|
====================================================================================
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:
18.02.01
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The
government tells us it's delivered what it promised four years ago. I'll
be asking John Prescott why, in that case, they're so worried about apathy.
The European Commission President has been delivering his message in a
sceptical Britain this week. But how convincing is his argument for a
more integrated Europe? And are the government's measures for keeping
out illegal asylum seekers having any effect at all? That's after the
news read by Peter Sissons.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Signor Prodi comes to Britain
to persuade us to sign up to his vision of a more united Europe. Can he
hope to persuade the sceptics?
And the asylum seekers
who want to come to Britain, we'll be reporting on the failure of the government's
attempts to stem the flow.
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.
HUMPHRYS: Romano Prodi, the President
of the European Commission, became Daniel in the lion's den this past week.
He came to Britain to talk to some politicians but also to some senior
journalists who've enjoyed giving him a good mauling since he took over
the job a year and a half ago. They're suspicious of his plans for the
European Union. Mr. Prodi denies that he wants to force political integration
or a federal government. And he says he doesn't want to pressure us into
joining the Euro, but he does insist there will be a price to pay if we
don't. Paola Buonadonna was with Mr Prodi throughout his visit and got
the only broadcast interview with him.
PAOLA BUONADONNA: Europe is facing a huge challenge
- the EU is accused of being divided and directionless. In the UK many
reject further integration. And in many other countries public support
for the EU is uncomfortably low. Resolving this crisis of confidence may
be impossible. This man chose to accept the mission. Romano Prodi is
the head of the Brussels machine - the President of the European Commission.
ROMANO PRODI: I am confident that, because
of this crisis, because the need of Europe that is so important, will become
more clear to citizens. Of course to get more confidence we have to deliver.
BUONADONNA: Romano Prodi has been in his
job for a year and a half. He's never had an easy time of it - dogged
by criticisms of his personal style and his vision right from the start.
Now he has to face the fact that while many people in the UK and across
Europe remain unconvinced about the European project, for the first time
in recent history European leaders too are deeply divided about the direction
the EU should take.
Last week On the Record followed Romano Prodi as he delivered his State
of the Union address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg and travelled
to London on a charm offensive. Mr Prodi is ready to take his critics
on wherever they come from. Charles Grant, Director of the Centre for
European Reform, a Europhile close to Tony Blair. Janet Bush, Director
of New Europe, campaigns against the Euro, and further integration. They
both have their criticisms of Romano Prodi.
CHARLES GRANT: The commission still has
huge powers on the single market and competition policy. But I think what
it's lost is the ability to set the agenda for the EU overall.
JANET BUSH: You get opinion polls saying
that opinion about the EU is sliding and Prodi gets in there and says,
well, I don't care about that, we have a destination, it's my destination
and it's political union, so he's a brave man, but he's desperately out
of touch with the way people think.
BUONADONNA: The last European summit in
Nice should have given Europe a fresh start. The aim was to simplify decision
making, preparing the way for more countries to join the Union. The commission
needed a success to increase its own credibility. But away from the cameras,
there were few smiles, as the talks turned into a battle of narrow national
interests, and the commission found itself sidelined.
CHARLES GRANT: Some of the key meetings
that went on at the summit, President Chirac said he didn't want little
bureaucrats like Mr Prodi in the room, so Prodi was told to leave once
or twice. And I think that is a reflection of the fact that the Commission
was not playing the major role at a summit which it would have done in
the days of Jacques Delors.
PRODI: Nice showed that you need
an honest broker, you know, that doesn't want to show power or to oppress
others but just to put things in harmony and to try to make compatible
the position of different states, from this point of view, of course, you're
helped by the agreement of the states, it's clear. You know the commission
has no interest to divide the states and to make them fighting each other
you know.
BUONADONNA: After the bitter rows of Nice,
France and Germany had to make a show of reconciliation. So last month
the German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder and the French President Jacques
Chirac staged a friendly encounter over dinner near Strasbourg. But they
can't agree on the recipe for the future of Europe. The French are keen
to see Europe shaped by alliances between the leading nation states, the
so-called inter-governmental method. The Germans want the European Commission
and the Parliament to be at the heart of a federal structure.
President Chirac and Chancellor Shroeder reportedly enjoyed their dinner
here at Chez Philippe - no doubt thanks to the food more than the conversation.
This would seem the perfect moment for Tony Blair to try and join the
European top table, but it's not that simple. The British Government has
never found it easy to work with the French. Nor it is comfortable with
the German federal vision of Europe, enshrined in a legally binding constitution.
But the European commission likes the German model because it reinforces
its central role as the honest broker and the engine for further integration.
GRANT: Well, certainly Prodi shares
the German view that EU institutions like the Commission should have quite
a lot of power and that the governments, the so-called inter-governmental
mechanisms, should not take over the EU. But if Prodi wants to influence
this debate on the governance of Europe, with his White Paper, he's got
to be careful not to just take one particular line. The commission is
always most influential when it tries to hold the middle ground and act
as a balance between the different viewpoints.
PRODI: The Commission is necessary
in order that the nation states can express themselves in the new globalisation.
If they're not helped to co-operate they will never lead again, you know,
only through co-operation we can go back to European leadership - it doesn't
mean superstate, it doesn't mean centralising power, I'm against it, I'm
for decentralising, but there are things that we have to do together.
BUONADONNA: Each year Romano Prodi reports
with the European Parliament in Strasbourg on his plans for Europe. The
British government is happy that Mr Prodi shares its economic agenda.
But it's nervous when he says the EU must be more than a trading bloc and
develop into a political entity as many voters are suspicious of giving
up more power to the commission and the MEPs. In an ICM opinion poll of
one-thousand British people for BBC News Online, fifty-one per cent said
they were concerned about closer integration. But Mr Prodi is undeterred.
PRODI: If you don't want, you don't
integrate. I don't want to oblige anybody and I only ask in Nice, well,
if somebody doesn't want to go quick, he may go slow or even stop. If
some countries, must be a good number of countries, want to co-operate
together in order to have more speed, they can do it, and so I think that
to be outside Europe you will be outside, you know, the driving force of
history, but it's a choice.
BUSH: I don't think that
he has public opinion in Europe with him. People are very wedded to their
own identities, cultural, their own countries, their own democracies actually;
and it will take some time I think for people to want to be part of a political
entity called Europe.
BUONADONNA: The weekly meeting of the European
commission. Mr. Prodi and his nineteen colleagues are keen to lead the
agenda on economic reforms - at a summit next month they want to make it
easier for people to work wherever they want in the EU. While all countries
agree on completing the single market, many including Britain, reject his
plea that that has to involve some tax harmonisation.
PRODI: The proposals were relating
double taxation, were relating fraud fighting, were relating modernisation
of the system of added value taxation because of electronic revolution,
only that. And these are things that are necessary for the single market
and everybody wants that, but I clearly told that if you want to change
your income tax you can do it, I don't care about it, nobody cares about
it, but you know if you want to use taxation as an indirect way of making
competition in the single market I think we have to be worried and please
let us judge on facts honestly.
BUONADONNA: The President of the Commission
has only minutes to spare to catch the Eurostar to London, where he'll
be quizzed by some of his harshest critics - British journalists. But
there is some good news for Mr. Prodi.
MUSIC.
The British Government
has promised to test whether the conditions to join the Euro are right
within the first two years of re-election. While careful not to be seen
to interfere with the British debate Mr. Prodi says Britain will lose influence
if it doesn't come on board the single currency.
PRODI: I don't want to persuade
the British people to choose to enter into the Euro. I've only to demonstrate
that they've more to lose if they're out and this is a challenge, these
are facts will demonstrate it. I'm convinced that to be out you're heavily
influenced by Europe and you have no decision power, so it's a net damage
to a big country like the UK.
BUSH: I don't buy this
influence thing and I think that you have to look at the Euro for Britain
on its merits. In my view it's a big risk economically and it's worth
giving up some influence over some parts of economic policy.
BUONADONNA: This week Romano Prodi met
Tony Blair for breakfast at Number 10 to discuss next month's European
jobs summit. Mr. Prodi was the choice of the Prime Minister because of
his moderate, free market approach. But there's a feeling in Downing Street
that Mr. Prodi has become over ambitious in other fields - especially on
foreign and defence issues. Europe still speaks with two voices on foreign
matters - one is Javier Solana, based at the council of ministers, the
other is the European Commissioner Chris Patten. Mr. Prodi cannot disguise
his ambition to see the commission fully in charge of foreign policy.
GRANT: One of the problems that
some of the governments have with Prodi is that they think he's gone beyond
his remit. For example he has talked about a European Army, he said that
Nato should not use depleted uranium shells in the Balkans and he's talked
about European Foreign Policy which are not really his core competencies.
PRODI: Well I never went out of
my competence so it's simply you know their accusations are not true.
What I proposed and this proposal, very controversial, but I still stick
on it, is that you know the man who has the responsibility for defence,
you know that he's now defence and foreign policy, Mr. PESC he's called
in the European jargon, that is now outside the Commission, will be part
of the Commission in order to co-ordinate better the job. And you know
foreign policy is done in many pieces, external aid, common projects in
different countries, is made of pure classic foreign policy matters, diplomatic
matters and so on, and you can't have a competence in one spot, another
competence in another spot, all divided, it's a messy situation. It's
clear that you have to be unified and I think that this proposal was proper
that has to be carried on.
BUONADONNA: It's not often you can accuse
Romano Prodi of being underdressed but today his advisers might have suggested
a suit of armour. He's on his way to the arena of British Euro-scepticism,
the Westminster lobby. Many of the journalists he's about to meet for
lunch blame him personally for the direction Europe is taking. So we asked
Mr. Prodi what he hopes to achieve by talking to them.
PRODI: To demonstrate that Europe
is at the service of the citizens, that there are results that cannot be
got without Europe, if I do that, I think their confidence will come back.
BUONADONNA: In films, the mission is always
accomplished at the last minute. In the real world if he wants to be remembered
for his role, Romano Prodi still has three years to impose his vision of
a stronger commission at the heart of a political Union. But to do that
he'll need to win over the sceptics at Westminster, throughout Britain
and beyond.
HUMPHRYS: Paola Buonnadonna reporting
there.
HUMPHRYS: The 900 asylum seekers whose
battered old ship was run aground on the coast of France yesterday had
a terrible journey and many of them are being treated for malnutrition.
But what happens to them now? It's a big problem for the French government
- and one with which OUR government will sympathise. They have tried their
best to deter illegal asylum seekers by appearing tough but the measures
that they have taken so far have not worked. There are more people seeking
asylum in Britain now than there ever has been. David Grossman has been
to France and found many more hoping to cross the Channel.
DAVID GROSSMAN: Two dozen miles from the English
coast, the disused aircraft hangers of the Sangatte Red Cross camp on the
edge of Calais. This is, according to the Commons Home Affairs Select
Committee, a base for illegal immigrants to make repeated attempts to enter
the UK. The French authorities neither process nor repatriate the 850
people at Sangatte. After travelling for thousands of miles to get to the
UK they're held up on the very doorstep.
The British Government's
response to the hundreds of thousands of people moving across Europe has
been one of deterrence, trying to stop them attempting to get into Britain.
But that policy say critics has clearly failed. Indeed, most of the people
I've spoken to at this camp are trying to get across the Channel. What's
needed it's argued is a rethink
MARTIN LINTON MP: We don't have an adequate mechanism
for ensuring that (a) illegal immigrants don't come in in the first place
and (b) where they do, and they apply for asylum and are refused, that
they do return to their countries. So we do need a quicker system, a better
system, better technology and we do need also some better degree of internal
checks to make sure that the system works.
ANNE WIDDECOMBE MP: The government system has failed
completely, it has failed to deter flimsy and insubstantial applications,
it has produced record numbers of applicants, it has failed abysmally to
remove those who are refused and it has failed the genuine asylum seeker
who is caught up in a very complicated bureaucratic system that he doesn't
understand.
GROSSMAN: The route from the Sangatte
to Britain is well trodden. Calais' busy ferry port is just a short walk
from the gates of the camp The British Government's trying to deter
those with no right to asylum by replacing cash benefits for applicants
with vouchers, yet the flow of people continues undaunted. Dover bound
lorries are plentiful. All that's needed is a loose tarpaulin or a willing
driver. Pressure groups have attacked the vouchers for stigmatising asylum
seekers - but in terms of the government's own aim of deterring it's clear
they haven't worked.
NICK HARDWICK: I think vouchers have absolutely
no role to play in why people do or don't come to the UK. The idea that
people in Afghanistan are sitting down, making a calculation as to whether
they're going to come to France or England on the basis of you know where
they can get vouchers and how much they're worth is absurd.
PROFESSOR ELSPETH GUILD: From the research which has been
carried out, we certainly have indications that benefit levels are not
a factor which attracts or deters. If we look at the rise in the number
of asylum seekers since the introduction of vouchers, it would, following
the government's logic, indicate that vouchers actually attract asylum
seekers. In terms of efficiency, are vouchers an efficient way
of taking care of asylum seekers? That would seem to be clearly answered
in the no, the ministers have admitted to Parliament that vouchers are
much more expensive than keeping asylum seekers in the benefits system.
GROSSMAN: The government says
that between April and September of last year vouchers with a total face
value of 5.1 million pounds were distributed to asylum seekers. But the
administrative cost of running the voucher scheme over the same period
was 6.1 million. The government is reviewing the voucher scheme after
claims that it causes hardship, but ministers seem unclear as to whether
it provides any real deterrent.
Do the vouchers work?
Do they deter?
BARBARA ROCHE MP: We think that the voucher scheme
is working reasonably well but they've been criticisms that have been made
at it. There are some people, for example, who object to it in principle.
We are looking at the scheme at the moment and we're looking in detail
at those criticisms.
GROSSMAN: Do you think they deter?
ROCHE: I think you have to look
at I think you have to look at the whole picture. What is it that we want
to do? Clearly, we want to deter people who come here for a variety of
reasons. For economic reasons. To take advantage of a cash benefits system.
GROSSMAN: At Calais docks the trucks
are searched prior to loading. These aren't French officials but employees
of P&O. The British Government has introduced fines of two thousand pounds
for each illegal arrival detected, so it pays the company to make sure
everything's shipshape. But many are still getting through, last year
over seventy-six thousand people arrived in Britain and requested asylum.
No-one knows how may more entered the country undiscovered only to disappear,
with no ID cards Britain is very easy to hide in.
LINTON: If you can get through
the border controls as an illegal immigrant and into the UK, once you're
here there are surprisingly few checks on your right to remain here.
And the same applies of course if you're a visitor or a student and you
over stay. So that compared to France or even Denmark or Germany where
you're constantly being asked for your identity or your national insurance
number, in this country you can do pretty well anything, short of maybe
applying for a job in the Civil Service and nobody is going to check up.
GROSSMAN: The Home Secretary, Jack
Straw, says that just as the problem of asylum seekers is an international
one - so any solution must come through international agreement, particularly
between EU states. But negotiating any agreement promises to be very difficult
and the success record of asylum treaties is at best mixed.
There are two main agreements
that govern Britain's responsibilities to asylum seekers. The 1951 UN
Convention signed with Nazi atrocities fresh in the world's memory, obliges
governments to shelter those fleeing persecution. More recently there's
the 1990 EU Dublin convention which says that refugees must apply for asylum
in the first member state they reach and that if they don't they can be
sent back to that country later on. Even the Conservatives who signed the
Dublin convention admit it is fatally flawed .
WIDDECOMBE: Of course it's very difficult
to prove which was the first safe country, by the time somebody arrives
at Calais, they can have crossed several European countries, never mind
by the time they arrive in London, or wherever. So it is actually quite
difficult to prove which was the absolute first safe country that they
came to.
GROSSMAN: Steering thirty-thousand
tons of steel across the busiest shipping route in the world takes some
doing. The route could get a little bit busier if Tony Blair has his way.
He wants the French to take back all the illegal arrivals that come from
France. While Mr Blair believes he's plotted a rather neat course around
the obstacles of the Dublin convention, the French seem less than ready
to join the excursion. Indeed it's very difficult to see what's in it
for them. At the Cahor Summit earlier this month, the French president,
Jacques Chirac, was understandably none too keen on the plan, but did at
least agree that the Dublin convention needs changing.
ROCHE: We have called for there
to be a radical rethink of Dublin, that's actually taking place and if
you look at the summit that was in France - the Anglo-French Summit that
took place last week - there was a reaffirmation there, by France and by
the UK, by Tony Blair, by the Prime Minister, that we would reaffirm our
commitment to looking at Dublin and that the EU should look again at Dublin
and that's to be very much warmly welcomed.
GUILD: Even if we could get France
to take them back, and we managed to put them on a boat, what's to prevent
them turning round and coming back again? The system doesn't work because
it..it does not involve the agreement of the individual. The fact that
asylum seekers can move from France to the UK, apparently without a huge
amount of difficulty, indicates the difficulty of relying on the myth of
border controls, that they are in fact effective.
GROSSMAN: Britain's asylum system
is entering uncertain waters. If supposed deterrents like vouchers aren't
working and we can't rely on our European partners to check the flow of
migrants, what can be done? According to opposition parties, the simple
answer is to speed up the way asylum applications are processed. At the
moment, there's a backlog of over sixty-six-thousand claims and even when
a decision is made, sometimes the appeals process can go on for years.
LINTON: We still have people in
my constituency who have been waiting six or seven years just to get their
asylum claims heard. Now, that has not only been an enormous waste of
time keeping them here, you know, I mean ridiculously long time to consider
them for. But also it is as you say in itself a pull factor. They come
here because it's going to take so long and secondly, even when they have
their asylum case heard and it's refused and they appeal and the appeal
is refused and they're due for deportation back to their countries of origin,
even then it's taken so long up to now for the enforcement procedure to
actually get hold of them and put them on a flight and send them back home.
So that's another reason why they come. Because it's... they know it's
going to be so difficult to send them home.
GROSSMAN: If someone can avoid
detection long enough to get into Britain and they're determined to stay,
the odds seem firmly with them. Last week the Immigration Officers' union
said forced removals were running at only about twelve per month. The
government disputes that figure. But the Home Affairs Select Committee
says the government's been dilatory in enforcing removals, a factor which
the committee says is a big part of Britain's attraction.
SIMON HUGHES MP: There's never been a very good
system for dealing with people after their application has been dealt with.
I have many constituency case experiences, as do many Members of Parliament,
where the Home Office don't know what's happened to people, let alone anybody
else. The Home Affairs Select Committee came up with a report on an all
party basis the other day, which suggested a way forward. It suggested
that you do have a system of better monitoring and better tracking people
through the process.
ROCHE: Well what I think the Select
Committee are saying in their Report is that we need to do more. I think
they recognise that we made record numbers last year of nine-thousand,
doubling the Tories but we need to do more and ...
GROSSMAN: Dilatory, doesn't sound
....
ROCHE: Well, what Select Committees
are there to do, quite rightly - I was a member of the Home Affairs Select
Committee myself at one stage, are to make sure that the government, the
Executive, does more. We agree with them, we do need to do more.
GROSSMAN: Journey's end in sight.
But this is a view that the tens of thousands of economic migrants who
arrive here every year never see, hidden as they are in the back of lorries
and vans. But it's not the scenery but jobs which attract them. With
no legal route open for unskilled economic migrants, claiming asylum becomes
the only way.
HUGHES: If you have a system whereby
many people can apply as economic migrants, apply from their own country,
apply in another country and get permission to come and work here, then
many people who at the moment are claiming right to asylum, who actually
may have a less strong right to that, but are determined to stay in the
country, are getting round the system and failing, instead of having a
system that works both for our interests and theirs.
GROSSMAN: The streets of Dover
are where the thousands of new arrivals first see the UK. It's clear that
Britain's serious duty to provide asylum for those in desperate need has
become hopelessly entangled with the understandable desire of thousands
more for a better life. But with an election coming - and the issue already
keenly contested - the chances of getting any fundamental change in policy
soon, seem slim.
HUMPHRYS: David Grossman reporting
there and that's it for this week. If you are on the internet, don't forget
about our website. Till the same time next Sunday, good afternoon.
...oooOooo...
18
FoLdEd
|