JOHN HUMPHRYS:                    The Liberal Democrats 
did well at the last general election.  They won lots of seats.  But they 
were still only the third party at Westminster of course.   So when Tony 
Blair said: "Let's work together" they said: "Why not?".  That way, they 
thought, they would be able to influence government policy, ultimately, 
gain the great prize of Proportional Representation.  It hasn't worked 
out quite like that. This weekend they're holding their spring conference 
in Torquay.  They're calling it "The chance for real change".  I talked 
to their leader Charles Kennedy earlier this morning and I suggested to 
him that the Liberal Democrats had achieved so little through co-operating 
with the Government that voters might as well support Labour at the next 
Election.  

CHARLES KENNEDY:            Well I don't accept you'll not 
be surprised to hear me say the premise of the question. I think that if 
you look at the key area where we've sought to influence government policy 
before the last election and then subsequently to it, there's been a whole 
constitutional reform agenda and that's helped deliver fair votes for Scottish 
and Welsh Parliaments as well as those Parliaments..or that Parliament 
and that Assembly to begin with, fairer votes for the European Elections, 
a Greater London Assembly, Freedom of Information Legislation.  I think 
that our success rate in terms of our input has been quite staggering actually 
over the last four years.

HUMPHRYS:                    Well let me come back 
to all those in a bit more detail in a moment. What I'd suggest to you 
is that the public certainly isn't impressed by that, they've sort of rumbled 
you really.  The polls show that you are way down, you were once over twenty 
per cent, you are now down to twelve to thirteen per cent according to 
the latest polls and Labour has picked up your share of the vote it seems. 
 So what people are saying is why bother to vote for the Liberal Democrats 
when we can vote for the real thing. 

KENNEDY:                    I don't think that the 
polls are particularly surprising at the moment, post-budget and in the 
middle of a national crisis because a national crisis tends to lead to 
a degree of rallying around for the government of the day, particularly 
when both opposition parties remember, have been giving their support to 
the government of the day for the actions that they are taking over this 
dreadful foot-and-mouth situation.  Frankly, I don't get particularly up 
or down or too exercised about the polls one way or the other, I don't 
shout that it's the great breakthrough when we peak above twenty per cent. 
I don't get particularly obsessed when we go down below fifteen per cent. 
The average over the course of this Parliament, under Paddy Ashdown, now 
under myself, has been round about the mid-teens give or take two or three 
from poll to poll and that's the position we are entering the election. 


HUMPHRYS:                    But I mean you don't 
even look as if you are a real Opposition party here. I mean yesterday 
when you made your speech, you reserved your real venom, your real anger, 
your real attack, for the Conservatives. It seems that your differences 
with the government are sort of emphasis rather than principal , whereas 
with the Conservatives it's principal . So again, people might say why 
bother to vote for a sort of pseudo Labour Party that isn't really a Labour 
Party, isn't really anything. 

KENNEDY:                    Well I think sitting in 
the middle of a thousand delegates here I don't think most of them would 
be very happy to describe themselves as pseudo Labour, I can assure you 
I'd be lynched if I used that phrase....

HUMPHRYS:                    I'm sure you would...

KENNEDY:                    But I think the fact of 
the matter is that you are right, there is a need for a constructive Opposition 
role in the House of Commons. I don't think that's been remotely performed 
by the Conservatives. I think it is being performed by us. We're calling 
ministers to account on a weekly basis and we are having a degree of constructive 
input to the government where we think we can make a difference. That in 
fact, I think, is more in tune with the pulse rate of most voters in Britain 
than this ranting and raving and name calling that goes on between the 
other two parties. But it comes principally, it has to be said, from the 
Conservative Party and I do feel that the very principal differences between 
us mean that they are in the disaster area category where the government 
is in the deep disappointment category area. 

HUMPHRYS:                    Perhaps your approach 
would be more impressive if you were actually exerting the influence that 
you talked about in that answer and the fact is you are not.  I've been 
going through a list of policies, let's look at crime first of all, law 
and order policies, all of those things...

KENNEDY:                    ..ah John, but let me 
interrupt there for a moment. I said to you just a moment ago, the areas 
where we have sought to have direct input and influence have been on the 
constitutional reform agenda issues. They haven't been on crime, on pensions, 
on health and education because we have got distinctive policies of their 
own where we are in competition with the government. 

HUMPHRYS:                    So you are not bothered 
then that the influence that you have tried to exert across the board as 
I understood it.  I mean I thought if you had this sort of dialogue, the 
whole point of this dialogue was to try to, you know, constructive opposition. 
I thought that was the idea of it. 

KENNEDY:                    We have not sought to 
do that. We have always said, throughout the course of this Parliament, 
that the degree of relationship that we have with this Labour Government 
is focussed on the constitutional reform agenda and all the day to day 
domestic issue policies we set out our shop stall, like any independent 
political party and we campaigned for them. 

HUMPHRYS:                    So that's it, so in other 
words this constructive opposition has to deal with only a very narrow 
area as far as all the other policies, like..I made a little list you'll 
not be surprised to hear, before this interview, on crime, on public spending, 
on the environment. On almost every area that you've gone in one direction, 
they have gone in the other and one is slightly puzzled where this influence 
was supposed to be. 

KENNEDY:                    Well actually when Paddy 
was leader at a Party Conference about three years ago, there was a very 
specific motion passed which in fact, and at the time, I won't bore people 
with the theology of this, but it was called the "Triple Lock" and that 
meant that if the leader wanted to enter into discussions with the government 
of the type that we have on constitutional reform issues, so if we wanted 
to talk about pensions or about the Health Service, or crime, or whatever 
it might be, then in fact that had to get the approval of the Parliamentary 
Party, had to get the approval of the ruling national body of the party 
and it had to get the approval of the conference of the party. Now, we've 
not had an issue referred to us under Paddy or under myself which would 
qualify for that. So there's nothing new here. This is three years out 
of date, this discussion. 

HUMPHRYS:                    Well alright.  Let's 
look then at the constitutional areas where you seem to think you've had 
a considerable influence.  Let's pick out a few of the areas here, like 
reform of the House of Lords.  Yes, some changes have been made, some reforms 
have been made, but not the ones that you wanted.  Certainly you wanted 
to get rid of the hereditary peers, well what you wanted was an elected 
senate.  We are not going to have an elected senate and that's that, whether 
you like it or not. 

KENNEDY:                    Well, we've had to agree 
to differ on this one.  We did have input and I think a degree of influence 
over the first phase of House of Lords reform and we said to the government 
at the time, that the great mistake they made, was ever being allured by 
Viscount Cranbourne,  to keep all these hereditaries, when the whole idea 
was supposed to move towards a more modern, proper and properly democratic 
House of Lords.  Now, at the end of the day, they decided to do a side 
deal, for which he lost his head, in terms of the Conservative Party and 
I think the Labour Party lost the plot, in terms of longer term reform. 
 We've had further discussions with them, there'll be a joint parliamentary 
committee of both Houses, involving all parties, which will discuss this 
in due course. We'll  have further input there, but at the moment we have 
rather fundamental disagreement with the Labour Government over the next 
stage of House of Lords reform.  So you see, the point is, we have these 
disagreements and that confirms that we're an independent party.  We are 
not kow-towing because we are not kow-towing you would be saying to me, 
if we were in agreement with them, oh, you're just also-rans.  Because 
we're not, you're saying we haven't got influence.  So, you're hanged if 
you do and hanged if you don't and that's perfectly fair from a journalistic 
point of view.

HUMPHRYS:                    Well, but the thing is 
that you're claiming to have had influence, that's the point, over these 
crucial areas.  You've said so in a couple of answers in the last few minutes 
and what I am putting to you is that you have not had the influence that 
you claim.  I mean, if we look at the one that matters to you, the Liberal 
Democrats, most of all, and always has done, and that is electoral reform. 
In their last manifesto, the Labour Party, as you well know without me 
telling you, promised there would be a referendum.  It has not happened, 
it is not going to happen.

KENNEDY:                    Well, fifty per cent, 
I suppose, of what they pledged was honoured, where they said they would 
set up a commission, which they did, they put Roy Jenkins in charge of 
it and it reported.  The other half of that equation was that his recommendations 
were then supposed to be put to the public via a referendum and that didn't 
happen.  And before I became leader of the party, the fate of that particular 
report had already been sealed and one of the first things that I did, 
it may well have been in an interview with yourself, I think, was to acknowledge 
the fact that that wouldn't be happening in the second half of this parliament. 
 Now, that's a disappointment, obviously, but I'm a pragmatist, I believe 
that you get on with things and I'm going to carry on pushing the case 
as I am, to give the public, it's not just a matter about whether you're 
honouring any commitments entered into with the Liberal Democrats, we're 
not running our business here on the basis of what may or may not appear, 
or what Labour may or may not do.  We know what we want and we're going 
out there and arguing for it and I would hope that Labour would recognise 
that if they believe that a manifesto is a contract of trust between a 
party and the people, that they've broken that contract in this area and 
it will do them a lot of damage I think, in credibility terms, it'll do 
Tony Blair a lot of damage in credibility terms, where he's seen to renege 
on it again.

HUMPHRYS:                    But it's going to do 
you damage as well, isn't it, because you've set out to co-operate with 
them. You've sat on the Cabinet Committee with them, you've produced all 
sorts of joint statements with them, it rather looks as if they've
 picked you up and put you in their pocket and then said, oh well, we'll 
close the flap down on the pocket and forget about you.

KENNEDY:                    Well, there's no doubt 
that there will be some in the Labour Party and including some I suspect 
sitting around the Cabinet table of this government who would absolutely 
subscribe to the version of events that you have just set out.  There are 
others who certainly do not subscribe to that, as we well know, who take 
a completely different view of it.  Now, I have enough work in my in tray, 
leading and managing the Liberal Democrats, not to become overly obsessed 
with leadership and management of the Labour Party, that's a matter for 
them.  They will have to reach a conclusion in all of this.  But I think 
that they should bear in mind that the trust of the people is important 
and it would be bad news from their point of view to lose their trust in 
this kind of issue but also in strictly bottom line terms, electoral terms, 
the evidence seems to be that if they were to renege in all of this, that 
Liberal Democrat voters, who have been prepared to Labour the benefit of 
their doubt, to a certain extent, would not do so at a subsequent election, 
whereas Labour voters, who are prepared to countenance the option of Liberal 
Democrats, might well be even more encouraged to come in our direction. 
 Now that's something they need to ponder as they are considering their 
position over the coming period.

HUMPHRYS:                    But the reality out of 
all this is there is not going to be a commitment to a referendum, is there? 
 I mean, you have accepted that, you've acknowledged that.  

KENNEDY:                    No, I haven't acknowledged 
that at all.  Tony Blair is in discussions with his senior colleagues, 
the Labour Party mechanisms are at work and we shall see what they come 
up with but it's a matter for them.  We know what our position is, we've 
agreed our manifesto.  We've put in place this weekend the final building 
blocks for this election and we are now out there campaigning.  Now it's 
up to them and it's their business what they choose to do.  We know what 
we're doing in any eventuality.

HUMPHRYS:                    Why, well, ok.  What 
does that mean?  I mean, does that mean that you are saying to them now, 
either there is a commitment, an absolute commitment, no messing about 
with any more commissions or anything of that sort because that was only 
ever a delaying mechanism, no commitment to a referendum?  If that is the 
case, unless we get that commitment, we will simply withdraw all co-operation 
and an end to all this Cabinet Committee nonsense, all the rest of it, 
that's it, finished, over and done with, we've cut you off, or we've been 
cut off?

KENNEDY:                    Well, John, I said eighteen 
months ago, again there isn't anything new here at all - I made quite clear 
eighteen months ago and because perhaps I do it in a comparatively mild 
mannered way and don't smash my fist down on the table or storm out of 
studios, that that is the position, all bets would be off if Labour feel 
for whatever reason they can't embrace the next stage of constitutional 
reform which involves asking the public their opinion.  It's not the most 
radical idea in the history of man you know, to go out there and ask the 
public what they think about a proposition.  Then clearly we have reached 
the end of what's been an intriguing phase of British policies.

HUMPHRYS:                    So you mightn't smash 
your fist on the table but you'd go along with what Paddy Ashdown said 
this weekend, would you, and I quote him.  He said 'If there isn't this 
commitment it will be a betrayal of trust, it would end all co-operation 
between our parties'.  You'd use language just as strong as that would 
you?

KENNEDY:                    Well, I wouldn't use quite 
that language but that's simply because I'm a different person and a different 
kind of politician from Paddy Ashdown.   I mean different people use different 
forms of language.  I would use the language I've just used to you.  

HUMPHRYS:                    Betrayal of trust - you 
wouldn't go along with?

KENNEDY:                    Sorry John, I missed that 
question

HUMPHRYS:                    You wouldn't go along 
with the words of Paddy Ashdown, that if there is no commitment to a referendum 
that would be a betrayal of trust?

KENNEDY:                    Oh I think that you would 
not find a Liberal Democrat at this conference or probably in the party 
that would consider it anything less than a betrayal of trust.  I'm just 
saying that I tend not as a rule myself to use words like betrayal.  I 
just like to put things rather straightforwardly and perhaps less emotively 
which I suppose is why some people say from time to time that I should 
be more rigorous in some of my language but I prefer just to state things 
in my own words.

HUMPHRYS:                    What about the ending 
of the co-operation between your parties then because that's about the 
last sanction you have really in this relationship isn't it?  You are co-operating 
in certain areas still.  I know the committee hasn't met for a long time 
but we get these occasional statements, jointly issued by Ming Campbell 
and Robin Cook.  Are you prepared to say at this stage, no commitment, 
there will be no more of that co-operation whatsoever, that's an end of 
it?

KENNEDY:                    All I'm prepared to say 
quite straightforwardly is, that if there's no proper commitment from Labour 
to developing further constitutional reform agenda, which obviously includes 
at its centre giving the public the right and the final say on changing 
the voting system or choosing to stick with the status quo in their wisdom, 
 whichever they want, then all bets are off.  I've said it until I'm blue 
in the face, I'll say it again..

HUMPHRYS:                    Well, but maybe you've 
not said it quite clearly enough.  As you say you don't like strong language. 
 Maybe people are saying, well I wonder whether Charles Kennedy wants to 
have it both ways really.  He wants to sort of sound a little bit stern 
but not so stern that he'll have to leave nanny.

KENNEDY:                    No, it's certainly not 
like that.  But what it does mean is that whilst Labour have yet to reach 
a conclusion they know my views, they know them publicly and privately 
and they're the same publicly and privately which makes life a lot less 
complicated for me than I suspect it is for them. They know that I have 
got my party behind me - are united on this issue which is a lot easier 
for me than it is for them and they know that they've got a decision to 
make.  And that decision is imminent I would imagine and we will judge 
what happens when we see the content, the nature and the outcome of that 
decision.  Now I can't be clearer than that. That is a straightforward 
statement of fact.

HUMPHRYS:                    Alright, let's just switch 
to another subject in the last minute or so and that's the timing of the 
election.  I gather your view is that a decision shouldn't be taken just 
yet, but there's not very long to go is there and we are right slap bang 
in the middle of a crisis.  Can you think of any good reason to go ahead 
with an election on May 3rd?

KENNEDY:                    Well, I think obviously 
the advice from the scientists and the Chief Veterinary Officer in terms 
of foot-and-mouth and the incubation period and so on is that another seven 
to ten days probably is the period in which a better informed judgement 
can be taken.  Now, in terms of the impact this is having, disastrous obviously 
in the farming sector, disastrous for rural Britain, tourism, leisure, 
small businesses as a whole and we've been calling for urgent compensatory 
measures to help all these sectors. But one of the things that worries 
me is that if you were to have a precipitous decision to start postponing 
elections that would be retailed throughout the media internationally as 
the equivalent of hanging a for  - a closed sale on UK plc and the difficulties 
are already being experienced would be made that much worse.  So let's 
not rush to judgements on this because there's an awful lot at stake for 
an awful lot of people.  The other point is incidentally that people like 
me, Westminster politicians who rightly have a very considerable interest 
in when the election is going to be as much as what the outcome will be 
of it, I think that when our livelihoods are on the line, in that sense 
as MPs, it ill-behoves us to be talking in rather self-seeking terms when 
other people's livelihoods are as we speak going through the floorboards.

HUMPHRYS:                    Charles Kennedy, many 
thanks.