|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: We all enjoyed a good
laugh when Willie Whitelaw warned years ago about people going around the
country "stirring up apathy". But the government's not laughing today.
To judge by the speeches made at the Labour Party's spring conference THAT'S
about the only thing they're worried about as they limber up for the election.
The enemy is apathy and cynicism and they say the Tories are responsible
for stirring it up so that people won't bother to vote. But why should
we be disillusioned if the government has achieved as much as it claims?
The Deputy Prime Minister is John Prescott and he is with me.
Good afternoon Mr Prescott.
JOHN PRESCOTT: Good afternoon John.
HUMPHRYS: So you've all acknowledged
this problem, and clearly you're worried about it. But it's a bit odd
isn't it, because the economy is doing well and that's always regarded
as the most important thing, and yet people are disillusioned because their
expectations were so high and they haven't been met. That's a problem
for you isn't it?
PRESCOTT: I don't know whether
you could fairly say they are disillusioned, but we're concerned about
whether they'd come out and vote. Now some may be disillusioned, some
may well feel , well Labour's going to win anyway, I might as well stay
at home. Whatever reason we're pointing out, is that if every one of every
five that voted for us in the last election, if one of those five stays
at home then we would lose sixty seats. Now, that's a very important fact
for us, obviously in affecting a majority and the election results, so
we've really got to get over to people who might be disillusioned by explaining
what our policies are, how we've got them over, and on the other hand of
course saying to people, don't stay at home and just assume somehow well
Labour's going to win. That isn't acceptable and I think we have to deal
with both those points.
HUMPHRYS: If you didn't meet their
expectations the first time around, I mean after all, last time they voted
they didn't have anything to compare you with. If you didn't meet their
expectations the first time around, they're even less likely to bother
to come out and vote for you the second time around if they feel you haven't
met their expectations this time.
PRESCOTT: Well, I think that what
we have to do is get over to people exactly what we have done. You mentioned
first of all the economy, I won't break out into all the statistics, you
hear it time .....
HUMPHRYS: I'm grateful.
PRESCOTT: We have got that stability
in the economy and we have as we say at the conference, brought about that
economic prosperity and social justice where we can get stability in the
economy. Now, it's not even mentioned. I mean you never hear them mention
it in the House of Commons. Hague never ever raises the issue of the economy.
Bit like America where they had a successful economy it didn't necessarily
become a bull point in those presidential elections.
HUMPHRYS: And it didn't win the
election for Gore did it?.
PRESCOTT: No. And I mean if you
look at the issues - I mean most of the fifties, sixties and seventies
have been dominated by the issue of the economy. The balance of payments,
the growth in our economy, which party can produce the best form of growth
and get the resources to put into the public services. Now that we've
for the first time really achieved that we need to get that point home
to people, that this didn't just come about by accident, it was a choice,
a deliberate choice, and as you've said on these programmes from time to
time, in those first two years we took on the financial programme if you
like of the expenditure of the Tories, which meant a lot of cuts in a lot
of areas, so we took a lot of sticks for it. But we did reduce the national
debt, we used the interest payments for health and education instead of
paying for the failed policies of borrowing money to keep people unemployed,
and that was a very purposeful decision by this government and I think
we have to get that home to people.
HUMPHRYS: The trouble is you haven't
even met all the early pledges that you made. I mean you.....
PRESCOTT; I keep hearing you saying
that, so let's go into it.
HUMPHRYS: Well you normally whip
out the old pledge....
PRESCOTT: Well, I've got it here
yes, but I saw you with a faded copy! Mind, a bit of a personality cult
with my picture on it.
HUMPHRYS: With your picture on
there, this is real Stalin, yes quite. But the fact is you haven't met
them. I mean if you look at them at first glance, okay fine, we've got
the five pledges there and we can read them off and we all know what they
are, and we've known for a long time. And it looks okay superficially,
but when you look into it in a little more depth then it looks a little
more suspect. I mean if you take Health you said, and the pledge was that
you would cut waiting lists by treating an extra one hundred thousand patients,
and it is true, you have cut the waiting lists by that figure.
PRESCOTT: We haven't. It's a hundred
and twenty thousand. We've actually done better.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, you've done
better. I won't argue about that, but the point is that you have increased
the waiting time for people to get on to the waiting list, and the waiting
list for people waiting to see their consultant is bigger by more than
a hundred thousand. Now that's the reality. People spot if for themselves.
PRESCOTT: I know, but that was
the criteria before. It was a similar kind of situation but we concentrated
on what was defined to be those waiting lists. The figures are there,
you make a judgement as to when we came in. So measure that by how much
we've reduced it. That's not to say though there isn't an increasing and
growing demand for health services, and that's natural enough. That's
why we're putting an awful lot more resources into the Health Service,
but it was a specific statement. We have achieved the reduction of that
by a hundred and twenty thousand, and I think it's right for us then to
say to the electorate on that one promise along with the five pledges
that are given in our card we have achieved it. Now, it's like saying
on primary education, we promised....
HUMPHRYS: Can we come to that in
just one second.
PRESCOTT: Yes, it's not to go into
education, but to say we achieved it in one area, and the complaint comes,
you haven't done it in secondary education. Fine, and I agree there's
a lot more to do, a lot done, but in the specific promise on the waiting
list, as defined as they always were we have achieved the reduction of
a hundred and twenty thousand.
HUMPHRYS But you see it might explain
why - I use the word disillusioned and you weren't happy with the word
- it might explain why some people are disillusioned. Because they don't
actually feel - I will get letters, I'm sure you will get letters after
this programme, from people saying: I can't even get to see my consultant.
They don't sit around at home and say: Ah, Labour has met that particular
pledge on that particular card to meet that particular target. What they
will say if you ask them, is they set the targets, they set targets they
think they can meet, they meet the targets - what we're concerned with
is whether we are getting a better National Health Service and a lot of
people feel they're not getting a better National Health Service.
PRESCOTT: Well, that's a very fair
point, and then we have to pick out the areas where we think it's improved
and not improved, because there's a variety of standards throughout the
country. In new hospitals you tend to get sometimes with the modern equipment
a better service than you might get in an old hospital. That's natural
enough, but it is as you say John what people's experience is. Now, can
I just give you one myself this morning. I've got a problem with my toe,
I think I've banged it.
HUMPHRYS: You were hobbling in?
PRESCOTT: Yes, and it's been quite
painful for the last two days. I get down from Scotland from the conference,
come down here this morning ready for your programme, and I said I can't
go on like this. I ring NHS Direct. They give me some advice when I
describe the symptoms and then they advise me to go to the walk in centre
at Soho for small injuries. I went there this morning, waited no more
than half and hour, got the professional treatment, came out and managed
to make your show. Now, people therefore can have small ailments, their
concerns about their health, they can either ring up on the phone the National
Health Service or go to this walk in centre. When I had a fracture in
my foot from a fall some time ago I waited seven or eight hours in the
emergency room, what do they call it, the emergency area.
HUMPHRYS: The out-patients, yes,
PRESCOTT: The casualty yes. Now
people do spend a lot of time there but that direct experience takes you
from going away for the pressure of the hospitals where they are dealing
with emergency services and you can walk in directly. And people say this
is a very good service, and Alan Milburn was talking more and more of how
you can deal with that more directly accessible service that people can
say: this is good. And it reminds me of something else John. Don't assume
when we put a lot of money into the Health Service it's just putting more
money into it. We need to reform it to meet the standards that people
expect today. It's still the traditional value, that is treatment based
upon your need and not your ability to pay, but to meet that demand must
change, must reform, and that's what the Prime Minister keeps reminding
us of.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, but as you acknowledge
there are a lot of people whose experience is not good and they are not
entirely happy. You also mention education and yes you have met that narrow
pledge to reduce class sizes for five to seven year olds but across the
board, including in Primary education incidentally if you add in Primary
education and Secondary education, we see that the pupil teacher ratio
has actually increased, there are more pupils per teacher than there were
when you came into power. Now yes you have meet your target but no you
haven't made people feel that education across the board is better than
when you took over and you've had four years to do it.
PRESCOTT: Well John you're soon
going to know whether the Primary education is any better...
HUMPHRYS: ..a few years yet in
my case...
PRESCOTT: ..but improving the kind
of ratio between the pupils that teachers are responsible for and that's
clearly one very important contribution towards improving the quality of
education and attainment of those children. We have achieved what we said.
In the Primary sector we would for five, six, seven - were in half a million
children were in class sizes over thirty. Now we were very specific, we
have achieved that...
HUMPHRYS: That's my point...
PRESCOTT: Yes we've agreed we've
achieved it though, that's good. We're on two points now where we have
achieved. The level of satisfaction, the perception of people as to whether
education has improved is a very important point and they perhaps don't
just concentrate on a Primary side. It's like the Tories saying to us,
well look you haven't done it on the Secondary side, if I look at the pupil
teacher ratio it's still very high on the Secondary side, okay we've got
to deal with that, we move on. It's a lot done, a lot more to do and that's
what we have to explain to people. But the important point is this and
do remember this John, I can remember many elections in Labour Governments
where the main charge against us by the Opposition was that we didn't deliver
what we promised. You can't say that this time and it's not only these
five points. Almost three quarters of our manifesto has been delivered,
it is a government of delivery.
HUMPHRYS: But the extent, if you
stick with education for a moment. The extent to which you have failed
to meet expectations seemed to many people I think to be underlined when
Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's Press Secretary, talked about comprehensive
schools as being bog standard.
PRESCOTT: I think that was a kind
of remark made by one journalist to a group of other journalists that were
being briefed..
HUMPHRYS: One journalist who happens
to be the Prime Minister's Press Secretary and runs a very large and very
powerful machine.
PRESCOTT: But you know in the briefings,
exchanges go on between journalists but if anybody knows Alastair Campbell
he feels very strongly about comprehensive education. He pursues the principle
of believing....
HUMPHRYS: ...he doesn't think it's
very good does it?
PRESCOTT: Well there was a kind
of phrase that come in. You know I've used phrases like what do we call
them 'teeny-boppers' and some people who have been about forty or fifty
and perhaps there're not such 'teeny-boppers'. They are clever kind of
phrases that the press likes to use and sometimes use them to disadvantage
in one way or another but there's no doubt about this. I believe in a comprehensive
education and we all believe that in fact selection has been damaging to
the education system, which we knew it on the grammar school system and
you need to make change. But you know having said I believe in a comprehensive
education I have to tell you that Hull was one of the first areas to bring
in comprehensive education, we had one of the first purpose built comprehensive
schools and yet our education system now is producing one of the worse
results in the country. Now I'm not happy about that, no-body in Hull is
happy about that and I cannot accept that in fact Hull children are lesser..you
know are less qualified or have got less ability than other parts of the
country. So just having the term comprehensive is not sufficient to guarantee
that that will deal with all the varying demands that are made by different
aptitudes and attitudes of children.
HUMPHRYS: But the impression that
was created and encouraged by Alastair Campbell's expression and certainly
papers like The Daily Mail and Telegraph were delighted to hear it, is
that was that the era of comprehensive education is over and Labour has
acknowledged that fact.
PRESCOTT: Well no the comprehensive
education is about meeting and it was always claimed that it would meet
the different skills and different abilities of children within one school...
HUMPHRYS: Without selection...
PRESCOTT: ...without going through
the selection...
HUMPHRYS: ...but you are now increasing
selection...
PRESCOTT: ...well, the selection
was based on the tests as we well know those of us that failed that system
and it meant that twenty per cent of our children got the more specialised
education, the more privileged education, a better chance of getting to
universities and I think the established opinion on education, certainly
at that time, even amongst the Tories, was against that principle, after
all, they closed down more grammar schools than we...than had closed in
the times of Labour administrations. But at the end of the day, it's how
do we get a better system? If it's obviously failing in some areas, there
are some very good comprehensives, there are some bad ones and I suppose
what we have to do is to try and get the best and lift up the standards.
And that's what we need to do and David Blunkett's arguments, are how
we might help in specialisation. I went to Ruskin right, you know, it's
a kind of Labour college, the specialisation for me to go to Ruskin, was
that I had a trade union background and I might have been involved in strikes.
Now that was a pretty highly specialised background but it give me...and
gave me a better education, gave me opportunities, opened my eyes to a
great deal of things that I wasn't well aware of, which education should
do and excited my imaginations to get involved in changing things.
HUMPHRYS: There's no doubt in your
mind then, to call comprehensive schools bog standard, is a mistake?
PRESCOTT: Well, I don't think it
was intended in the way it has been interpreted in the press.
HUMPHRYS: ..but if it was...
PRESCOTT: What it said, that they
want to commit ourselves to excellence and lift up standards. Now I can't
think anybody won't be committed to wanting to do that.
HUMPHRYS: Depends how much selection
is involved doesn't it. I mean, David Blunkett talked about no selection,
read my lips, there'll be no selection, there's going to be a great deal
of selection.
PRESCOTT: Well, the selection that
we understood as the Eleven Plus was the one that gave a great deal, caused
a great deal of...
HUMPHRYS: ...but that's not what
David Blunkett meant, was it?
PRESCOTT: ...well, he talks about
selection and aptitudes...
HUMPHRYS: ...he said no selection
by examination or by interview. Well, I don't know the different between
aptitude and ability, do you?
PRESCOTT: Well, I think that basically
when you're in schools at the present time, you do make all sorts of differences
about different children giving different ways of their development. For
example, they may be more academically minded. I think one of my criticisms...
HUMPHRYS: ...selection...
PRESCOTT: ...well, let me just
come to this, now it doesn't mean that they have to be separated in such
a way and it's much more limited in the way that he's talking about it.
But I used to get childr.., parents coming to me in my constituency, because
we had a belief that comprehensive education was indeed that there was
a new building and most people built the new buildings and they looked
wonderful, but then they didn't get too concerned about what was happening
inside them in the name of a comprehensive education and what we did in
Hull, which very few other countries did, parts of Britain did, was basically
to say there'd be a balanced intake. So they got the shares of the As,
the Bs, the Cs and the Ds et cetera, but eventually what began to happen,
is certain schools used to be get...began to get all the As. They became
known as the grammar school inside the comprehensive system and therefore
most of the parents used to constantly come to me and say, look, I want
my child to get an 'A' Level. Some other parents feel their children are
not so academically minded, might want the development to take place in
a different way. A comprehensive education was supposed to be able to
deal with those different demands and in some cases, it didn't and what
we called comprehensive education I am bound to say, was a roof over the
overall education policy in area and some of them that were in the name
of comprehensives were really becoming a kind of grammar school.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's look at
Transport, your own patch of course, you've said often enough, or you did
say in the past, if we don't reduce car use, I will have failed and I want
you to hold me to that. Well you haven't reduced car use.
PRESCOTT: No what I said on that
and think, I don't know whether I wrote an article in one of the papers,
I don't know whether they printed it this week-end, about this definition
of congestion...
HUMPHRYS: ...well, I didn't say
congestion, I said car use, I am very specific, I used your phrase...
PRESCOTT: I know what I said, to
say, there'd be less use of the car. My claim is always use public transport
more and use your cars less. And the implication of that was always, that
if you take Manchester or Birmingham, where you bring in a light railway
system, we know that people use their cars less, because there are motorists
who are now travelling on these systems, surveys have been done and millions
of journeys, car journeys, have been saved...
HUMPHRYS: ...absolutely and the
expectation was we would use our cars less across the board and we're not.
PRESCOTT: I know but wait a minute,
we are, in those cases using them less. But if you look at the growth
of the motor vehicle over this period of time, we never envisaged that
was going to be a massive decline. All you could hope to do was reduce
the percentage of growth and curiously enough this year, it has now...
HUMPHRYS: ...that's not what you
said...
PRESCOTT: ...the growth, wait a
minute, it's only something like point seven. This was a million more
people back in work, more pressures for moving around the country. So
the growth in the use of the motor car has slowed down. That means we
are using our cars less and if you want the evidence for the public transport
system, eighteen to twenty per cent more people using the rail. For the
first time we have reversed the decline in the use of buses, now they're
the people who've come out of their cars into the public transport and
we have no measure by which we can do all the individual journeys in this
country but clearly we are beginning to slow down the growth.
HUMPHRYS: But again, you see, it's
the expectation not being met. You said we would use our cars less in
four years and it hasn't happened.
PRESCOTT: ...well the expectation
was written...Say that again.
HUMPHRYS: You said we would be
using our car less during the term of the Labour government, it hasn't
happened and it isn't going to happen.
PRESCOTT: I can give you towns
and cities where that is now happening.
HUMPHRYS: Sure, but across the
board...
PRESCOTT: Well, I never said across
the board. I want people...
HUMPHRYS: We didn't assume you
meant ...
PRESCOTT: Ah but you mustn't just
assume that, I mean, the press might write that. They are using their
cars less, that's why the growth in the actual use of the motor vehicle
has actually reduced, it hasn't stopped, hasn't declined.
HUMPHRYS: In specific areas.
PRESCOTT: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: But not across the piece.
PRESCOTT: Well, I mean I never
said that it would be across the place...
HUMPHRYS: Well you're the Deputy
Prime Minister for the whole country.
PRESCOTT: I know, but I said, they'll
use their cars less. I'm very satisfied in the growth of the motor vehicle,
that was continuing at the rate of twenty or thirty per cent, to see it
now coming down to less growth means that people are using their cars less,
using public transport more, the figures have gone up in public transport,
and reflect that trend against, and this is a very important point John,
against a growth in economy, because always when you get growth in the
British economy, you get a massive increase in car movement. This has
not happened this time. So we are using cars less and we are using public
transport more.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's turn to
something else. The Dome. Again, people, I keep using this word expect,
expect...
PRESCOTT: ...do you want to buy
it?
HUMPHRYS: I've probably got enough
on me, yes, twenty quid..
LAUGHTER
HUMPHRYS: Look, what has happened
and we'd have hardly expected you to say four years ago, this is going
to be a monumental flop and it's going to be, it's going to cost us hundreds
of millions of pounds.
PRESCOTT: ...I don't accept it
was a flop. I mean you throw in all these things...
HUMPHRYS: ...well, half the number
of people who were supposed to go there, went there...
PRESCOTT: ...no, let's deal with
that problem, can we deal with that problem?
HUMPHRYS: Can I rather just move
it on a bit?
PRESCOTT: I know, well okay then,
we draw the point then, so we won't argue about it.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I'll stake over
that - neutralise it. Excellent word. What has happened now is that it
sits there, it is an embarrassment. Wouldn't it..it's a
great albatross around your neck, it's going to stay with you ...
PRESCOTT: ...I don't accept that
either. Do not make assumptions.
HUMPHRYS: Well, let me ask you
a straight question then, without making any assumptions, would it not,
at this stage, be easier and better for you in sorts of ways, to knock
the thing down, to sell the site for a lot of money and recoup some of
your losses and save yourself any more problems.
PRESCOTT: Do you know how much
it would cost to knock down. Forty million pounds. Now that doesn't sound
to be very good use of public money.
HUMPHRYS: Well I know it's costing
a packet to keep it open.
PRESCOTT: Well, no it's not cost
you anything like forty million pounds to keep it open.
HUMPHRYS: It will do the way it's
going.
PRESCOTT: Well, no don't throw
these things in. If you want, it's a half-a-million a year...half-a-million
a month to keep the costs as it is at the present moment.
HUMPHRYS: Bit more than that, so
what people are saying.
PRESCOTT: Well, anyway John. It's
my job and my responsibility, to see that we can get the best utilisation
of the Dome, or more important, the development of the whole site. We
did have a competition of which there were two remaining ones, one was
the Legacy we've got at the moment, but the other one was the Nomura bid
which got to the preferred bidders stage and then they pulled out. No
doubt, the hostility in the press and everything else, they felt that this
wasn't going to be a very good deal for them at the end of the day, sorry
about that. We've now finished the Legacy one and something like seventy-two
bodies have come along and said, if you are prepared to consider the development
of the whole site, or developing it just as a facility as a Dome leisure,
or indeed with some land for property development, we are prepared to take
an interest in it. Now it's
proper for those of us who represent the taxpayers' interest here, to
say fine. I hear what you say, because I only read it in the press, we
haven't received any other bids, only a note of interest. We are quite
prepared to listen to your propositions if they are serious ones. And
if we can actually be, develop this whole site, we've already made a great
start to it, the regeneration effects have been very very considerable
and we can complete the job.
HUMPHRYS: But in the meantime it's
miring you in all sorts of sleaze allegations. We have another one this
morning don't we, Sir Alan Cockshaw was allowed to stay on as the Chairman
of English Partnership which advised on the sale of the Dome, even though
he chaired a company which was part of a consortium that was interested
in buying it. Now, is it true that he actually said to you, he told you
about his interest in it, why wasn't something done about it. Why wasn't
he removed from that position.
PRESCOTT: Well you've just easily
threw in the word sleaze, you're not accusing of sleaze are you? - You've
no evidence of what you have just said.
HUMPHRYS: I'm telling you that
there have been various allegations of sleaze...
PRESCOTT: ..this is the way you
guys do it though. You throw in sleaze...
HUMPHRYS: I'm only reporting what
was in the newspapers this morning.
PRESCOTT: But you haven't got any
evidence to prove it's sleaze have you.
HUMPHRYS: Well let's ask you a
specific question..
PRESCOTT: No, but you haven't have
you...
HUMPHRYS: Was Sir Alan Cockshaw...I'm
not personally saying...
PRESCOTT: But John that's quite
important - don't throw in, this is this part of the cynicism, there's
no difference between them, sleaze and corruption which Tony was talking
about. Therefore we have to challenge it...but let me go back to your question..
HUMPHRYS: Well was there a conflict
of interest in this particular case and if there was why wasn't he removed?
PRESCOTT: Let me go back to this.
We have only had one bid and that was from Legacy before us. English Partnership
are in control of the competition through an advisor, Mr Walker, right.
The..Alan Cockshaw came involved apparently was said, because of an announcement
by a company and a consortium which he had some share in it. They have
not made a bid for the Dome.
HUMPHRYS: But he had an interest,
that's the point.
PRESCOTT: But wait a minute, they
have not been involved in bidding for the Dome. I've seen public notices,
statements being made to people...
HUMPHRYS: But he might be.
PRESCOTT: Well if he may or he
might be. Let me just come to the might be, if it was but it isn't at the
moment - let's be the might be if you like because I don't think it's established
simply because there's a notice in the press that they might be interested.
But even from that date he removed himself from any discussion, examination
of anything involved in regard to the Legacy bid and the Dome. That's normal
practices in many areas, certainly where businesses are involved and there
are many areas where business are involved, where there's an interest and
it happens with Members of Parliament, they actually step aside and that's
exactly what happened in these circumstances.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let me turn
to another area...
PRESCOTT: That is not sleaze...
HUMPHRYS: Okay, you don't like
the word sleaze, I can understand why you don't but let me...
PRESCOTT: ..no because it's not
justified...
HUMPHRYS: Let me put another story
to you that's in this morning's newspapers and it's supported by a number
of eminent QCs who have had the letter and I'm talking about a letter that
came from the Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine to barristers whose future this
man controls, if they are going to be promoted to QC or Judge, then he
is the man who is going to give them that promotion. Now he has been writing
to them, soliciting funds, substantial funds, it seems from the letter,
for the Labour Party. That's not right is it?
PRESCOTT: Well I don't know what
the facts of the case are. We know that some people have received letters
and we know people have said they were Labour Party people who were sent
letters to. I don't know, there are various points that are being made
in press. My experience of four years of government is to be very dubious
about what's put in the press, it may well be this person did receive a
letter, it may be...
HUMPHRYS: It's signed by the Lord
Chancellor on his note paper...
PRESCOTT: I don't know enough of
it John...
HUMPHRYS: But if that is the case,
what do you have to say about it?
PRESCOTT: I'm not going to give
you comments on these things, that's the way we get led into making comments
for the next day's news.
HUMPHRYS: This is a very important
story.
PRESCOTT: It's an important issue.
It's an important story if it's true, I don't know. But I've learnt to
believe and to know, don't believe everything you read in the press. I'm
not denying it may be right or wrong..
HUMPHRYS: Well the letter's there
for all of us to see.
PRESCOTT: I'm certainly not going
to comment on something I don't know all the facts about. I think that's
a fair point, let's see how it develops.
HUMPHRYS: Let me put this to you
then. If the Lord Chancellor had written to barristers...
PRESCOTT: ..I'm not going to give
you comments. John, you can ask as many questions as you want. I think
it's a fair response to say to you that there's a report in the press and
a statement made there and you're asking me to say, is it right or wrong.
I do not have enough information to give a judgement on. But you know,
this is a typical trick that's going on constantly. I'm not accusing you
of it John, necessarily, but it's in the press and then you will follow
through and ask. It's like the man Bourne you know who is fact.. has given
some money to the Labour Party. All the press talk about because he has
given money to the Labour Party, we are going to do special favours for
him. The fact that the contract had finished or he hasn't satisfied the
conditions of preferred bidder, apparently doesn't lead to say why should...
HUMPHRYS: Alright, just a final..
PRESCOTT: But wait a minute, if
you look at the other big.. Nomura, there was a person there closely associated
with the Leader of the Opposition. We wouldn't make those accusations and
the press aren't actually making those points but they do in regard to
Labour and I just say, it's not a very balanced way of reporting things
and then when they wrap it up in sleaze, this is what the Prime Minister
was talking about, the cynicism that is being put around as if there's
no difference between us and the Tories. By God there isn't and I'm not
putting any brown envelopes on here today for you am I.
HUMPHRYS: John Prescott, thank
you very much indeed.
|