|
====================================================================================
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:
04.03.01
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Britain's
farmers are holding their breath this weekend, I'll be asking the Agriculture
Minister Nick Brown if the government's got the right stratedy for dealing
with foot and mouth. William Hague is telling the Tories that Britain's
becoming a foreign land for its own people. I'll be asking the man in
charge if his campaign strategy of that means his is getting desperate.
And which party do we trust to protect the family and the environment?
That all after the news read by Sarah Montague.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Tony Blair will be trying
to claim the environment as Labour's issue this week. But does he have
the answers to a climate in crisis
MICHAEL MEACHER MP: Whether we like it or not,
we have fundamentally to change the way in which we run our economy, run
our society, all of us.
HUMPHRYS: And all parties claim
to champion the family. But will their differences over marriage stop
them saying so?
Later I'll be talking
about the challenges facing the Tories as William Hague addresses their
convention in Harrogate.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first, foot and
mouth. There are few parts of the country this morning that don't at least
one case and we still don't know whether or not we are facing a full scale
epidemic, it will be at least another fortnight apparently before we know
the worst - or the best. In the meantime, the government is trying to
get things moving again by allowing some animals to be moved to abattoirs
- is that wise? And in any case is it going to make any real difference
to the supplies of meat in the shops and, are there wider lessons to be
learned from this latest disaster to hit agriculture in this country.
Well Nick Brown is the Agriculture Minister, he's with me now, good afternoon
Mr Brown.
NICK BROWN MP: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: The latest, fifty-four
was we...
BROWN: It's fifty-six...
HUMPHRYS: It's gone up again...
BROWN: ..plus one in Northern Ireland,
there are two more on the Northumbrian Tyne and Wear border.
HUMPHRYS: So that's worrying.
BROWN: Well it is. I mean the intention
of putting these very hard movement restrictions in place as we did last
Friday was to hold everything at a standstill whilst we saw what was already
present in the National Herd and National Sheep flock and what we are finding
is that there are more cases than perhaps one might have anticipated and
of course not only do we not know how many there are but we don't know
where they are either.
HUMPHRYS: And that means killing
an awful lot of animals. Do we have a figure yet as to how many animals
have been killed or are going to be killed?
BROWN: The figure keeps going up
but it's something like fifteen thousand but rising. There are other animals
that are destined for slaughter.
HUMPHRYS: And how do we justify
that, given that, I mean everybody says terrible disease this. The reality
is as far as the animals are concerned, it's not a truly terrible disease,
some people say not much more than a heavy cold. As far as humans are concerned
there's no effect, so why are we reacting like this?
BROWN: Well the cost to the economy
of controlling the disease is less than the cost to the economy of wiping
out the livestock industry which is what the alternative structure
is.
HUMPHRYS: Would it be that?
BROWN: Yes it is because if you
either vaccinate which is one alternative strategy you lose your foot and
mouth disease free status permanently and the alternative is to just let
the disease run its course which also means it would be here permanently
and although it doesn't on itself kill most of the animals it can be fatal
but usually it isn't, it ruins the livestock industry. You couldn't have
a livestock industry in those circumstances.
HUMPHRYS: Well are we sure about
that?
BROWN: Yes we are. The correct
thing to do is to put in place movement controls, get everything to a standstill,
make sure that we've discovered all the cases that we were already and
by the use of quarantine, contain the disease and then slaughter the animals
so that we have eradicated it. Remember our country was foot and mouth
disease free for twenty years, what I want to do is get us back to that
disease free status and keep it.
HUMPHRYS: You can't guarantee keeping
it, that's the trouble.
BROWN: Well that's - I mean this
is an interesting question: where did it first come from? It wasn't present
lying dormant in the country for twenty years, it must have come in to
our country from outside. We need to have a very careful look at exactly
how that happened and whether our current controls are sufficient to prevent
it from happening again. And if they are not sufficient, they will have
to be tightened. My strategy is to get back to the disease free status,
no foot and mouth disease in this country. Naturally the same applies to
classical swine fever as well and if that means tougher controls, tougher
controls there will have to be.
HUMPHRYS: But as far as the present
outbreak of foot and mouth is concerned you are not sure that it has peaked
yet, you have no idea.
BROWN: There is no way of telling.
We are dealing with a biological phenomena, not a physical one or a mathematical
one and we will have to wait and see what emerges and as you rightly say
the next few days, just like the last few days, are absolutely crucial.
HUMPHRYS: Given that it hasn't
peaked, why are we allowing now the licensing of some animals to be moved.
Some of those that are obviously not in the infected areas.
BROWN: I'm not sure that it hasn't
peaked, we won't know until it has run its course. The correct strategy
is the one we are pursuing which is to hold everything at a standstill
whilst what is there emerges and then to try and get some trade moving
again but under very strictly controlled conditions and the Meat Hygiene
Service are working over the weekend with the abattoir owners and local
authority Trading Standards officers are working over the weekend to try
and get the licensing regime in place. But it has to be very strictly controlled.
HUMPHRYS: Are you saying there
is a possibility that that will not happen, that that licensing system
will not come into operation and we may end up moving no animals.
BROWN: No, I'm not saying that.
In fact we have already approved some eighty abattoirs under the scheme
over the weekend and there have been expressions of interest from two hundred
and thirty. So it seems that this is striking a cord with the trade.
HUMPHRYS: Well it would wouldn't
it, because they want the business and they want to try and recoup some
of their losses...
BROWN: But John that's not a bad
thing..
HUMPHRYS: No, I'm not suggesting
it is but it is a bad thing if you run the risk as presumably you must
be running the risk of spreading the disease because if you cannot be sure
whether an animal is carrying the disease, whether an animal is incubating
the disease, then there surely must be a risk, given that the virus is
wind-borne as - can be wind-borne as we all know. There must be a risk
of moving these animals around the country.
BROWN: John, I cannot afford to
run any risks with this and if the choice is between holding animals at
a standstill or getting trade moving again, if there is any chance of there
being any risk in that, then I am afraid the standstill has to remain.
HUMPHRYS: Why allow the licensing
to go ahead.
BROWN: On all of this I am acting
on professional advice and the veterinary advice is that provided the animals
are healthy animals and that is the first condition of the scheme it is
safe for them to travel one journey. What wouldn't be safe would be to
mix them with other animals that are going to live on. Remember the only
journey that these animals are doing and it's a short journey at that,
we can't licence long journeys because of the dangers of drivers having
to stop and then start again. For the short journeys I am advised that
under these strict conditions it is safe to move the animals directly from
their holding, either into a holding area for four weeks so that they can
be batched to go to the abattoir or directly to the abattoir. Once they
are dead, they don't pump out the virus because they breath it out.
HUMPHRYS: No, but once..if..when
they are alive you cannot be sure - as I understand it correct me if I
am wrong - you cannot be certain than an animal may be incubating the disease,
may be carrying the disease without it having become apparent.
BROWN: A condition of the scheme
is that the farmer inspector the animals and signs a certificate to say
that on that day they are not showing signs of the disease.
HUMPHRYS: But it may be there without
even it having become manifest.
BROWN: Yes. But they're going
on a very short journey to an abattoir where they're going to be killed,
and as long as they are not meeting other animals that are going to live
on and thereby spread the disease, the disease is contained.
HUMPHRYS: But we've already established
that the virus can be spread by the air. So therefore, is there not -
it may not be a great risk, I'm not suggesting to you that you are, you
know, risking contaminating the entire nation, but there must be some sort
of risk, and in the earlier part of this interview, you talked about clamping
down even further. This is a relaxation, isn't it.?
BROWN: No, the animals are not
being driven around other farm premises, they're confined to the lorries
and the major roads. They are not going down the rural by-ways, they are
making one short journey to the abattoir, and they are healthy animals,
they are not showing signs of the disease.
HUMPHRYS: But if there is any sort
of risk at all, and you are suggesting that there isn't one, people are
entitled to think, well perhaps what's happening here is that you want
to avoid paying compensation, as much compensation as possible, to people
who are indirectly affected by foot and mouth, farmers for instance, whose
animals have not been affected, but who can't move their livestock, and
here's the government saying, well, we're facing potentially an absolutely
massive bill here, so let's try to limit it, by allowing farmers to move
their stock, allowing abattoirs, allowing hauliers to continue to operate.
That's the suspicion that there some commercial imperative in this.
BROWN: No, there isn't a commercial
imperative in this. The government doesn't pay compensation for the consequentials,
we only pay compensation for the animals that have to be directly destroyed
in order to control the disease. All of this is being done to help the
livestock sector. We want to eliminate the disease in this country, so
I'm clearly not going to compromise that policy in any way. If we can
get the animals safely moving again, without risk of spreading the disease,
which I am advised that we can, surely it is right to do so.
HUMPHRYS: If that is the case,
but let's return to the question of...
BROWN: ...yes but the judgement
as to whether or not that is the case has got to be a veterinary judgement
rather than a political one. If the Chief Vet says to me, look, it isn't
safe to do this, or you're taking a risk, I can assure you that I wouldn't
take it.
HUMPHRYS: Can I be clear about
this compensation. You say we are not at the moment paying compensation
to people who are not directly affected, to farmers other than those whose
animals have actually been affected and slaughtered. Are you prepared
even to consider it at some stage?
BROWN: Look we've got the whole
situation under review. And in particular, I am very, keeping a very sharp
eye on the animal welfare consequences, and you will know that when the
classical swine fever outbreak occurred in East Anglia, we did move rapidly
to establish an animal welfare scheme, which enabled the state to take
the animals off farm, and pay some compensation to the farmers in order
to prevent unnecessary suffering to the animals, and I'm keeping a very,
very close eye on those animals that are affected by the movement restrictions,
however as you will also know, we are mostly talking about cattle and sheep
in this outbreak, not pigs, fortunately, it doesn't seem to have spread
in the national pig herd...
HUMPHRYS: ...yet, one has to say.
BROWN: Well, you know, tomorrow's
another day and so on, I can't say that with certainty, but at the moment
that is the position.
HUMPHRYS; But you're acknowledging
the possibility that if this thing continues and if farmers are hit badly
and possibly hauliers and possibly abattoirs, then there may be some compensation
for them.
BROWN: No, I want to be very careful.
I do not want to hold out the false prospect of hope for consequential
loss compensation...
HUMPHRYS: ...but you're not denying
it entirely...
BROWN: ...we are keeping the whole
issue under review. Of course any responsible government would do that.
But what I don't want to do is to somehow hold out the prospects and have
people hoping for something, that after all is an insurable risk, is going
to be compensated for by the government.
HUMPHRYS: See, what Tim Yeo says
is that you must announce compensation for unrecoverable losses, that's
the principle that must be adopted...
BROWN: ...but rather than listen
to what the Conservative Party spokesman...
HUMPHRYS: ...he speaks for many
people...
BROWN: ...yes, but he's in opposition.
In government, the Conservative Party paid no such compensation. The
only government that has every paid anything that looks like a consequential
loss compensation is me, as Minister, under the classical swine fever animal
welfare arrangements.
HUMPHRYS: What effect is this licensing
of some movement of some animals, what effect is this going to have on
shortage, because we're now seeing some of the shops, a lot of the shops,
supermarkets, running out of meat.
BROWN: No, I think that's being
exaggerated, the major retailers seem able to cope...
HUMPHRYS: ...see the stores, the
pictures in the papers this morning, of empty shelves, people saying I
can't buy any meat, I mean it's...
BROWN: ...I've asked people to
stick to their normal shopping patterns...
HUMPHRYS: ...well they haven't
listened to you...
BROWN: ...well they have...
HUMPHRYS: ...you don't necessarily
listen to Ministers...
BROWN: ...no, come on John, we're
a week into this, and actually people have been very good by and large...
HUMPHRYS: ...had...
BROWN: ...and it's, well, we're
a week into it now, and hopefully as we get the trade moving, admittedly
under tightly controlled conditions within the United Kingdom, it will
be possible to get safe British product back on to the store shelves.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, but in the meantime,
there is going to be a problem, clearly, and the stores were saying yesterday,
forty to sixty per cent increase in sales, the busiest sales they've ever
had of meat, that doesn't suggest that people are saying, oh, Nick Brown's
told us we oughtn't go and rush out and buy meat...
BROWN: ...but they hung on for
a week, which is not bad, and a sixty per cent increase in sales in these
circumstances is not that bad either. Once people see the shelves stocking
up again, trade will return to normal and people will have a bit more meat
in their freezers than they otherwise would. Everyone should just keep
calm, and wait until the food, until the British livestock industry is
able to get product moving again, remember, we've issued licenses for abattoirs
over the week-end, the licensing arrangements have been put in place for
operation on Monday, I expect to see product moving again on Tuesday.
HUMPHRYS: But in the meantime there
are some problems, it means obviously we're going to be bringing in a bit
more meat from abroad, possibly from Europe, possibly from Germany. Germany
says it's inspecting a hundred per cent - we're inspecting a hundred per
cent of German carcasses - cow carcasses at the moment because some of
them clearly pose a risk. We know that now. Shouldn't we be taking a
much stricter stance with the Germans. Shouldn't we be saying to them:
Look, close the abattoirs that are responsible for delivering us meat that
has dodgy material.
BROWN: We are part of a single
market, the European Common Market, and that applies to livestock products
just like everything else. The enforcement of the controls is a matter
for national state competence, but with a European Union over-view, and
the Commission quite rightly have been very firm with the German Federal
authorities. They've said it is not acceptable to send beef carcasses
with the spinal column still attached. But that business of course is
nothing to do with foot and mouth disease.
HUMPHRYS: No,.no, this is BSE.
Exactly.....
BROWN: I know that you understand
it John. Not everyone does. You're right. This is a very, very important
BSE control. We take it very seriously in this country. That is why
Sir John Krebs who is now responsible for food safety matters, that's not
animal health, food safety - is ensuring that every consignment is inspected.
He is right to do so.
HUMPHRYS: But again, so long as
the risk is there should we not be taking - they take a tough stance with
us when it suits them, indeed they banned - quite rightly you would say,
they banned our beef - ... the BSE crisis it's still banned.
BROWN: We are very particular.....
HUMPHRYS: France is still not taking
it, but anyway...
BROWN: We had a particular row
with the French. The German Federal authorities couldn't have been fairer.
HUMPHRYS: But none the less...
BROWN: We're working hard to get
the ban on British beef lifted, and I can tell you there will be nobody
more outraged at the fact that the controls aren't being properly implemented
in Germany than the new German Federal Minister Renate Kuenast.
HUMPHRYS: Now Tony Blair talked
about supermarkets when he was addressing farmers on Friday night I think
it was. He said that they have, supermarkets have farmers, you people,
he said, collectively in an arm-lock. You've expressed concern yourself
about the strength that they exercise, the power that they exercise in
the market. Are you looking at curbs of some sort on the supermarkets.
Why raise these points?
BROWN: As you know we've discussed
this before. It is true that the big retailers are the most powerful player
by far in the supply chain. That's why I as Minister for Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food got all the players in the supply chain together and
set out to negotiate a voluntary code of conduct for the whole of the supply
chain, so that these allegations that the...
HUMPHRYS: Voluntary isn't it?
BROWN: Well, it's rather moved
on from that . At the same time the Competition Commission looked at supermarkets
trading practises rather more generally and approved most of them, but
there were two caveats, and the one that concerns us is the question of
the supply chain arrangements and they are looking at a statutory code
rather based on the work that we've done in the department to stop people
in powerful positions exercising unfair influence over the trading arrangements
for those that are necessarily part of the chain, but not in such a strong
position.
HUMPHRYS: And would that include
for instance saying to supermarkets, look, you must admit this is one of
the causes of this outbreak. Of course you mustn't send meat, order the
farmers effectively to send meat only to certain abattoirs which may be
many, many miles away - hundreds of miles away from where the meat is produced.
I mean can you - might you have - might you seize the power to do that?
BROWN: Well, the code of conduct
is actually a matter for the Competition Commission and the Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry, and him alone.
HUMPHRYS: But your advice obviously
would be listened to on this.
BROWN: We certainly talk to each
other, but it is a matter for him alone. It's not a shared responsibility.
HUMPHRYS: What's your view?
BROWN: Well, I don't think that
the current foot and mouth disease outbreak, and you know, we're going
to have a look at all of this. I don't want to assert a definitive point
of view, but from what I know so far I do not think it relates directly
to a number of abattoirs. After all we had an outbreak in sixty-seven
when there were substantially more abattoirs than there are....
HUMPHRYS: It was much more controlled
than it is now. It was in a very small part of the country.
BROWN: No, not the sixty-seven
one. I don't think...
HUMPHRYS: Compared with this one
it was.
BROWN: Well, but the disease has
followed the pattern of trade rather than the other way round, and it relates
to the original outbreak and to the use of markets, and those are not things
to do with supermarkets supply chain. There are issues to do with supermarkets
but I don't think they're tied up with the foot and mouth disease outbreak
and, at the same time, I don't really think that the number of abattoirs
is a key issue in this question of how did we get foot and mouth disease
and how did it spread. It cannot possibly be the fault of the abattoirs.
HUMPHRYS: Nick Brown, thank you
very much for joining us this morning.
HUMPHRYS: On Tuesday the Prime Minister
will make a speech about the environment. The government thinks it's sufficiently
important to break with tradition and cause the budget to be delayed until
Wednesday. The government is anxious to re-assure voters that Labour really
does care about the environment and, in particular, about climate change.
But so far, according to the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, the record
has been patchy. So what does Labour intend to do to persuade the electorate
of its green credentials. Paul Wilenius has been finding out.
PAUL WILENIUS: A new day at Kew Gardens.
A symbol of Britain's love affair with greenery for more than two hundred
years. When Tony Blair pledged to put the environment at the heart of
government, it was hoped this would herald the dawning of a new cleaner
age. But early successes have not grown into the radical policies green
campaigners expected.
Tony Blair will try to
reclaim the green agenda this week with a keynote speech on the eve of
the Budget. Despite his promises, critics say that the environment is still
not at the heart of government's policies. Now he's anxious to reassure
voters before the election that he really will deliver greener policies,
if he wins a second term.
Even before the Royal
Botanic Gardens are opened, visitors are queuing to get in. Kew Gardens
customers are buying entry to an oasis of tranquility amidst a world increasingly
threatened by man made dangers. Voters' concerns about global warming,
pollution, freak weather and quality of life are growing. So the Prime
Minister's turned his attention to the issue again.
MICHAEL MEACHER MP: It is tremendously important
that the Prime Minister is now taking the leadership in developing these
strategies and he's making clear if we do have an election coming I think
the kind of programme which you can expect from a second Labour government
and there's no doubt that environment is going to be way up, high profile,
one of the lead issues within a second Labour government.
CHARLES KENNEDY MP: I think the Prime Minister
and the government generally have failed miserably where the environment
is concerned. He's making this great speech - well that's a good thing
- it's about the second or third speech he's made since he's been the leader
of the Labour Party, never mind the Prime Minister of the country. I don't
think that there is a gut instinct there, where Labour is concerned for
environmental concerns.
WILENIUS: Not Kyoto but Kew. But
meeting the targets set in faraway Japan on cutting greenhouse gases, is
regarded as a government success. But those waiting for more may be disappointed,
as the dash for gas power generation accounted for most of that figure
and further progress needs more radical policies. The Climate Change Levy
on big energy users had to be watered down - Ministers admit more needs
to be done.
MEACHER: Whether we like it or
not we have fundamentally to change the way in which we run our economy,
run our society. All of us: business, individuals in domestic households,
central local government. All of us have got to change the way in which
things are done, our mobility, the way in which we use energy, the kind
of fuels that we use. That's absolutely necessary otherwise we're going
to suffer on an intensified scale, the kind of severe flooding which has
actually been worse abroad and we may see worse in this country if we don't
take note. That's one key driver.
CHRIS HEWETT: I think there is a school
of thought in new Labour which has argued that there are certain priority
issues which the government must address and that some issues the public
will never vote on and environment is one of those issues. I think what
the party have learnt in government is that actually the interests of the
electorate are much broader and if you want to achieve social change across
the board then you do have to have widen, you have to widen that agenda
and environment is one of those issues, that if you don't do something
early on, then the problems will come up and bite you a few a few years
down the line.
WILENIUS: Environmentalists feel
the sort of care lavished on the trees at Kew, should also be given to
Labour's green policies. And they hope people will see a step change in
attitude, aimed at tackling the root causes of global threats, in both
Blair's speech and the Budget this week. Action on solar power, renewable
energy and greener engines are forecast.
KENNEDY: People are going to be
rightly cynical if Gordon Brown in a few days time presents his budget
as some kind of jolly Green Giant budget, because they've seen the track
record over the past four years. They know it has not been a significant
priority for the government and whatever incentives are offered to people
at this juncture I think will be treated with the cynicism that they probably
deserve.
WILENIUS: A new generation learn
about the dangers facing the world, yet the doom-mongers don't expect
all these plants to end up in Britain.
UNNAMED MAN: This is called opuntia or
prickly pear.
WILENIUS: Motorists were stung
by sharp fuel price rises when Labour first came to office, to try to teach
car owners not to pollute. But this policy of yearly escalating prices
was scrapped last autumn.
JOHN HORAM MP: They increased the escalator
so much at the beginning of their period of office. It's probably partly
environmental, though maybe that was a bit of a cover for just Gordon Brown
getting in more revenue. What no one really knows - but it's quite clear
that when they ran in to trouble, they backed off at an alarming speed
and if you recall, they never mentioned the environment when there was
all the protest last October. They never mentioned the environment, it
was all about needing the money to pay for schools and nurses and so forth
and so that was really bad. I think that gave a very bad signal to the
environmentalists.
WILENIUS: Teaching people to be
green is hard work. Cash incentives will be a feature of the Budget this
week. There'll be more cuts in taxes for environmentally friendly cars,
those using smaller engines and cleaner fuels. And there'll also be moves
to get more children on school buses, to cut car journeys. But there are
fears this will only be cosmetic as fuel costs are still falling. The Greens
say this is counter productive.
MIKE WOODIN: I think on this particular
issue the government have done immense harm because they appeared to be
supporting a green agenda on transport but in reality of course it was
Treasury driven, it was just a financial measure and we can tell that because
they weren't simultaneously investing in the alternatives to car use. So
on the one hand they were penalising motorists but on the other hand they
were not providing the alternatives to coax people out of their cars.
Now that they've done a U-turn on that and they've seen that it might ..it's
unpopular and they back tracked they have completely discredited in the
eyes of a majority of the electorate those green arguments.
JOHN HORAM MP: We have got a report coming
out next week and we've taken a lot of evidence over the last couple of
months since the big change - the dropping of the fuel duty escalator and
I think what our evidence clearly shows is that that was a major change
in policy which they did not appraise for its environmental effects at
all. Which is fundamentally wrong and going against what they say themselves
they should do, ie government policy but they tried to mitigate the problems
by putting it with for example a new green fuel challenge and also lowering
the vehicle excise duty on smaller cars in order to encourage you know
less carbon emissions and so forth. So it's a big cosmetic in truth. It
was look, as though they'd decided to make - take a step as a result of
clear protest last October and cover it up a bit by some other measures,
which look quite green but weren't really very green.
WILENIUS: Labour brought in measures
to open up the countryside to walkers and to tax those who despoil it.
But Ministers are under pressure on genetically modified food and new
plans to build more roads and homes across green areas of the countryside.
HEWETT: The government did not
anticipate an interest from consumers in those issues and so they didn't
have an environmental argument prepared and were therefore forced by vested
interests to back in a sense what the industry wanted. I think that will
change now, already is changing. A great more consultation is going on
in terms of GM foods and I think the government is going to have to take
on board, much more seriously, the concerns of consumers.
WILENIUS; The row over GM foods
caught the public's attention. They worried that the government was not
protecting the environment. The government says issues like this distracted
the electorate from the new Right to Roam, new National Parks and new green
taxes on landfill and quarrying. But Ministers now face a backlash over
plans for one-hundred new road schemes and a million new homes.
KENNEDY: I think that there is
a reaction - a genuine reaction taking place in a lot of rural Britain
about the degree of concreting over, that is perceived to be taking place
and that is something at the end of the day that Mr John Prescott, in particular,
has got to stand in the dock on and I think that the jury is not going
to find him innocent.
WILENIUS: The Palm House at Kew
takes a lot of energy to maintain its warm and moist atmosphere. Now the
government feels the great British public is more interested in sustainable
and renewable ways of producing that energy. So Tony Blair will this week
give more support for renewables like wind and wave power and the solar
power industry will get a big push. The government believes it could become
a multi-million pound business given the right incentives.
MEACHER; I mean renewables is absolutely
key at the present time. It's absolutely at the centre of the switch away
from fossil fuels, oil and coal in particular, to the renewable sources
of energy, which are wind, tidal power, bio-mass energy crops and above
all of course, solar and the hydrogen fuel cell for cars. That's the way
we're going. Now we do need, we are putting more resources in to this.
We have imposed on the electricity suppliers that they should get at least
ten per cent of their sources for fuel burning from renewable sources,
by 2010, we're well on the way to achieving that. We intend to meet that
target.
WOODIN: Well the government's record
on renewable energy can be summed up simply by quoting Department of Trade
and Industry figures which show that in the year 2000, just one-quarter
of one per cent of Britain's energy requirement, came from renewable sources.
So I mean I'll be absolutely delighted if they meet their ten per cent
target but on their record so far, I doubt they're going to make it.
WILENIUS: The government says it's
not just hot air. It's set to unveil a big programme to boost the sales
of energy producing solar panels.
MEACHER: With regard to solar photo
votayics, we certainly will shortly be publishing a programme, which indicates
that we are in line with the world leaders. Germany has a hundred thousand
roof programme by 2007, Japan I think, seventy-thousand by 2005. When
we announce it is going to be in that sort of range, this is a major commitment
that we're making of enormous importance.
WILENIUS: There are dangers for
Tony Blair, especially in the long term if he is not seen as a green Prime
Minister. His government could lose votes if it fails to respond fully
to the environmental problems facing Britain. And his advisors are telling
him privately that green issues are close to the hearts of the affluent
middle class voters he needs at the next election.
The main priorities for
those voters are still the economy, health and education. But they are
looking much more closely at green issues and if the government's record
is not convincing, they could start drifting away towards other smaller
parties, or they could lose interest altogether. And Labour also needs
to lift its image on the environment, to attract and keep younger voters.
Otherwise it could suffer at the ballot box, eventually.
HORAM: I think the government hasn't
taken the environment as seriously as it should have done, or said it was
going to do, partly at least, because it didn't believe there were votes
in it. Now, that may be true in a short-term sense that obviously things
like crime and law and order are more important immediately at the next
General Election. But in a more fundamental sense I think that a lot of
middle class people, middle England people if you like, in the South of
England and the middle and in other parts of the country, who are very
concerned about their environment and see more road building and more house
building and more dispilation of the environment as a threat to their quality
of life and I think they ignore that feeling at their peril.
KENNEDY: I think the concern in
Labour high command about the environmental agenda and about green issues
generally, is that there are a lot of disillusioned Labour voters, or previous
Labour voters out there. We know that. The opinion polls are telling
us it. The commentators are saying it. For heaven's sake, the Labour
Party is saying it, quite loud and quite open, and one of those groups
of people that must feel quite disappointed by Labour in office, are those
who thought, at last we've got a government that's actually going to take
the environment and green issues seriously and they haven't and they know
it, and that's what they're trying to address and that's why we will be
putting the focus very heavily on these issues during the campaign itself.
WILENIUS; In Kew Gardens it's a
constant battle to preserve the environment. Labour too wants to tidy
up its green policies. But electoral imperatives aside, there are some
in the government who genuinely worry about the future of the earth.
MEACHER: Rising water levels, the
risks to our shore-line particularly in East England. These are... the
fact that if the temperature does rise we could see many areas of the country...of
the world, including this country, suffering an increase in malaria infestation.
It's already happened in New York, it could happen here, as well as other
diseases. It is very, very, very serious. This is absolutely deadly serious.
It is the number one issue. Not just environmentally, but for our whole
world and for the survival of the human race.
WILENIUS: This dire warning of
some future apocalypse shows a significant change in the government's attitude
towards the environment. But if Ministers cannot produce effective policies
soon to lift the dark threats to the future of our world, then its own
long-term survival, as well as the planet's, could well be in doubt.
HUMPHRYS: Paul Wilenius reporting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The Conservatives have
been holding their National Convention this weekend. Mr Hague is making
the big speech right now, trying to rally his troops and prepare them for
a General Election. There is a massive hill to climb, the polls get worse
rather than better, scarcely a week goes by without some malcontent somewhere
stirring things up within the party. Well now Mr Hague seems to be playing
the Nationalist card. He's telling is party that Labour is turning Britain
into a foreign land where its own people feel unwelcome but is that wise
and will he stick with it. We've seen a lot of U-turns on policy under
his watch. Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Andrew Lansley, has just
come back from Harrogate and is with me now.
Good afternoon Mr Lansley.
ANDREW LANSLEY MP: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: You look at those polls,
you see an even worse one in the Observer this morning: even worse than
'97, your own supporters according to the poll - this Observer poll this
morning. Three quarters of them saying that you can't win your own people.
So you are getting desperate and it's beginning to show, this talk about
this being a foreign country. I've just been looking at some of the language
that Mr Hague has been speaking in the last few minutes: "Britain is going
to lose its sovereignty, its independence, its power to control its own
destiny". Well, really?
LANSLEY: But it isn't that exactly
the threat that's ahead of us, that's what we have been talking about at
Harrogate. That's the reason for example, why 1999 in the European Elections
when we said to the British people that we want to be in Europe and not
run by Europe and that only the Conservative Party would keep the pound.
On the issue of Europe, the British people supported us, they did that
in the face of opinion polls. The opinion polls a week before the European
Election said the Labour Party were eight percentage points ahead of us.
On the day we were eight percentage points ahead of them. There are many
voters at the moment who know that Labour have failed to deliver but they
don't yet know what's going to happen in the next Parliament. What we have
to do is to show and it is increasingly clear what will happen, what the
threats are in the next Parliament if Labour were allowed to form a second
government. It's not just that they would continue to fail to deliver because
there's always spin and they'll never deliver, you can see it in the education
service. There was a debate this morning at Harrogate. Teacher supply is
in crisis, teachers' morale is at rock bottom, police morale is at rock
bottom, doctors feel threatened by the way Labour are attacking the NHS.
But it's also, as William was saying this morning, it's about the country
we want to have. We want to keep our pound.
HUMPHRYS: "A foreign country" I
mean Mr Heseltine himself thinks that's nonsense. Even he has had doubts
about whether to vote for you on account of it. Admittedly he has resolved
those doubts, but the very fact that he was in, as he puts it, a dilemma
as to whether to vote for you. He clearly thinks you are a bit desperate.
LANSLEY: He made it perfectly clear,
I've read it this morning in the Independent on Sunday. He said he will
vote Conservative, he will support William Hague...
HUMPHRYS: Yes he has but he was
in a dilemma - look "My dilemma over voting Tory" He used to be Deputy
Prime Minister.
LANSLEY: The point is what William
was saying this morning and people will recognise this, is that we want
to get our country back. We want to be sure that we are not going...
HUMPHRYS: From whom?
LANSLEY: From Labour because Labour
are going in the direction of the United States of Europe. It's not just
that this coming Election will be a referendum on whether or not we sign
up to the integrationist Treaty of Nice, it is also whether a Labour government
in 2004 take us further down the path of a United States of Europe. It
is a referendum on whether two years from now, as Mr Blair has said he
wishes to do, he will scrap the pound and we will no longer have control
of our own economy. It's an issue of whether contrary to Labour's promises
there will be fewer police and people will not feel safe on our own streets.
This is the kind of Britain we've recognised in the past where we control
our own currency, we are able to be relatively independent, we are able
to have relatively safe streets, these things are not happening now and
we need to get them back.
HUMPHRYS: The trouble with the
sort of language and this sort of approach is that it's in danger of spilling
over into some sort of xenophobia isn't it. We've even got..
LANSLEY: Well it is if you characterise
that but that isn't where it comes from...
HUMPHRYS: Well, when you talk about...(talking
at the same time) people living in a foreign country in our own land...
LANSLEY: No.
HUMPHRYS: There's not a shred of
evidence for that.
LANSLEY: There's perfectly good
evidence for that. If where we get to four years' hence under a Labour
Government is where we no longer have our own currency, where we no longer
determine our own laws..
HUMPHRYS: Which we would have voted
for by the way. If we want to change it, we do have a choice in the matter..
LANSLEY: It's a great mistake if
people believe that the Labour Government after the next election and Mr
Blair in particular would let them have a fair referendum...
HUMPHRYS: ..well you patronise
people if you believe we are so daft we will vote for whatever we are told
to vote for..
LANSLEY: ...he was prepared to
fix a referendum on his own leadership election in Wales. He was prepared
to fix a referendum inside the Labour Party...
HUMPHRYS: ..that was a very different
matter.
LANSLEY: He has already fixed the
Political Parties and Referendums Act through Parliament so that the yes
campaign can spend twice as much as the no campaign and it's Mr Blair who
would be setting the terms of a referendum, it's Mr Brown..
HUMPHRYS: ...and we are such mugs
that we would fall for it...
LANSLEY: ....who would be spending
billions in preparing for it.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, well.
LANSLEY: The British people ought
to know, because it's true, that if you really believe in keeping the pound
only by voting Conservative at this coming election that you can be sure
that you will do so.
HUMPHRYS: And you will of course
be able to tell them that during an election but we have got - during a
referendum if it happens. But we've now got Mr Maude saying just this morning
that you mightn't, or even would not send troops to the Rapid Reaction
Force if and when one comes into effect. Well that would be a Treaty obligation.
I mean again this is dangerous talk isn't it.
LANSLEY: Well I think actually
technically speaking you are not right about that because..
HUMPHRYS: We have signed up to
it...
LANSLEY: We haven't ratified the
Treaty of Nice yet.
HUMPHRYS: But it will be ratified..
LANSLEY: And in the protocols -
no it won't be ratified by a Conservative Government because we will...
HUMPHRYS: If we have a Conservative
Government - right.
LANSLEY: ..extract the integrationist
elements from the Treaty of Nice and we will make sure that we do the thing
that we originally were prepared to do which was to increase a European
capability inside NATO. NATO has served us extraordinarily well for over
fifty years and the danger, it's another danger, another threat of a Labour
government, is that four years hence under a Labour government, we would
be looking at a European capability which is designed to be independent
outside NATO, doesn't increase European capability but actually splits
capabilities between NATO on the one hand and a European force on the other
and that is duplicatory. It's what the Americans are opposed to, it would
alienate an American administration from the continuing commitment to the
defence of Europe. It is dangerous foreign policy as well as bad defence.
HUMPHRYS: Some people say you can
tell how desperate people get, particularly politicians, when the attacks
become increasingly personal. Look at what your Party Chairman, Mr Ancram,
said this weekend: "I regard him, Tony Blair the Prime Minister, I regard
him with undisguised contempt."
LANSLEY: Well, let me ask you,
before the last election, did you challenge Labour over the manner in which
they attacked the last Conservative government...
HUMPHRYS: ...many, many times.
LANSLEY: ...and is it not valid,
well then, you'll agree, is it not valid for us to the same to Labour when
Mr Blair has surrounded himself...
HUMPHRYS: I don't recall that language
to be honest...
LANSLEY: ... look at who he had
around him, Geoffrey Robinson, Peter Mandelson, in face of all the conventions,
Mr Blair brought Peter Mandelson back after he resigned...
HUMPHRYS: ...wasn't it your lot
that did "demon eyes" at the last election?
LANSLEY: Yes we did, yes we did.
And I personally, I am not..I am not in the business of negative advertising
in a personal sense.
HUMPHRYS: So, what's Mr Ancram
doing using this sort of language then, your Chairman.
LANSLEY: ...no, but what we're
doing is we are characterising Mr Blair by reference to the way in which
he himself behaves and we see it in parliament, I have seen...
HUMPHRYS: Undisguised contempt?
LANSLEY: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: Contempt? For the Prime
Minister?
LANSLEY: Yes indeed because I
have seen not only in those he brings around him and the way in which they
behave, the arrogance and indeed the contempt with which they treat the
British people, because Lord Irvine for example, seems to treat, by the
way in which he writes to lawyers, raising money for the Labour Party,
he treats the interests of the Labour Party as if they were the same as
the interests of the government.
HUMPHRYS: Well again we must be...
LANSLEY: He doesn't distinguish
between his responsibilities and that does bring government into contempt.
Yes it does.
HUMPHRYS: Well, again, we must
be terrible mugs, mustn't we, because here we are, telling the opinion
pollsters that we think he's a jolly good chap, a lot better than your
bloke, William Hague, and that we think the Labour Party is going to win
by a million miles next time. I mean, are we really so silly that we can't
see this.
LANSLEY: I think you never patronise
people and you never hold people in contempt if you tell the truth. Mr
Blair does not tell the truth. He has a problem with the truth, just in
fact as it turned out Clare Short said Peter Mandelson had a problem with
the truth. In Parliament, from time to time, I sit and I listen, when
Mr Blair gets up and he says things that he knows not to be true, because
we have told him about our policy. He is prepared to lie about our policy.
HUMPHRYS: ...show me a political
party that hasn't done that to each other...
LANSLEY: ..I think that is contemptuous
and it's not what we would do and it's not what I would do and it's not
what William Hague would do.
HUMPHRYS: You've never misrepresented
government policies, never?
LANSLEY: We don't lie about the
government. We don't lie about the government and we don't misrepresent.
What we do is we set out the facts and setting out the facts is the way...is
what the British people expect. Now in the next four years we can indeed
look forward and say, well on the basis of what we've seen up to now, on
the basis of where the Labour Party are, what would happen in the next
four years. Before the last election, they talked about not increasing
taxes, they went up by twenty-five billion pound. How far can you believe
Mr Brown on Tuesday, if he talks about lower taxes. They said, they would
put more police on the beat and in fact, we have got two-and-a-half-thousand
more, fewer police, after the election. So we're not misrepresenting the
Labour Party, we are simply telling straight-forward facts about what their
record has been and presenting straight-forward conclusions about where
they're going...
HUMPHRYS: You don't think people
might respect you a little more if you were a little more measured, a little
more statesmanlike?
LANSLEY: We are always measured
in what we say, about our own policies and about the Labour Party...
HUMPHRYS: ...and contempt is a
measured word...
LANSLEY: ...and indeed it is.
If the Labour Party, Mr Blair in particular, bring the public into contempt
by the way in which they treat the public, then I think it is right to
characterise him in that way. And those around him.
HUMPHRYS: Andrew Lansley, thank
you very much indeed.
LANSLEY: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: The family is not a traditional
election battleground. But it is this time. The Chancellor has targeted
tax cuts and benefits on children and, as well as matching them, the Conservatives
have promised to cut taxes for some married couples. Both party leaders
give the impression they would like to go further. But, as David Grossman
discovered, in a curious political role-reversal Labour's traditionalists,
and the Tories Liberal wing are each preventing their leaders from claiming
their party as the champion of marriage.
DAVID GROSSMAN: The last thing on Kate De Chenu's
mind is politics. But as she tries on her wedding dress she can be sure
the politicians are thinking about her. The main parties are falling over
each other to sound firmly pro-family but each party has problems with
the question of whether the state should reward those who marry.
As many a best man can
testify - a few unfortunate sounding words in a speech and the whole party
can disintegrate into tears and recriminations. That hair trigger volatility
is true too within political parties when the subject of marriage and
family policy comes up. In both Labour and the Conservatives behind the
demure veil of official policy lies the angry blush of disagreement.
CERIDWEN ROBERTS: Within both parties, it seems
to me there are people who would in a sense, in family policy terms, fit
equally well in the other one.
IAN TAYLOR MP: It's very important that,
that the state doesn't try to favour one part of a society by appearing
to penalise the other - for example children of married couples are of
course happy and contented, and we'd like them to stay that way, but that
doesn't mean to say that we want children of unmarried couples to be miserable.
GROSSMAN: Kate and her bridesmaids
have a few nerves to settle before the big day. Modern couples know it
takes more than a day's worth of sparkle to sustain a marriage. Today
two in five end in divorce. But that doesn't mean marriage is any less
popular among voters- it's just that today life is far more complicated
with people going through far more phases during adulthood.
ROBERTS: The vast majority of people
get married at least one, and the popularity of marriage I think can still
be seen by the fact that people are increasingly re-marrying. A large
proportion of, of marriages are second or third marriages. With that said,
it has taken a bit of a knock for a variety of reasons. One reason of
course is that people are delaying the age at which they get marriage,
so that we have co-habitation as a sort of pre-marriage state for the vast
majority of young people, they will cohabit. We also have divorce, so that
is in fact reducing the number of the adult population who at any one point
in time will be married.
GROSSMAN: Labour believes it's
laid out an impressive gift list for families. Child Benefit has been
increased. The new Working Families tax credit guarantees the take home
pay of families with a breadwinner, while the Children's tax credit gives
some families up to an extra four-hundred-and-forty-two pounds a year.
And the party says it's provided more child-care places and improved maternity
leave.
These Labour gifts aren't
actually wedding presents - none of the policies they contain require the
recipients to be married. In terms of tax and benefit the government doesn't
mind what kind of relationship people are in, or indeed if they're in
a relationship at all.
ALISTAIR DARLING MP: Were we to say, okay, we'll
support the children of people who are married and not other children,
how could you go to a four year-old and say, we'll support you, because
your mum and dad are married, but go to another four year old and say,
sorry we can't support you because of circumstances beyond your control,
your parents aren't living together? That would be nonsense, that would
be absurd.
GROSSMAN: The Prime Minister clearly
believes in marriage.
TONY BLAIR:(CLIP) Whatever our individual weaknesses
are, our collective strength lies in making the institution of the family
work for the good of Britain.
GROSSMAN: He and other senior cabinet
ministers like to suggest they think marriage is the ideal.
JACK STRAW: (CLIP) It plainly makes sense for government
to do what it can to strengthen the institution of marriage as a basis
for bringing up children.
GROSSMAN: But the Prime Minister
has encountered opposition to his desire to enshrine the pre-eminence of
marriage in policy, A White Paper containing this view was seemingly
abandoned because some Labour senior ministers thought the line an implicit
criticism of single parents and those who cohabit.
DEREK FOSTER MP: There are different views within
parties as there are across parties. I mean the Prime Minister has made
it absolutely clear that he favours marriage certainly as the best way
of bringing up children. He has said this on many public platforms. It
would be my own view too. It is not only a tension within the party, it
is a tension within society at large.
ROBERTS: I think it's quite understandable
why the upper echelons of the Labour party are very nervous, even though
they may personally support marriage, in making public pronouncements.
They feel it would be stigmatizing certain groups of society and it would
be also intervening in making statements about people's private choices.
The really big issue for public debate I think is that private choices
have public consequences, and I would say that's where the debate about
marriage and family life and family stability has to go in the next twenty
years.
GROSSMAN: There's one more job
for Kate to do - after all a bride without flowers wouldn't be traditional.
The Conservative leader William Hague too has a traditional view of marriage.
The party has assembled what it thinks is an impressive bunch of policies
- with at its centre-piece a financial commitment to married couples.
Some parts of the Tories list of presents for families sounds very similar
to Labour's. There are family scholarships to help parents get back to
work after bringing up children, also a two hundred pound increase in the
Children's tax credit, but some of the presents are rather more in traditional
Tory taste. A reinstatement of married couples tax allowance for those
with pre-secondary school-age children and tax free pensions for widows
and widowers both specifically designed to favour the married over the
unmarried.
.
DAVID WILLETTS MP: Marriage is, we can all see
very clearly just as a factual observation, the best environment wherever
possible for bringing up children. And so and if we adults have a choice
whether they get married, nobody's being forced to get married, if they
choose to get married, we think it's right that that should be recognised
in the tax system.
TAYLOR: The number of people choosing
to live together but not necessarily getting married, and of course the
number of, of children of single parents, has been rising. Now you can't
just pretend that that's not happening; and I don't think it's appropriate
for the tax system suddenly to discriminate against a large number of British
people who for reasons that they've chosen deliberately, or by accident,
don't fit a particular pattern.
GROSSMAN: Kate's groom is Simon,
flanked by his best man and father he has work to do. Critics of the Tories'
married couples tax allowance say it may look traditional, but unlike
this trio it just doesn't pass muster.
MUSIC
The party had promised that it would bring back the allowance for all
married couples, but in the end, settled for the far cheaper option of
giving it to couples with a child under eleven. Mere tokenism, say the
other parties.
STEVE WEBB MP: We can all be in favour
of the family and it doesn't cost any money to say that. But when they're
pinned down onto hard cash, we get a married tax allowance that turns out
to miss out five out of six married couples, so it clearly is much more
about sounding right than actually doing anything substantial.
ACTUALITY.
GROSSMAN: This practice will hopefully
make Kate and Simon word perfect on the day. Some Tories believe the contest
for London Mayor was a useful rehearsal for the general election. The
Tory candidate Steve Norris fought a socially liberal campaign. His appeals
to those with non-traditional lifestyles did not go down well with the
Tory leadership. But the Conservative leader William Hague isn't trying
to win over progressive thinking voters. A senior Tory who dines on the
party's top table told me that Mr Hague's policy on marriage and the family
is simply designed to reassure the party's core supporters. In an election
where turnout could be very low, Mr. Hague wants to make sure that at least
the die hard reliables will turn out to say "I do." But some Conservative
backbenchers think that strategy smacks of defeatism.
TAYLOR: I hope a campaign that
we saw in the London elections indicates that we Conservatives really want
to try to represent everyone in our society, there's - there's no niche
that we're just aiming our attentions to. We are inclusive as a party;
we believe in government trying to be compassionate, which means helping
those most in need; and those in need come from all sorts of social and
cultural backgrounds. Now until we get that message across we will be regarded
as only representing a small proportion of the British people and that
will keep us out of government.
GROSSMAN: And even those who might
in private agree with Tony Blair's pro-marriage beliefs, think politicians
are at their most unconvincing when trying to preach family values.
FOSTER: I think that it is far
better to be realistic and see the changing pattern of relationships whether
you personally approve of it or not, recognise that people are going to
pursue their relationships like that and try and take them into account
in your own policies.
GROSSMAN: The big day is here at
last - the dress and the flowers are perfect. The domestic in-fighting
among politicians about marriage and the family has no impact here, the
subtleties of policy differences completely lost. For all their positioning
on the subject in advance of their own big election day, it may be that
there are some parts of our family lives where, try as they might, the
politicians just aren't invited.
HUMPHRYS: That was David Grossman
reporting.
And that's it for this
week, just time to remind those on the internet about our website, which
you can see now. Until the same time next week, good afternoon.
26
FoLdEd
|