
we didn't agree it because we weren't in government, so we will reject
it. So it depends. If they've ratified it before and then we will simply
take it to the British people afterwards and say, it's your decision to
make on this, we don't believe in it, but you can make the decision. If
however they haven't done then we will take the view that it's integrationist
and we would not therefore pass it through.
HUMPHRYS: But you'd have a referendum
in that other set of circumstances, which is interesting because you're
so opposed to a referendum on the Euro?
DUNCAN-SMITH: We're not opposed to a referendum
on the Euro. A referendum on the Euro is our policy.
HUMPHRYS: I'm sorry. What I am
suggesting to you is this. That the Government is saying, the British
Government, the Labour government is saying, we will have a referendum
in the next election, early in the next parliament. You are saying we
will not have a referendum early in the next parliament, we have chucked
it out altogether.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Ah. That's the point. What
we are saying, the difference between us and the Labour Party is the Labour
Party is saying lots of different messages. They're saying, we will have
a referendum as and when we decide to enter the Euro. And we're arguing,
quite rightly I believe, that it is the Government's intention as soon
as they have fought that election to move very swiftly to try and balance
the country into entering the Euro. They spent huge sums of money trying
to set organisations to change, we're talking about billions that may yet
be spent, and they'll try and bamboozle and persuade the British public
through various threats as we saw in Denmark and various others that they
have to enter the Euro. Our position is that during the course of that
parliament we will not be entering the Euro, there'll be no need for a
referendum because we will not...
HUMPHRYS And you will not have
a referendum....
DUNCAN-SMITH: No, because we will not be
entering the Euro and that is very simple and clear. So the British public
at election will know if they vote for us we're not entering the Euro......
HUMPHRYS: It could solve a lot
of problems for you couldn't it. I mean you might be able to get people
like Ken Clarke back into the Shadow Cabinet which could help you a great
deal, because at the moment he's outside making a great deal of trouble
for you as are other, the big beasts, the Euro-sceptic beasts out there.
It could solve a lot of problems for you couldn't it?.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well I don't know who these
great big beasts are that are causing us trouble. I actually.....
HUMPHRYS: Well I don't know. Ken
Clarke, Michael Heseltine, they're fairly formidable figures aren't they?
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well I you know, Ken and
Michael and others have had their particular views and they've held them
for a long time, and they've been on the stage in the past and they've
been allowed to say those views. I don't have any problem with that.
They're not in the government, they're not in the opposition, they ....
HUMPHRYS: They seem to be the only
people that are recognising the ......
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, I'm not so sure of
that, and I have to say, look this is a policy which was agreed on by the
party. William put it to the vote of the party at large. The party agreed
his position on the Euro, and I think it's supported by the vast majority
of the public who are absolutely opposed to enter into the Euro.
HUMPHRYS: But the difficulty is
going to be just in a few seconds, the difficulty is going be isn't it,
that you want Europe to be an issue at the next election. Every time you
raise Europe as an issue you get people like Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine
putting the opposite point of view and everybody says, ah, the Tories are
split . What I'm suggesting to you is a way out of it.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, a way out....
HUMPHRYS: Fifteen seconds - say
yes, we'll have a quick referendum and.....
DUNCAN-SMITH: No, the way out of it John
is to show that this government is deep into integration, all about creating
a Euro-state. Look, for example, they started the defence issue. We now
have a European army in embryo, all started by the Government. You want
it to be an issue - I tell you it will be an issue at the next election.
HUMPHRYS: Iain Duncan-Smith, thanks
very much indeed.
HUMPHRYS: And that's all for this week...
and indeed until after Christmas, after the New Year for that matter.
We won't be back until January 21st. See you then - and have a good holiday.
Don't forget the details of our website. Good afternoon.
25
FoLdEd
|