BBC On The Record - Broadcast: 18.02.01

Interview: JOHN PRESCOTT, Deputy Prime Minister.

Admits some voters are disllusioned with the government but says it has delivered on health, education and transport and rejects charges of sleaze.



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.
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.