|
====================================================================================
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:
11.03.01
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Tony
Blair wants to put the Hinduja brothers' passport affair behind him. But
has it left a permanent stain on the Government's record? I'll be talking
to the Social Security Secretary Alistair Darling. The Tories want to
make Europe an issue in the General Election. But will they all be singing
from the same hymn sheet? And whither Wales? The Welsh Nationalists think
they're on a roll... but does ANYONE want independence? That's after the
news read by Peter Sissons.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: William Hague thinks his
policy on the Euro will be a strong card in the Tory's election pack, but
can he get all his candidates to follow suit.
TIM COLLINS: "I would say to those
candidates who are thinking of perhaps departing from official Conservative
Party language, it is not shall we say a career enhancing move."
HUMPHRYS: And are the Welsh Nationalists
on their way to winning still more seats from the Labour Party?
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Two big events for the
government this week: there was the Budget, generally welcomed and seen
as a suitable launching pad for the coming election. And there was the
Hammond Report published into the Hinduja brothers' passport affair. Not
welcomed at all. On the contrary, most papers and observers seemed to
think it raised more questions than it answered. Instead of drawing a
line under it all, it invited accusations of "whitewash" and "cover-up".
So has the government been damaged and what lessons might politicians
learn from the whole sorry saga? The Social Security minister is Alistair
Darling and he's in our studio in Inverness, where the Labour Party is
holding its Scottish conference.
Good afternoon Mr Darling.
ALISTAIR DARLING: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: We'll come on to the
Budget in a minute if we may but let's look at the Hammond Report. You
can see why people get cynical about politics and politicians and governments
can't you, reports come out that say absolutely nobody was to blame, things
happened that were regrettable but absolutely nobody is to blame for it.
In this particular case they will look at the fact that the Hinduja Brothers
not only got their passports faster than almost everybody else, there were
serious questions raised about their own characters, they hadn't even met
the basic requirements. All of these things happened yet nobody was to
blame, nothing wrong was done. It's all cynicism inducing isn't it?
DARLING: No, if you remember the
inquiry was set up to establish whether or not Peter Mandelson had improperly
influenced the application made by the Hinduja Brothers in relation to
their passport. That was the allegation that was made against him by some
people at the time of his resignation. The Prime Minister expressed confidence
in him and said that he hadn't done that but felt it right to ask for there
to be an independent inquiry to find out whether or not there had been
any improper interventions. Now, the inquiry has concluded that there
is no evidence to suggest that there were...there was anything improper.
That's the conclusion it's come to, we should accept that and let's move
on and let's deal with the other issues that I think frankly are of greater
importance to the public which we are about to discuss on the Budget and
so on.
HUMPHRYS: Well indeed we are going
to discuss that though, neither you nor I knows what precisely the public
makes of all this and I think it is entirely reasonable to raise a few
more questions about it because they are being raised in the newspapers
and by many other people as we speak. So let me just try to pursue one
or two areas here. Mr Mandelson was clearly in no doubt that help had been
given to the Hinduja Brothers and I say that quoting the report. The report,
Hammond tells us that Mandelson wrote a memo in November '98 saying they
couldn't expect - and I quote - "any further involvement or commendation
from me" now note the language there "any further involvement or commendation
from me." So clearly there had been involvement.
DARLING: As I said to you the central
question that Hammond was asked to investigate was whether or not there
had been any improper intervention on the part of Peter Mandelson in relation
to these passport applications. Now, his conclusion was that there hadn't
been anything improper. Now, I appreciate that other people may be raising
all sorts of other questions but the central question put here was: was
there anything done improperly? - the answer was there is no evidence to
suggest that it was. That means that Peter Mandelson is free to resume
the rest of his life, to get on with whatever he wants to do and you know
that is how matters stand.
HUMPHRYS: But there had been involvement
on Mr Mandelson's part quite clearly. Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, himself
said - and again I get this information from the report as you will know,
he wanted another brother's case, another of the Hinduja Brothers, Prakash,
to be dealt with and I quote "helpfully". Now, that again raises doubts
about their treatment doesn't it. He didn't say let's deal with it in
the normal way, without any preferential treatment, he said "helpfully".
There's only one interpretation of that word helpfully isn't there.
DARLING: I don't want to over labour
the point but remember the inquiry was set up at the time that Peter Mandelson
resigned in order to ascertain whether or not Peter Mandelson had done
anything wrong in relation to these passport applications. Now, that was
the allegation being made against him. It was an extremely serious allegation,
that's why the Prime Minister asked for there to be an independent inquiry
to examine whether or not anything improper had been done. Now the conclusion
was that Peter Mandelson did not do anything improper. So having had the
inquiry and having got the conclusions of the independent inquiry, surely
the best thing to do is to accept those conclusions, had they been different
then all sorts of other things might have arisen. But, the fact is that
Hammond looked at what Peter Mandelson had done and came to the conclusion
that he'd done nothing improper. That was the question he was asked to
investigate, that was the allegation being made against him at the time
he resigned and you know the conclusion is that there was not evidence
to support any suggestion that Peter Mandelson had done anything improper.
HUMPHRYS: Well there were a whole
series of allegations and concerns being raised at that time and the fact
that Mr Blair chose to base the inquiry on such a narrow question raises
questions in itself. I mean let us move, you're obviously reluctant to
go into any more detail about the report, you want to draw a line under
it, fair enough but let's move beyond the remit of the report itself because
there are broader issues of principle involved here - how ministers deal
with rich and powerful people and in this case people whose character had
been very seriously questioned. We now know that there was a Home Office
memo and again we are grateful to Hammond for this, dated March 1991, that
advised and I quote again "Ministers against accepting invitations from
the brothers" The brothers Hinduja that is. That was back in 1991 before
you even came into power. It remained in force, obviously you don't withdraw
memos like that and yet ministers did indeed accept invitations from the
brothers, became quite closely involved with them.
DARLING: Well, look, I haven't
seen that memorandum. I know it's referred to - but let me come back to
the point that you started off with, it's a perfectly fair one and that
is the..you know about people's image of politics and politicians and let's
go back to the time when Peter Mandelson resigned. The allegation being
made against him then was that he improperly intervened and did something
he shouldn't have done in relation to these passport allegations. Now the
Prime Minister announced in the House of Commons that he was going to ask
Sir Anthony Hammond to hold an independent inquiry to ask whether or not
Peter Mandelson had done anything improper because clearly it is crucially
important that ministers do behave properly and there is no question as
to their conduct. Now, Hammond conducted that inquiry, he has come to
the conclusion there is no evidence to suggest that Peter Mandelson behaved
improperly. So the question was asked, Hammond looked at it and it was
answered. Now I do appreciate that there are some people who then say,
ah well there should have been lots of other things and other questions
asked and so on. But the point is, that the Prime Minister told the House
of Commons what it was that he wanted Hammond to look at because the issue,
the allegation against Peter Mandelson was extremely serious. It struck
at the heart of ministerial standards, that's why he wanted it looked at
independently. He did have it looked at independently and the conclusion
- I repeat - is there was no evidence to suggest that Peter Mandelson behaved
improperly.
HUMPHRYS: But..
DARLING: I think that is actually
critically important because I do think it's important that all of us,
all ministers act entirely properly and...
HUMPHRYS: Ah, well that's what
I want to come onto..
DARLING: ..well, you see Hammond
was asked to look at whether or not Peter Mandelson had done anything that
was improper, he looked at it and came to the conclusion that he didn't.
Now that's the conclusion, you know I appreciate why you are asking me
these things but I do think that having asked the question. The question
having been answered and there being no evidence against to suggest that
Peter Mandelson behaved improperly, he can get on to lead the rest of his
life and I think the government can get on with delivering on the central
promises that we made in the last election and which people will judge
us.
HUMPHRYS: And I'm going to come
onto that in a moment but I'm trying to broaden this out a little bit you
see because you keep returning to the very specific allegation against
Peter Mandelson which is...
DARLING: ..which Hammond was asked
to look at...
HUMPHRYS: ..which is indeed and
some people said that it should have been broader, some people said, alright,
you know, and you're saying that was fine. What I'm trying to do and you
talk about ministers behaving properly or otherwise, what I'm trying to
get from you in a sense I suppose, is your definition, this government's
definition of what is proper behaviour. Now can it ever be right, can
it ever be right? Put aside this particular affair. Can it ever be right
for ministers to make special representations, on behalf of very rich and
sometimes powerful people who have the kind of access that normal people
do not have. Can that be right?
DARLING: Well, all passport applications,
or whatever other business before government or its agencies has to be
dealt with properly. But you know, I didn't apologise for coming back
to the central question that Hammond was asked because that's what he was
asked.
HUMPHRYS: Well I'm trying very
hard to get away from that.
DARLING: I know you are...
HUMPHRYS: ...and I'm puzzled that
you don't want to address the broader question.
DARLING: I know you are but remember
at the time, on the day, or the days surrounding Peter's resignation, the
allegation being made against him was an extremely serious one...
HUMPHRYS: ...I'm aware of that,
you've made that point several times...
DARLING: ...I know and it was extremely
serious and it was very specific. Now it's been looked at. Now what you're
finding is people said, ah well, there isn't evidence on that one, how
about some other issues. Now, all I'm saying to you is that is an allegation
is made against Peter or against any minister, it does need to be looked
into, if anything is...that has been done improperly then that has to be
dealt with, but in this case, you know, the allegation, the central allegation,
the serious allegation made against Peter Mandelson was made, it was investigated
by an independent Queen's Counsel. He has come
to the view that there is no evidence to support that allegation and you
know, for that reason, the allegation having been unfounded, Peter is free
to get on with the rest of his life.
HUMPHRYS: You make that point.
But let me try and approach it from a slightly different way then. Let
us assume that I have a very rich Indian friend if you like, who happens
to be living in this country, desperately wants a passport, British Passport,
doesn't have one. I come along to you, I have access to you, I see you
occasionally, or one of your colleagues and I say look, can you help out
here? Can you, you know, make representations on his behalf. What would
you say to me?
DARLING: What I would say to you
is that all applications for whatever it is have to be dealt with properly
and you know I have no hesitation in telling you that.
HUMPHRYS: Would you pass that request
of mine on. I mean would you say to somebody in you know, the passport
office or somewhere else, would you say, oh you know, Humphrys has asked
me...you know, would you do that?
DARLING: Well, so far as passports
are concerned, you know, what I would say to you, whatever the procedures
are, they have to be followed properly. You'll understand that I don't
have ministerial responsibility for the passport office but whatever the
procedures are, if you came to me and you asked about your benefits....
HUMPHRYS: ..yes but neither did
Peter Mandelson...
DARLING: ....I would then tell
you what you ought to do and the procedures would have to be followed properly.
But you know, let me come back to the point, I mean there was an allegation
made against Peter Mandelson, it was serious one, it was dealt with. Now,
you know, you can raise all sorts of other issues, but surely, you know,
I think what the public wanted to see is that allegations having been made,
were they right, were they wrong? An independent inquiry was held and
it was found there was no evidence...
HUMPHRYS: ...well I may be wrong
about this...
DARLING: ...whether your like it
or not, that is the conclusion that Sir Anthony Hammond reached. That's
why you know, frankly, you know, we have to draw a line under that and
we have to move on, you know, as I say...
HUMPHRYS: ...you have drawn a line
under it and I have accepted the line that you've drawn. I have tried
to move on and I have tried to raise this issue, which, I'm quite sure
and I'm sure you're sure as well, concerns a lot of people and that is
the fairness, not favours, that this government is supposed to represent
because Tony Blair used that expression himself and what I'm trying to
get at is this, to what extent should rich and powerful people be able
to have the kind of access to have representations made on their behalf
that the others of us cannot do, many people cannot do. Now you say that
in Peter Mandelson's case, that if I were to ask YOU for help with a passport
application, you'd say, nothing to do with me whatsoever. Well, it was
nothing to do with Peter Mandelson whatsoever.
DARLING: That wasn't what I said
John. No, no, you were asking me quite separately that you, on behalf
of a friend or whatever, you gave as an example and you asked me about
procedures in the passport agency. I just made the point, that you know,
I couldn't tell you off-hand what the procedures are. What I do say though
is, all procedures, doesn't matter whether it's passports, benefits, whatever
it is, they have to be done properly. Now, you know, I don't want to labour
the point but I will do because I think it is actually important. The
allegation was made, the allegation was investigated, and it turned out,
there were no grounds to substantiate it. Now whether you like it or not,
that's how the matter was dealt with, Peter has been cleared of any impropriety,
he can then get on with the rest of his life, that is it.
HUMPHRYS: Well, of course he can't
entirely get on with the rest of his life because he can't come back into
government even though he's done absolutely nothing wrong, but there we
are. I suppose we'll have to draw a line under that as well and puzzle
about that for some time. But you seem to be saying this morning Mr Darling
that nothing's been learned about this because, by all of this, because
there was nothing to learn. A line has been drawn, Peter Mandelson's been
cleared, and that is the end of it. Yet this morning we now see more allegations
in the papers, Tories now calling for an inquiry into the way that the
Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, behaved over a leaked report from the Foreign
Affairs Select Committee. You are still presumably then, whiter than white,
as you said you would be when you came into power, nothing at all to worry
about.
DARLING: You know, as I said to
you, ministers have to appear to have to behave properly at all times.
If allegations are made, as they were in Mandelson's case, then let then
be investigated.
HUMPHRYS: ...and as they have now
been in Robin Cook's case - should there be an inquiry?
...
DARLING: ...having investigated
them and a conclusion having been reached, then you really have to accept
that conclusion.
HUMPHRYS: Right.
DARLING: Now, I haven't seen these
other things and I am not going to comment on them.
HUMPHRYS: Well you could say, let's
have an inquiry into Robin Cook, couldn't you...
DARLING: ...what I would say to
you is, you know, coming back to this Peter Mandelson affair. An allegation
was made, it was investigated, it was found there was no evidence to justify
that allegation. Now that seems to me the right way to deal with any serious
allegation made against ministers or anybody else but having got the conclusions,
you then have to accept those conclusions.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, no comment on
Robin Cook whatsoever?
DARLING: I haven't seen the story
- sorry.
HUMPHRYS: Okay, we'll leave it
there for the moment then, because I want to get onto the Budget which
some people might say is another reason for cynicism, a different sort
of cynicism, but nonetheless the government says one thing about the level
of taxation and they discover that something else is actually the case.
The government says that taxes haven't gone up and then they look at the
figures and discover from independent sources, discover that taxes have
gone up. It would be much better to be straightforward and honest about
this wouldn't it, but that's cynicism then?
DARLING: Well, all the figures
are published in the publications that the government issues on Budget
day. We make no apology for the fact that in the first two years of this
government it was necessary to take action to repay, to get rid of the
debts that the Conservatives had run up. We were paying more on debt interest
than we were on schools. As a result of what we've done following last
Wednesday's Budget, we're now spending ten billion pounds more on schools
than we are on debt. So, I make no apology for the fact and everybody
knows that not only did we clear up the mess the Tories left, but we've
naturally been able to reduce debt. Now, as far as taxes are concerned,
as you know the tax burden next year is projected to be less than the Tories
predicted in the year before they left office. We have, over the last
three to four years we have made it our business to make sure there are
targeted tax cuts for example to families, the new Child Tax Credit which
is coming in from next month, worth ten pounds a week, the Working Families
Tax Credit, the new ten pence rate which we introduced, and which Gordon
Brown widened, all those things have contributed to the direct tax burden
being the lowest it's been since nineteen-seventy-two. But on top of that,
we have got done more and more each year to make sure that families, to
make sure that pensioners and others all benefit as we're able to do more
because of the improvement in the economic situation, all built I may say
from a stable economic background without which you're not able to do anything
at all.
HUMPHRYS: Nobody listening to that
answer would make the assumption, which is indeed the case, that we now
have the highest tax burden, if you exclude oil, since nineteen-seventy.
DARLING: Well, look John as I said
to you, at the beginning of this parliament, in the first two years we
had to take steps to clear up the deficit, the mess that the Tories left.
We've done that. Since then we have reduced the taxes paid by families,
we've introduced the...
HUMPHRYS: By some families, by
some families.
DARLING: the starting rate of tax,
we've introduced the Working Families Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit
which will benefit families starting in a few weeks' time from the beginning
of April. So yes, we've done that and I've said to you....
HUMPHRYS: But you haven't, ...
DARLING: ..with the tax burden,
with the tax burden, from next year, you know is actually lower than the
Tories projected. But what we're doing here, sorry - you ask your question
and I'll certainly.....
HUMPHRYS: Well, I just wanted to
pick up that point you see, because you said we have reduced taxes. The
fact is - and you said for families - but let's be a little bit more specific.
The average tax bill, the tax bill for the average family has gone up
by one-hundred and seventy pounds per annum, and that is according to Grant
Thornton, a very distinguished firm of accountants as reported in the
Sunday Times this morning.
DARLING: Yes, but John, as I said
to you, in the first two years, yes, we had to clear up the debts that
the Tories left us because if we hadn't got the economic stability that
we now had then we would not be able to improve public services, we'd
not be able to reduce taxes to help hard working families, to help families
with children. Now what we have done since we were elected, in the course
of the Budgets are I think three things, firstly we've put in place the
new economic stability on which you can increase money for public services,
which you can actually afford tax cuts for families and for others as
well. Second thing we've done is that we are investing in public services
in this country, there's more money for schools and hospitals, there's
more money going into transport and then thirdly as last Wednesday's Budget
has shown, building on the stability we've a balanced Budget, not only
did we help improve public services but also on top of that we've been
able to cut taxes for everyone through extending the ten pence band, and
also more targeted tax as cuts on families with children through the Child
Tax Credit as well as for other people as well. Now all of that is a balanced
approach and it stands in complete contradiction to what the Tories are
about promising unfunded unbelievable tax reductions before the election.
They know they can't afford them, they haven't identified a single penny
of savings, credible savings to pay for them. If they did all that you'd
be back to increased inflation, increased interest rates, back to boom
and bust. So the choice actually is between targeted tax cuts, stability,
better public services, than back to the Tory boom and bust. My guess
is that public actually want that stability with better public services.
With targeted tax cuts, extending the ten pence band, that is a far, far
better approach.
HUMPHRYS: My guess is that the
public would like absolutely straightforward explanations of what's gone
on, and you could have summarised all of that by saying "Yeah, of course
we've taxed people more, we have", because there's no doubt about that,
the figures quite clearly show that you have taxed people more, "and we've
used it for a bit of extra public spending and we've used it to give a
targeted few people a bit of extra cash in their pockets, but an awful
lot of people are worse off and not better off" That's the simple, straightforward
non-cynical explanation of what's happened isn't it. Why can't you just
say yes to that?
DARLING: No, it isn't John. This
year's Budget has seen a reduction and gains for just about everybody.
Now, what we wanted to do, was to make sure as I said to you, was that
we maintained the stability, the economic stability without which you're
not able to do anything at all, as the Tories found out. We wanted to
improve public services and heaven knows, there are people up and down
this country who say yes, our schools and hospitals need more money. People
know the transport system cannot continue without more investment, and
we're putting that investment in. But what they also want to see the government
do is to make sure that it reduces taxes especially for people who need
that help most, for example with families with young children, and you
know within the first year of a baby's life the Child Credit will give
families nearly a thousand pounds more. Now, all that I think people accept,
and what they want to see is a balanced approach. They want to see stability,
they want to see better public services, they want to see targeted tax
cuts, they do not want to return to unaffordable, unbelievable tax cuts
which the Tories are promising, cuts in public services which the Tories
are bound to implement because Portillo has said it over and over again,
back to the old boom and bust which was so damaging for jobs, so damaging
for people's houses. People don't want to go back to that.
HUMPHRYS: A final invitation then,
to you to be entirely straightforward about this, and that is that after
the election you're going to have to put taxes up again aren't you because
this is what's going to happen if we want to join the Euro. The European
Commission as made this perfectly clear, they're going to have to go back
up again aren't they in the next couple of years?
DARLING: What we have done in the
first four years of this government is to make sure that we have a new
economic stability. Gordon Brown has time and time again made it clear
that everything he does will be prudent, it will be affordable. We're
reducing the debts that the Tories left us with. Because of that we're
able to improve public services, we're able to do more to give targeted
tax cuts to families, to other people in this country, widening the ten
pence band of Income Tax which benefits everyone, and at the same time
make sure that the economic situation in this country remains stable, it
remains run in a prudent way. Now people want that stability, they want
better public services, they want targeted tax cuts, they do not want to
go back to the Tory boom and bust, the sixteen billion pounds and more
of spending cuts that the Conservatives are now signed up to. They want
stability and in that way they'll have jobs and they'll have the optimism
to which I think most people want to look forward to.
HUMPHRYS: Alistair Darling, thanks
very much indeed for joining us.
DARLING: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: The first drafts of political
history suggest that one of the reasons the Conservatives were finally
thrown out of office was that they were so badly split over Europe. Then
William Hague came along and rescued them from all that. Or did he? Mr
Hague wants to make Europe a central theme of the next election - especially
his pledge that we will not give up the pound in the lifetime of the next
parliament. His problem is, as Iain Watson reports, that many of his candidates
think he's not going far enough in a sceptical direction... and others
think he's gone too far.
IAIN WATSON: The Tories thought they'd
laid to rest the ghosts of division on Europe, which so bedeviled them
back in nineteen-ninety-seven. But it now looks like they've been resurrected,
and not long before the next general election. So, don't watch alone -
it's TORY EURO NIGHTMARE....2. Now, sequels are never quite as scary
as the original - but even former front bench spokesmen - appointed by
William Hague - are - politically speaking at least, at each other's throats
on Europe.
PATRICK NICHOLLS MP: As far as the single currency
is concerned I shall say what I said last time which is that I personally
wouldn't vote to go into a single currency in any circumstances whatsoever.
DAVID CURRY MP: As far as the single currency
is concerned I shall say that the United Kingdom should retain the option
of joining - if we believe it's in our national interest and provided people
vote for it in a referendum.
TIM COLLINS MP: I would say to any candidate
who chooses to change the wording of Conservative party policies in any
respect it would be preferable if you didn't do it.
WATSON: This Northamptonshire constituency
is number five on the Tory target list of winnable marginals. We came to
Kettering to see the prospective parliamentary candidate. It looks like
somebody has been putting on the frighteners; this highly marginal constituency
isn't the sort of place where you'd expect the Tories to be running scared
on Europe; in fact it's one issue where they seem to be clearly in touch
with the vast majority of voters. Recent polls suggest that six out of
ten people don't want to scrap the pound, so where is the local Conservative
candidate to argue the case? Well there's not much sign of him round here.
Actually he had agreed to do an interview, then he contacted Conservative
Central Office in London and they said no.
And this place is number six on the Tory target list, Wellingborough,
in the heart of middle England. Here in the Wellingborough constituency,
just like Kettering, you've got more chance of catching a glimpse of a
ghost than filming the Conservative candidate - but its not the paranormal
that's responsible for his disappearance. He had agreed to an interview,
he then contacted Conservative Central Office and they said no.
This seat is number
eleven on the Tory target list - Romford in Essex, where you would expect
a full-blooded campaign on Europe; and to be fair, the candidate had agreed
to be interviewed, then he checked with Conservative Central Office, and
you've guessed it, they said no. Although Central Office think it's a vote
winner, it seems few prospective parliamentary candidates are allowed
to advocate the policy of keeping the pound.
So just what lies behind this mysterious disappearance of Conservative
candidates in some of the country's key seats? Could it have anything
to do with this memo - sent from Conservative Central Office to all Conservative
candidates. It reads: Please contact John French in the Press Department
if you're contacted by BBC On the Record, and when you do the advice is
clear - decline all offers of an interview. Central Office were probably
nervous that these prospective parliamentary candidates would go beyond
the policy of ruling out the Euro only for the lifetime of the next Parliament.
In that sense, they were right to intervene from on high - because this
is what they would have said if they'd been allowed to appear. In Kettering,
when we spoke to the candidate, Phillip Holobone, he replied 'I cannot
see myself ever voting to abolish the pound. Never. I'm not a possibly
person.' Then in Wellingborough the standard-bearer Peter Bone is on record
as saying 'we want nothing to do with the single currency.' And Romford's
Tory hopeful, Andrew Rossindell puts it like this: 'I'd be about as likely
to vote to abolish the pound as I would to abolish the monarchy. We rule
it out, simple as that.'
You would advise those candidates not
to talk to the media?
COLLINS: Candidates should always
talk to the media, it's very important that candidates should raise their
profile and raise the profile of the Conservative party's policies throughout
the land. What I would also say is what candidates say to us all the time,
which is we don't want our efforts in a particular constituency to be undermined
by the fact that some other candidate somewhere else has been, shall we
say, a little off line. And I would also say to those candidates who are
thinking of perhaps departing from official Conservative party language,
it is not, shall we say, a career enhancing move.
WATSON: What's stopping officials
here at Conservative Central Office from putting candidates in front of
the camera is a fear of history appearing to repeat itself. At the nineteen-ninety-seven
General Election around two-hundred candidates issued personal manifestos,
opposing the then official policy of 'wait and see' on joining a single
currency. Now although the policy has shifted quite a bit since then, to
rule out joining the Euro for the lifetime of the next parliament, there
are still candidates in key seats who want to go further. In the forty
most marginal seats - those that require a modest swing - a total of
eleven prospective candidates are either on record as saying they'll NEVER
go into a single currency, or they have told us privately, they'll say
so during the election campaign. Thirteen say they'll stick to the official
line of ruling out the Euro for five years, or the lifetime of the next
parliament - while a further sixteen wouldn't say, or couldn't be contacted.
The battle for territory
can often be bloody. At the last election, these people, the United Kingdom
Independence Party, or UKIP, along with the Referendum Party - drew around
fifty per cent of their vote from former Conservatives. In highly marginal
seats like Romford, they could deny a Tory victory. Long-standing Conservative
Eurosceptics are stressing there's no need to vote UKIP; as their personal
position in opposing the Euro is the same. And, on willingness to withdraw
from the European union, the difference with this party is simply on tactics.
STEPHEN WARD: If you're in Europe, then
you're are committed politically, there's no two ways about it, you cannot
be in something, you cannot have a foot in two camps - you get divided
loyalties. You have your loyalties to your country, first and foremost,
and your people.
PATRICK NICHOLLS: I suppose the UKIP position might
be to walk out now and then try to negotiate a harmonious relationship
after. Mine is more pragmatic. I would try to establish what I want -
the supremacy of British law over European and then if not then we would
have to leave. Now I have many friends who are UKIP supporters, many UKIP
supporters are entirely comfortable with that.
BILL CASH: They are addressing
questions which are of concern to the British people and the questions
that I'm posing, which is about the question of who governs Britain, is
in fact quite similar to the questions that the UKIP candidates are putting
up and I believe that we should rule out the single currency in principle.
WATSON: It's not just MPs and
candidates in key marginals who are redefining Tory policy. Some prospective
parliamentary candidates in Conservative-held seats might be causing a
bit of a scare too. Richard Bacon in Norfolk South told a public website:
"I would have no serious objection if the European Parliament were abolished",
adding "I would never vote for the abolition of the pound - ever". Meanwhile,
in Tory-held Wycombe, Paul Goodman says "I'm against scrapping the pound
in any circumstances".
COLLINS: What we found during the
1997 General Election is that we didn't just have a small minority of candidates
who decided on the odd bit to embellish to Conservative policy we had the
majority of candidates flatly contradicting Conservative policy. That is
clearly not going to happen.
WATSON: So ruling out a single
currency forever is a mere embellishment?
COLLINS: The point that people
need to know is that if they vote Labour or Liberal Democrat they are voting
to scrap the pound, if they vote Conservative they are voting to keep the
pound.
BOB WORCESTER: What they're doing is sending
a wider signal to the electorate, to the broad electorate that they're
split on this issue and when I talk to Shadow Cabinet ministers and I
say "you know what you're doing is opening a wound". They say, "Oh no,
no. We're entirely united on this" and I say, "Well what about the big
beasts? What about Ken Clarke, what about Michael Heseltine?" - "Oh they're
has-beens". Well they may be to the Shadow Cabinet but they're certainly
not to the British public.
WATSON: They may be few in number
but the so-called Europhiles have enough weight to cause damage. The former
Chancellor Ken Clarke has been circumspect, but the ex-deputy Prime Minister
Michael Heseltine let it be known, he thought twice about voting Tory.
And now David Curry and other pro-Europeans are expected to go their own
way, in their election literature.
DAVID CURRY: What I'm going to say is
that I want Britain to be at the heart of Europe. And as far as the single
currency's concerned, I believe that Britain should retain the option of
entering, without any predetermined time scale, provided it's in our interests
and of course provided people vote for it at the referendum.
WATSON: Sources close to Conservative
Central Office say the real reason William Hague doesn't rule out the single
currency in principle has much to do with his predecessor as party leader.
They say that he doesn't want to risk a schism with John Major, the man
who wanted to keep his options open on the Euro. But this has cost William
Hague funding from a wealthy potential backer.
PAUL SYKES: Well I had a quick short meeting
and of course everybody knows I've campaigned against the Euro for a long,
long time and we just couldn't hit it off basically, there was a difference
of opinion. I believe Conservatism and a Conservative should never set
a date in the future to give up for giving up control of one's economy
-that wasn't compatible with me supporting the party. Now I think William
Hague would have been better keeping a very clean and clear line. As I
say the line isn't something I...I wish them well, but I couldn't support
it. I've never waffled on this issue. Whoever controls the currency, controls
the nation.
WATSON: So property developer Paul
Sykes is putting his millions into a campaign for a referendum on whether
Britain should remain in the European Union, as presently constituted.
Neither the Conservative Party nor individual Euro-sceptics will share
in his largesse.
SYKES: I'm not getting involved
in candidates and political parties again. It brought me a hell of a lot
of flak and hassle. I could do without it.
COLLINS: Well I'm sure Paul Sykes
is in many respects an admirable person, but he is just one voter, and
the fact is that seventy per cent of voters agree with the policy on which
we will be fighting the next election, keeping the pound. That's good enough
for me.
WATSON: The coming election may
not reveal the full horror of the Tory divisions on Europe; the leadership
say the party is more united now than in 1997 - well, that wouldn't be
hard -but some say once the election campaign is out of the way all the
stresses and strains just beneath the surface could be tested to breaking
point.
CURRY: I fear that afterwards
we might have a - if what we've got now is a hairline crack, I mean it
might be much more of a fissure of actually people saying, we simply want
out of Europe and that would really be very disastrous for the Conservative
Party.
CASH: I think we should
have a Referendum, in order to ask the British people, what they think
about the whole question of European government and at the same time I
believe, that to actually make it happen, we would have to go to the other
member states and say, "We have a policy of re-negotiation. These are the
amendments we want. We are not going to be governed by Europe, but we're
prepared to work within the single market, and we're prepared to cooperate.
But we're not prepared to be governed."
WORCESTER: After the next general election
which we're about to have there is going to be an almighty fight for the
heart and soul of the Conservative Party. If you push to the logical extension
that Euro-sceptics take over the heart and soul of the Conservative Party
then one of two things are bound to happen - one is they will again lose
the election after next, 2005, pretty massively, and secondly, there is
the possibility of a split in the Conservative Party.
WATSON: The Tories haven't yet
exorcised their image of being a divided party so, at the forthcoming election,
their hopes of benefiting from of an apparently popular policy on the Euro
could be dimmed and the wider arguments over Britain's future relationship
with Europe look set to rage on.
HUMPHRYS: Iain Watson reporting.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: London and Dublin both
say that the Northern Ireland peace process is moving steadily forwards.
There are problems, but they can be sorted out. Which is fine, unless
you happen to be David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party
and first minister. With both local elections and a General Election coming
up he faces a dilemma. The IRA has not got rid of its weapons. Many in
his party say that means he should refuse to stay in government with Sinn
Fein. He hasn't got long to decide what to do. Mr Trimble is in our Belfast
studio.
It is difficult for you
isn't it Mr Trimble because you've got somehow or another to justify to
voters at the election, staying in the executive with Sinn Fein without
the IRA having got rid of any weapons.
DAVID TRIMBLE: I think we were all disappointed
this week that the Republicans didn't come...didn't make more progress.
What they did when the Prime Minister was over in terms of saying that
they'd go and have further discussions with General de Chastelain doesn't
take us very much further forward and consequently I have not and will
not remove the sanction that I have imposed on Sinn Fein in terms of baring
them from attendance at the North South meetings which is quite important
to them and there's no doubt that that causes them some discomfiture.
The question we have to consider is whether that is a sufficient sanction
and whether we wish to, you know, what approach we take with regard to
the administration. Now, I don't think that most Unionists want us to
cut off our nose to spite our face and so I don't think that Unionists
want to collapse the institutions, they actually think they're a good thing.
What we can't permit is for the Republicans to think that they can get
away with thumbing their nose at the agreement and failing to implement
it.
HUMPHRYS: But if they don't implement
it in your terms, that is you seem to be saying nonetheless we will stay
in government with them.
TRIMBLE: Well we may consider what
other pressures we can bring to bear. Now it's not a question of them failing
to implement the agreement as I think it, it is a question of the agreement
itself and the promises they made. Remember, it was last May when they
promised that they would put their weapons beyond use and they haven't
yet fulfilled that promise and I think that is a very serious default on
their part.
HUMPHRYS: What else can you do,
what are the other options that you can consider at this stage?
TRIMBLE: Well we're looking at
some and I'm not going to discuss them in public in terms of our tactics
but do bear in mind that the government itself and the Irish government
in particular have a particular responsibility on this matter and it is
something that governments themselves should have brought about. It's
not my responsibility to keep the paramilitary groups up to the mark and
make them implement the agreement. It's actually the responsibility of
the British government and the Irish government and it's to them that we
look to resolve this issue.
HUMPHRYS: But can I be clear when
you talk about other options. They do not include the possibility that
you will collapse the whole thing, that you will pull out of the whole
thing.
TRIMBLE: I didn't say that John.
What I said is I don't judge it to be in our interests and we have put
a tremendous amount of work into this agreement, to implementing this agreement,
to bringing the institutions into existence and I do think, quite rightly,
that they wouldn't be there but for us and we know that the people of Northern
Ireland want them. So I've got to think very carefully about that. But
at the same time I wouldn't want anybody to think that we are there whatever
they do and the Republicans can constantly thumb their nose at their obligations,
break their promises and get away from it. But we are not rushing and it's
not our priority to bring the institutions down. Our priority is to sustain
them if that is possible.
HUMPHRYS: Right, but it is possible,
and I emphasise the word, because you use it yourself, that that might
happen before the election?
TRIMBLE: No, I'm not going to discuss
that because John, if I answer that question, either way, then people will
start to read things into it which may not be there.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I think they're
already reading an awful lot.
TRIMBLE: Maybe.
HUMPHRYS: And what they're reading,
what they're looking at on this particular page of the book is that here
is a leader of a party, the First Minister, under enormous pressure from
his own people, some of whom will be saying to you during the election
campaign, but look, you and I David, feel as strongly about this as is
possible, but in all conscience, how can I vote for you in this election,
for your party, for your candidate, in this election, unless you have made
it very clear to me that there is something seriously happening here.
TRIMBLE: I think what is, you're
quite right to say that Unionists feel very strongly about the failure
of Republicans to keep their promises, but they also look for coherent
policy and something that will achieve results. And we've demonstrated
that we can and are bringing pressure to bear in mind, and people are also
aware of the timescale, the timescale runs to June, and June is when the
mandate of General de'Chastilain's commission on decommissioning expires.
And the General himself has said, that he is prepared to specify a date
by which decommissioning must begin, if it is to be completed by June,
and that date obviously must be before June, so there are options there,
and we will be looking to the governments, and I must say also, to General
de'Chastilain to see whether they are going to bring sufficient pressure
to bear on Republicans to force them to keep their promises.
HUMPHRYS: Now, force them to keep
their promises. You've banned Sinn Fein as you say, from taking part in
North/South bodies, sorry, I lost you there, I couldn't hear that, ah,
there we are, I've got you back again now, you're saying are you that you
will keep that ban until they start talking seriously about decommissioning
at least.
TRIMBLE: They promised a year that
they would initiate a process that would put their weapons beyond use.
Now I'm waiting to see them fulfil that promise. And we shall look carefully
at whatever they say, but more significantly we'll look at what they do,
and I shall maintain that sanction until they do that. That is what I
can do, but other people, and I'm looking here to the British Government,
the Irish government and General de'Chastilain, they can also do things
to bring pressure to bear, and I look to them to discharge their obligations
as well.
HUMPHRYS: Are you saying that talking
is enough. Serious talking on behalf or however you care to define it,
on behalf of Sinn Fein, the IRA is enough.
TRIMBLE: Well, how can we judge
where there hasn't been any serious talking, there's only been a few telephone
calls, and if there was serious talking, how could we judge it other than
by the results that flow from it. What they should be doing in talking
to General de'Chastilain is agreeing a decommissioning scheme, and agreeing
the procedures under which weapons would be decommissioned. Now, if they
do that, then that would be significant progress.
HUMPHRYS: Enough, enough progress?
TRIMBLE: Well, that's got to be
part of a process, not just you do that and then you stop. Just as the
question of future North/South meetings are part of a process, they're
not a one-off thing. So the sanction that we have is something that is
very flexible and can respond to events whether there's progress, or where
there's a lack of progress.
HUMPHRYS: But what I was trying
to get at there is whether a serious talking, serious in your terms, would
be enough to get you to lift that ban.
TRIMBLE: But what I'm pointing
out to you is that question of lifting the ban is not a one-off event.
It might be lifted once and re-imposed if progress was not sustained.
There is a process here. There's a process in terms of decommissioning,
there's a process in the terms of the North/South institutions, it's not
a one-off thing.
HUMPHRYS: But it is possible that
it could be lifted once they start to talk, and then if they don't deliver
on those conversations, on that negotiation, then it could be re-imposed.
Is that what you're saying?
TRIMBLE: What I'm pointing out
is that the sanction is flexible and we'll look carefully at what is done
both with regard to, as you say, lifting it, but also with regard to re-imposing
it if there isn't a continuation of progress. So, I mean, beyond that
John, anything is, everything is hypothetical.
HUMPHRYS: But the final card of
suspension remains in your pack.
TRIMBLE: It actually is in Tony
Blair's pack, not mine, because the power to suspend rests with him, not
me.
HUMPHRYS: But if you say, I want
no more of this, I'm walking out - that'd be it!
TRIMBLE: Well, what I'll say, I'll
say when I say it, when I consider it to be appropriate to say it, I'm
just pointing out that the suspension option isn't mine, it's his.
HUMPHRYS: But it isn't dead either?
TRIMBLE: It's not.
HUMPHRYS: David Trimble, thank
you very much indeed.
TRIMBLE: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: The Labour Party may be
coasting to a victory in the next election - that's what the polls tell
us anyway - but not perhaps in Wales. They face a serious threat across
the Severn Bridge from a party that was once confined to only a small part
of the principality: Plaid Cymru. The Welsh Nationalists were more or
less ignored for a long time, but now they are coming under serious scrutiny
and their policies are being questioned as never before. As Terry Dignan
reports, the strain is beginning to tell.
TERRY DIGNAN: In the resorts of North and
West Wales there's a stillness in the air. But politics is never out of
season for Plaid Cymru's new leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones. He's visiting party
activists in seats Plaid hopes to win from Labour at the General Election.
IEUAN WYN JONES MP: "You know, there's a sort of
feel - you get a feel now that, you know, the whole election is going to
be totally different after devolution".
DIGNAN: But Labour accuses Plaid
of disguising its true ambitions and a lack of tolerance in its ranks.
PAUL MURPHY MP: That is the sort of problem that
we face in Wales and it's this sort of soft underbelly of Welsh Nationalism
which is so frightening to most of us in Wales.
IEUAN WYN JONES MP: My message to the Labour Party
is you have failed in your efforts to dissuade people from voting for Plaid
Cymru because for them the real issue is that Labour has turned its back
on the people of Wales.
DIGNAN: In the heart of Snowdonia,
Plaid demands help for tourism and farming, both hit by foot and mouth.
Reaching out beyond its Welsh-speaking strongholds, Plaid also calls for
action to save jobs in steel and manufacturing.
But here in rural North Wales, Plaid's enemies say the party has been
exposed for what it really is - intolerant, anti-English and some would
say, racist. Plaid's new leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, says the allegations,
which he rejects, are a distraction from the real issues facing Wales -
Labour's failure to deliver better services and more jobs. Yet Labour and
the other main parties believe it's now going to be much more difficult
for Plaid to deny, in the coming election, that its ultimate aim is a sovereign
independent Wales separate from England.
ACTUALITY:
DIGNAN: Labour has every reason
to fear Plaid. In elections two years ago to the devolved National Assembly
which now governs Wales, Plaid won seats in the Labour-dominated English-speaking
south of the country as well as the Welsh-speaking rural North and West.
Meeting the voters and their children, Ieuan Wyn Jones is in Conwy, a
seat taken by Plaid in the Assembly elections. Then, Labour accused Plaid
of downplaying its commitment to Welsh independence. Now that the pieces
are in place for an election strategy, it's become apparent Plaid will
again avoid referring to independence. Instead, it says its long term aim
is self-government within the European Union. What does that mean, asks
Labour? Wait and see, replies Plaid.
JONES: If Europe goes down the
way of being a Europe of the regions, Wales' place in that will be in a
particular direction. But of course if Europe doesn't develop in that way
and Wales might at some stage want to make an application to be a Member
State within the European Union. So what I've said to the party is that
in order to get clarity on that it's important for us to discuss this issue
and to come to a conclusion on it so that everybody understands exactly
where we stand.
MURPHY: Really the only question
we have to ask is, 'Do you, Welsh Nationalist Party, want to be separate
from England? Do you want to be part of Great Britain, part of the United
Kingdom? That's a very difficult question that they have to answer, but
it's one that we intend to pose time and time again - stay away from all
this fudge and nonsense, one simple question: do you want to remain part
of the United Kingdom?' And I think that'll be the key question during
the election.
DIGNAN: Wales shares with Scotland
a landscape which in normal times attracts visitors by the coachload. But
Scotland has the edge in self-government. So Plaid wants Wales to have
at least the same law making powers as the Scottish Parliament. Even if
English-speaking Wales agrees, Plaid's rural heartlands may want to go
further and strive for independence.
JONES: Our view is that full national
status is a long-term ambition and that would be something that could be
put to the people of Wales some years down the line.
MURPHY: People in the south in
the Welsh Nationalist Party would have difficulty in selling that. On the
other hand in the traditional rural north, west heartlands of the Welsh
Nationalist Party they have to keep to that line because that's what people
vote for. Now that's very difficult for them and they're going to have
to answer that question.
DIGNAN: Edward the First built
Conwy Castle - to consolidate English power here. Two hundred and fifty
years later Wales finally lost its independence. Plaid's traditional supporters
want it back - to tackle their country's economic problems and to protect
their language. They fear that in rural areas incomers from England threaten
the survival of the Welsh tongue.
Ieuan Wyn Jones has been presented with the first really big test of his
leadership by comments about English-speaking people made by one of his
Plaid councillors. Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative politicians
have united in outright condemnation of the failure, as they see it, of
Ieuan Wyn Jones to disown his controversial councillor. From Plaid's point
of view, with an election in the offing, this could hardly have happened
at a worse time.
ACTUALITY
DIGNAN: While Plaid's roots are
in Welsh-speaking rural areas, in this school drama rehearsals are in the
language of the majority in Wales. Plaid's goal is to represent that majority.
Yet some party members have a more pressing concern, saving their language
against an influx of English speakers into small villages. These fears
were put by a leading Plaid councillor, Simon Glyn, when he appeared as
a guest on a BBC Radio Wales discussion programme.
BBC RADIO WALES:
SIMON GLYN: Once you have more than fifty
per cent of anybody living in a community who speaks a foreign language
then you lose your indigenous tongue almost immediately and this is what
is happening in our rural villages. We are faced with a situation now where
we are getting tidal waves of migration, inward migration, into our rural
areas from England.
QUESTION TIME:
DAVID DIMBLEBY: Tonight, on Question Time
the President of Plaid Cymru, Ieuan Wyn Jones.
DIGNAN: On BBC ONE's Question Time
Plaid's leader said Councillor Glyn had highlighted a problem of young
people being unable to find work and buy homes in their own villages. But
he was asked to condemn the comments about language as totally unacceptable.
IEUAN WYN JONES "QUESTION TIME": He did not say that English was a foreign
language.
DIMBLEBY: He described English
as a foreign language.
JONES: No, no he didn't.
DIMBLEBY: This is the BBC's transcript
of it.
GLENYS KINNOCK MEP: That's the BBC's transcript.
DIMBLEBY: Hang on a second.
JONES: No, let me just finish the
point.
DIMBLEBY: Alright but just, just
read it there. He described English as a foreign language and.....(applause).
MURPHY: It's something which is
so offensive, so deeply offensive to those of us who are English-speaking
and offensive to our friends from England as well.
DIGNAN: Conwy is marginal. Having
lost it to Labour at the last General Election, the Conservatives have
a new candidate. But Plaid, which won here in the Assembly elections, stands
in his way. So, he's every reason to exploit Councillor Glyn's remarks
for all they're worth.
DAVID LOGAN: The truth about Plaid has
been exposed recently with the comments of Councillor Simon Glyn. Using
racist language to highlight what is a very serious social problem in the
rural communities of Wales. His party leadership have been quite definite
in their refusal to sack him when they've apologised on his behalf, then
he has withdrawn those apologies. I think we've had exposed the real agenda
of Plaid and it is quite frankly a very unpleasant one.
DIGNAN: Not to be outdone, the
Liberal Democrats have taken their place in the assault on Plaid. They,
too, have their eyes on marginal seats like Conwy. They say Ieuan Wyn Jones
should have taken the earliest opportunity to rebuke Councillor Glyn publicly.
VICKY MACDONALD: I think there is a problem with
what Simon Glyn said about the English living in Wales that Ieuan Wyn Jones
has not addressed and has not distanced himself from. He really should
have taken that issue in hand and dealt with it. It's a... Simon Glyn really
had no right to say these things. They are very unfortunate remarks and
have done Plaid I think a lot of damage.
DIGNAN: Plaid must limit further
damage or risk losing in areas, especially South Wales, where Welsh speakers
are in a minority. That would leave the party's electoral strategy in ruins.
So, the leadership is conceding that some of Councillor Glyn's comments
were unacceptable. Above all, it wants to avoid any impression that it
only represents those who speak Welsh.
JONES: The real issue is that there
are Welsh speaking communities in the rural areas that are...that are under
great difficulties and under great pressure and there are urban areas in
Wales where similar communities, English speaking, are also under similar
threat. So what we've got to do and I make it perfectly clear, Plaid Cymru
is a party for the whole of Wales and we want to try to address the issues
as they affect people wherever they live in Wales, whatever language they
speak, whatever the background.
DIGNAN: Two years ago Plaid brought
in a rich harvest of votes at the elections to the Welsh Assembly. Labour
predicts there'll be no repeat performance at the General Election. Because
whatever hopes it has of accumulating seats in the English-speaking south,
Plaid remains, says Labour, a party dominated by its Welsh-speaking heartlands.
MURPHY: I know that all parties
are broad church parties, but there is a fundamental difference with a
party which pretends in the South to be socialist, left-wing, English-speaking
and all the rest of it, but in the North is very, very different indeed
as obviously illustrated by Councillor Glyn's comments.
DIGNAN: By the time he sets off
on the campaign trail, Ieuan Wyn Jones will hope he has moved the debate
on from his handling of those comments. He wants to fight the election
on Labour's record in power. That way, he believes, Plaid has every chance
of winning over Labour voters in south Wales and in seats like Conwy.
JONES: They are determined now
to register their protest against Labour because they say you know for
New Labour read New Tories in Wales. It's just a continuation of Tory policies
and they see Plaid Cymru as the only real alternative and they are not
going to be dissuaded about voting for Plaid Cymru simply by these diversionary
tactics from the Labour Party.
DIGNAN: The tranquillity of the
resorts of North and West Wales may be disturbed earlier than usual this
year. There's an election in the air, one which could see Plaid Cymru break
out of its rural heartlands. Its opponents hope that by its own actions
Plaid may have made that goal harder to achieve.
HUMPHRYS: What a beautiful shot.
Terry Dignan reporting there from Wales. And that's it for this week, if
you are on the internet don't forget our website. Until next Sunday, at
the same time, good afternoon.
...oooOooo...
24
FoLdEd
|