|
====================================================================================
NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND
NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING
AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS,
THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY
====================================================================================
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE:
18.03.01
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The
government says it's pressing ahead with the mass slaughter of farm animals
to stem the spread of foot and mouth. Does the opposition still think that's
the right thing to do? I'll be asking the Conservative spokesman.
Have the Liberal
Democrats lost any hope of getting Labour to support its policies? I'll
be talking to their leader Charles Kennedy. And could this be the last
election, when it comes, when the parties wage war on the pollsters? That's
after the news read by SARAH MONTAGUE.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Standy by for another advertising
blitz in the election campaign, but could this be the last blast in the
war of the billboards?
LORD BELL: I think the advertising
in this campaign would be utterly irrelevant and of no great interest.
I don't think that's where the battleground is.
HUMPHRYS: And the Liberal Democrats
want to change the direction of government policies. But can they do that
if they sail so close to Labour?
But first, inevitably,
foot and mouth. The cost of the crisis is now being estimated at a staggering
nine billion pounds. And it's not over yet. Indeed we have no way of knowing
when it will be over. This morning the government's chief vet said it was
absolutely necessary to go ahead with the slaughter of animals in restricted
areas. There's growing opposition to that from farmers who will see their
healthy animals wiped out, and confusion about whether it's safe to visit
the countryside. But on the political front so far there's been a remarkable
degree of concensus. Will that survive? Do the Conservatives have any other
ideas about what should be done? I'll be talking to their agriculture spokesman
Tim Yeo. But first Paul Wilenius has been to Devon.
PAUL WILENIUS: There's something mediaeval
about the desperate battle against foot and mouth disease. Britain is
trying to burn a deadly contagion out of the land, putting more than a
million animals to the torch. But it's not just the livelihoods of farmers
which face ruin, it's also the intricate planning of the nation's politicians.
Tony Blair is hoping that decisive action, like burning infected livestock
on this farm in Devon, will defeat foot and mouth disease. But there are
fears it could still take a long time before it's finally eradicated, and
it could be very costly. And now he's under increasing pressure to delay
the next election, if the crisis deepens.
ANDREW SCOTT: This is one of the most serious
outbreaks this country's endured, I think, of foot and mouth, and certainly
will be by the time we're at the end of it.
GORDON PRENTICE MP: For myself, just as a humble
foot soldier, I would feel very uncomfortable about embarking on a general
election campaign, when I could smell the smoke from burning carcasses
drifting across my constituency. That wouldn't be too good.
WILENIUS: Even on the loneliest
parts of high Dartmoor fears hangs in the air. Devon is gripped by foot
and mouth, and farmers fear their prime flocks are at risk from the disease.
Following the BSE disaster and the outbreak of swine fever among pigs,
the shutdown of large parts of the industry is the last thing British farming
needed. Here on Greenwell Farm near Yelverton, which is so far disease
free, the farmer is so terrified of the deadly virus he has sealed off
his own farm.
ARNOLD COLE: If you thought you were going
to walk in to a busy pub and come out with cancer or flu, that's how worried
we are. We don't want to be in that pub and, and you know I mean what,
what, what can we do. It's in the lap of the gods and the government to
get on top of this disease as rapidly as possible and get it stopped.
BRIDGET COLE: Our income has gone. We've
had twenty fat bullocks here that, that you know, should be gone away.
We're still feeding them. They're costing us money. We've got no income
coming in. You know, and no foreseeable income at all coming in. What
are we going to live on? I also run a bed and breakfast business which
is, you know just stopped stone dead. We daren't let any visitors in. We've
got no income at all at the moment.
ARNOLD COLE: It's just like, you don't
know from one minute to the next when the, when that phone rings, is it
a friend ringing to say that, are you alright - or is it to say I've got
foot and mouth. You know, well, you don't know,
SCOTT: I think the course the disease
is running means that with this continuing rise of outbreaks the disease
will be felt and seen to get worse.
BEN GILL: I think the down-time,
down-stream consequences of this disease will mean that there'll be movement
restrictions on livestock certainly on the sheep sector for the foreseeable
future. Certainly the rest of this year. I'd be pleasantly surprised if
we are exporting sheep meat before the end of this year.
WILENIUS: But even that depends
on going ahead with the new wider cull of healthy sheep now proposed by
the Ministry of Agriculture, which is fiercely opposed by some rebellious
farmers facing the loss of hundreds of thousands of animals.
GILL: Now the choice is
blunt. Do you try and create a Cordon Sanitaire, and take stock out before
they're showing the symptoms of the disease, although could be harbouring
it? Or do you wait until they're harbouring it, and infecting more animals,
further afield? It's a very hard decision to take. That by taking more
animals out now, you could actually protect a bigger number of animals.
WILENIUS: But it isn't just the
farmers who've seen their incomes plummet. The tourist business across
Devon has been devastated. Small businesses, hotels, bars, shops and much
more have been shut down, as restrictions on walking keep tourists away.
The threat of five-thousand pound fines on people who defy the restrictions,
have had a huge impact. But also the calls by farmers to keep away from
the countryside, have pushed the region towards the brink of a catastrophe.
SIMON BRADLEY: Tourism across the South
West is worth something like six-billion pounds a year and employs two-hundred-and-twenty-five-thousand
people and those are direct jobs in tourism, so it's a huge part of our
regional economy, and tourism percolates down through every aspect of the
economy, so it's having a major impact in certain parts of the region.
ADAM SOUTHWELL: I employ ten staff in all. They've
been laid off. I've cancelled bookings worth about fourteen-thousand pounds,
that runs us till the beginning of April. If we have to consider going
in to Easter and beyond, which it looks like it's going to happen at the
moment, then I'm looking at doubling that figure.
ALEX WARNE: I can't criticize the fact
that people aren't coming up here because they're doing what's sensible.
They're doing what they're being advised to do. Stay out of the area unless
it's really necessary, but that doesn't help our situation. Effectively
it's costing us more to be open than we're actually taking, so we've had
to make the decision to close completely. The net effect of that is obviously
we've had to lay our staff off as well.
WILENIUS: The closure of racecourses
like Exeter send out a strong signal that rural areas are shut for business.
Ministers have sent out a conflicting signal that it's safe to travel to
large parts of the countryside, but farmers leaders are wary, and feel
instead more areas may need to be closed.
BEN GILL: What we need to do is
consider very carefully every trip we do and assess it against criteria
- have you a potential contact there. Don't just think 'cos it's a grass
field there's no stock in, there's no risk. There may have been stock in.
The virus we know can harbour in the dung for up to a month. You may step
on some dung. You may brush against a hedge, there are many ways you can
inadvertently transmit this virus. And so the grassland areas of this country,
even areas where we haven't got it at the moment are at risk, simply because
it continues to spread into more counties.
We clearly have to take
every effort to contain the spread further, in particularly Cumbria, there
are signs of lateral spread along valleys and that suggests that I think
it would be prudent to go for road closures which we haven't been able
to do because of the legal footing at the moment, to minimise any risk
of inadvertent spread.
WILENIUS: The foot and mouth crisis
is now posing a serious threat to the farming and also the tourist industries
of this country. So the government has been forced to urgently consider
paying out much more generous compensation to those affected by it.
For the animals slaughtered
during the crisis, farmers will automatically get compensation and there
is pressure to help out others facing consequential losses. Despite the
weekend charm offensive by Ministers, hopes of a big offer of compensation
for the tourist industry look certain to be dashed. Some experts have forecast
that the government is already facing a final bill of �9 billion pounds
and a pledge to meet extra losses would make the cost even higher.
MICHAEL MEACHER MP: Well compensation is a matter
for farmers according to strict rules which is administered by the Minister
of Agriculture. With regard to rural businesses what we are talking about
here is not compensation, no government has compensated for this type of
economic loss ever in the past. What we are talking about is short term
practical transitional measures to ensure that businesses so far as we
can, do not go under and that we tide them over the crisis. That's what
we're trying to do.
COLIN BREED MP: First of all it's their
cash flow which is the real problem immediately and we need to prevail
upon the banks for instance to be sympathetic. But perhaps the government
could help the situation by rate relief for instance, giving some holidays
in terms of the payments for National Insurance and Income Tax and such,
so that all those cash flow demands where there's no money coming in but
their costs are going out, can be alleviated to some extent.
WILENIUS: Tony Blair will try to
press ahead with a General Election on May 3rd. But if the foot and mouth
crisis gets much worse, his plans could be blown off course. He could be
forced to call off the local and General Elections and hold them later
in the year.
Attempts to end speculation
about a postponement of the local elections and the General Election have
been made by the government in recent days. Indeed Labour's high command,
who've meticulously planned it feel the election bandwagon is rolling
and can't be stopped.
MEACHER: There frankly is not a
justification for cancellation at this point. Of course we have to look
at what may happen in the future and of course we have to take account
of that. But there are no intention at this time, no contingency plans
to cancel those local elections, and indeed if we did so it would be sending
a very serious and adverse message for the livestock export industry and
for the tourist industry if we said for the next seven weeks and beyond
that Britain was a plagued area. I mean that is not the message to give.
So there is no question, we do intend to proceed with these elections.
GORDON PRENTICE: There's a kind of matrix on the
wall there isn't there, bringing the economic cycle and the political cycle
together and I think this government has done a marvellous job in that,
that people, I think are feeling better off. The economy is doing well.
We haven't been in recession for a full four years and then this happens.
Who could have believed it. And I think people may feel as if it's manipulative,
sticking to a game plan whatever, when the countryside is literally going
up in flames and I think it would be inappropriate.
WILENIUS: Indeed, while large parts
of the British countryside are closed down and the rural population is
cut off and isolated, politicians and party activists would hardly be welcome.
The government may need to show that the foot and mouth crisis has hit
its peak, the number of new cases is falling and the outbreak has burned
itself out, before it can safely proceed with the elections.
PRENTICE: But in the middle of
this I think it would be inappropriate for us to have a General Election
and indeed the local elections as well, because there is one question that
we cannot answer and the question is this, why do you have to go to the
country now. We're elected for a full five year parliament and we could
run on, as John Major did for the full five year term. And I think it would
be very, very difficult to campaign in constituencies like mine. I've
got a lot of farmers, a rural area, but not just in the countryside. I
think it would be difficult for me in the towns in my constituency to try
and explain to people why it's necessary for them to go to the polls now.
WILENIUS: Tony Blair seemed set
for a clear run into the next election. But the detailed plan for a second
victory did not foresee foot and mouth. Now he has to negotiate a difficult
week, with farmers in revolt over a new cull and opposition to the election
growing inside and outside his party. Ideally he would go ahead with the
elections in May, but the sheer scale of the crisis may eventually close
off that option.
HUMPHRYS: Paul Wilenius reporting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Tim Yeo, do you have any
misgivings about the mass cull?
TIM YEO: Well I think we need to
understand better the reasons why this cull has been order. I welcome
the fact that Jim Scudamore is visiting Cumbria...
HUMPHRYS: ...the Chief Vet...
YEO: ...the Chief Vet,
tomorrow. I think that people will accept what is a very drastic and a
very distressing process for those that are directly involved, if they
know that there was a good reason for it. We haven't yet had quite as
much explanation about why this is the right way to deal with the problem.
I suspect it probably is the right way but I think people actually should
be given the chance to examine the Chief Vet's advice and I think perhaps
the Minister himself could go to Cumbria and lead that process of persuading
people that this is the right policy.
HUMPHRYS: Yourself, would you go?
YEO: Well actually, William
Hague has already been, on the very day that this was announced. I am
certainly ready to go if it is thought that I can help, but of course I
don't have access to the advice that the Minister has.
HUMPHRYS: No, I was thinking in
terms of you going, supporting the government, if you like, I mentioned
the sort of bi-partisan approach earlier.
YEO: Well, we've certainly
been keen to support the government whenever it takes steps that we believe
are needed to bring this under control, even if those steps are drastic
or unpopular, they will have our support, because we see this as a national
emergency, and the bi-partisan approach is the right one, so the Minister
has my full backing, but he does need to get out there. You see, people
in Cumbria, like the rest of the countryside, have suffered for four years
neglect of the problems of farming, an attack on many rural traditions,
they are naturally a bit suspicious, a bit resistant to suggestions from
the government, unless they're told exactly why this is going to happen.
HUMPHRYS: Bi-partisan approach
is the right one assuming of course that they're doing what you think they
should be doing. Have you had no misgivings about any aspects of their
policy. I wonder for instance, and there is talk there is a plan B, than
might involve vaccinating animals within the infected areas as perhaps
an alternative to the cull. Have you had any thoughts about that?
YEO: Well, I've certainly
had serious and growing misgivings, and indeed I think one the reasons
why such drastic action is needed now is because the government has been
behind the game at each stage, it's been a bit slow to react and I'll say
in a moment what I think should be done. On vaccination specifically,
I don't believe that vaccination is the right answer, except that it could
be used to create a sort of buffer zone around a particular infected area,
but it would mean that afterwards those animals would have to be slaughtered,
otherwise Britain would lose it's status as a nation that...
HUMPHRYS: ...but do you think that
it might come to that, that that sort of programme might be sensible.
YEO: I wouldn't rule that
out, there again, I must emphasize I don't have access to the advice that
the Chief Veterinary Officer is giving, but it seems to me that is a possible
alternative, but people need to understand that that would also have to
be followed by a slaughter of those animals, because Britain does not wish
to lose its status as a country that has been free, and is free, of foot
and mouth disease, like the rest of Western Europe and North America.
HUMPHRYS: You said there were other
things that you think should be done.
YEO: There are. There
are three things specifically that should be done and they should really
be done today. First of all, because there's concern from farmers and
many other people about the fact that diseased animals are not being slaughtered
very quickly, sometimes it's days and days of delay; once a vet knows that
an animal has the disease, that vet should have the discretion to order
immediate slaughter, same day slaughter, if they think it's the right thing
to do. Secondly, there's a problem of carcasses now. Tens of thousands
of carcasses are lying rotting in open fields because they haven't been
disposed of. The government should allow on-site burial, on-farm burial,
to take place, as an alternative to taking these carcasses sometimes hundreds
of miles away for rendering. The Environment Agency can advise if there
are specific areas where the water table is too high, and there might be
risks to human health, but anywhere else, on-farm burial was used in nineteen-sixty-seven
as the preferred method of disposal, it should be used again today. And
the third measure, again it should be introduced immediately, is to allow
the army to do more than just sit on a logistical planning team, which
is all that's happening at the moment. The army could take part in doing
both those first two tasks, their skills and disciplines would be ideally
suited for them, and that would release the very over-stretched personnel
from the Ministry of Agriculture to do the other tasks for which they're
trained.
HUMPHRYS: What about the licences
that had been given to move some animals for slaughter?
YEO: Well, the licensing
scheme is one that we support. We think it's helpful to allow animals
to go to slaughter, provided that no risks are being run. And I hope that
the way in which licenses are issued will continue to be as streamlined
and efficient as it possibly can be, but there are concerns obviously,
about the risk of further spread, and the evidence that spread has taken
place much more widely than was previously thought, is extremely worrying.
HUMPHRYS: Compensation? You support
the idea of suspending business rates for those businesses that have been
affected by all of this. Will you go further than that?
YEO: Well, I think that's
the first step, and it could be taken again, immediate...
HUMPHRYS: ...so you would do that
right now? You would say to people in those areas, you can forget about
paying your business rates?
YEO: We would say to the
County Councils, that they could use their discretion in giving people
relief from business rates. We think those decisions are best taken closest
to the sharp end, on the ground.
HUMPHRYS: So it wouldn't be a blanket
exemption?
YEO: No, it would be at
the discretion of the County Council to use that relief in the areas where
it is most obviously needed.
HUMPHRYS: Because it might be difficult
to target it, mightn't it? I mean, which businesses could you be sure
had genuinely been affected?
YEO: Absolutely, and that's
why I think there's a better chance of getting the targeting right if you
allow the decision to be made a bit closer. Sitting in Whitehall, you
certainly won't get it right. Sitting in each county, you've got a better
chance, even then it'll be difficult, but you've got a better chance of
hitting, hitting the right target. I think we've got to remember there
are other businesses that are affected besides tourism, as well as some
transport businesses, there's the food processing industry as well, so
it's going to be difficult to draw the line, but we think in the first
instance, those small businesses in the areas where actually movement restrictions
are applying, are the ones who are most urgently in need.
HUMPHRYS: Could be very expensive?
YEO: Well, it could. Of
course, you might say this what the government has a contingency fund for,
and we heard a lot a couple of weeks ago in the Budget about just how much
surplus cash there is around now. But clearly, it is very important that
the relief should go to people that the country recognises as being in
genuine need. That will of course include some farmers who are not getting
compensation at the moment, for example the farmer who has got cattle which
go beyond the age of thirty months and they suffer a big drop in value
at that point, they also need help, and that's a very easily defined group
of people.
HUMPHRYS: Peter Walker, former
Agriculture Minister, Conservative of course, has talked, used quite strong
language about the way the Government has handled all of this. He talked
about an unbelievable story of incompetence, and he's particularly concerned
about the slaughter of ewes, heavily pregnant ewes with their lambs, out
in fields where they can't be brought in. The farmers should be compensated
for their lambs as well. A - do you agree with that, B - do you go along
with any aspect of Peter Walker's attack?
YEO: Well, I think he's
right to draw attention to the fact that the reaction of the Government
has tended to be rather too slow. I mean animal welfare problems clearly
are building up quite quickly and we suggested that they should use the
same scheme that was used after the classical swine fever outbreak in East
Anglia. It's called the Pig Welfare Disposal Scheme, it took fifteen days
to get an answer from the Government on that. All they do is press a button
and the whole thing could have been activated immediately. On the particular
problem about the ewes, of course this time of the year makes that a very
acute difficulty, and if farmers are going to suffer the slaughter of their
ewes because they're not able to move them I accept that the overriding
need at the moment is to prevent the spread of the disease, but clearly
those farmers will also be entitled to some help.
HUMPHRYS Ben Gill talked in that
film, remarkably thought about possibly for the rest of this year there
are going to have to be restrictions, he talked about closing roads.
What are your thoughts about access to the countryside. There seems to
be a bit of a mixed message coming across at the moment.
YEO: Well, it's worse than
a mixed message, it's a really confused message, and that's another of
the areas where I feel the Government are now seriously at fault. We have
the Minister of Agriculture, saying don't go to the countryside, stay away
because you might spread the disease. You have the Culture Secretary Chris
Smith and the Environment Minister Michael Meacher saying the countryside
is open, do come along and go on supporting our tourist trade, and all
sorts of other things. Now, that's a very muddled message from the Government.
HUMPHRYS: Well, what would you
say then?
YEO: Well, what I would
say is that we must err on the side of caution at the moment. The overriding
aim is to get control of this disease, and therefore people should avoid
visiting farming areas until it is clear that the disease is brought under
control.
HUMPHRYS: That closes off whole
areas of the country obviously.
YEO: Well, I mean the truth
is that if we go on having spread of cases, since the Minister a week ago
said this was under control, the number of outbreaks has trebled. There
are thousands of animals awaiting slaughter, thousands of carcasses awaiting
disposal. The situation is clearly not under control and so it's important
that message should be understood.
HUMPHRYS: A final quick thought
about the date of the election. Should it happen on May the Third, both
local and general, assuming they intended the General Election to be on
May the Third.
YEO: Well, I believe that
the whole country now sees the overriding aim as bringing this disease
under control. The question Tony Blair has to decide this week is whether
having an election campaign in the next six weeks is going to be helpful
to the process of curbing the spread of foot and mouth disease or not.
HUMPHRYS: If you were in his position
what would you do?
YEO: Well, I think the
answer is pretty clear, and I think the public's view is becoming pretty
clear, and I hope the government will not do anything which jeopardises
the effort we all want to make to controlling foot and mouth disease.
HUMPHRYS: Tim Yeo, many thanks.
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.
HUMPHRYS: I was talking to Mr Kennedy
earlier this morning.
Political parties
believe, rightly or wrongly, that advertising is terribly important in
election campaigns. But they have a problem. They're not allowed to advertise
on television and the cinema won't take their political commercials either.
So they've been spending more and more money on billboards. Nearly twenty-million
pounds altogether last time around. And most of that went on negative
advertising, telling us how hopeless the other lot are. Already you'll
have noticed the posters for the next campaign are beginning to appear.
But make the most of it. As David Grossman reports, this may be the last
time.
TONY BLAIR: "We're not just standing here
slagging off the Tories..."
DAVID GROSSMAN: It was the most aggressive British
election ever. Attacking billboards filled our streets - many complete
with senior politicians helpfully pointing at the words, lest we missed
their none too subtle message. Nineteen-ninety-seven was the high-spend,
hard sell, no punches pulled, billboard blitz.
CHRIS POWELL: At the last election the
Conservatives basically tries to buy the election, by the fact that they
knew they could get their hands on more money than Labour. And they hoped
that just by spending enormous sums of money that they would be able to
win the election.
GROSSMAN: In the tone of its advertising,
this election promises to be every bit as much of a slanging match as last
time, perhaps more so, since what little regulation there was, has now
completely vanished. But in terms of the scale of the billboard and press
campaign, this election will be nothing like as extensive as last time.
The parties would have had to have reigned back their expenditure anyway
- they are now subject to strict campaign spending limits, but also, their
strategists now think they've got a better way of grabbing your attention.
LORD BELL: I think the advertising
in this campaign will be utterly irrelevant and of no great interest.
I don't think that's where the battleground is. I think the battleground
is in direct marketing within the marginal seats.
GROSSMAN: You may not have noticed
but advertising at the last election was actually regulated. The Tories
were made to pull this rather comic but, meant to be sinister, portrayal
of Tony Blair, because they hadn't asked to use his picture. But when
the Tories tried to have this Labour effort banned, they were told to take
it on the chin. Blatant bias, screamed the Tories. Fearing another political
pummeling, the advertising authority which refereed the last code, has
stepped out of the ring - saying they won't come back until the parties
have agreed a new code.
ANDREW BROWN: Politicians are individuals
who seek legislative solutions to all problems they encounter, or certainly
regulatory ones if not legislative ones, and here they are, deeming themselves
to be a body above any form of regulation, whether it be self-regulation,
or statutory control, and I actually think that is, I think that's kind
of bad for them, I don't think it's particularly good for the advertising
business either.
GROSSMAN: The parties though, aren't
keen to have anyone looking down in judgement on their adverts, they fear
that being found guilty of breaking the rules could de-rail their whole
campaign, perhaps within days of an election.
LORD BELL: I think regulation in
advertising is a ridiculous thing. It shouldn't happen. I think it particularly
shouldn't happen on politics because politics is about ideas, it's not
about facts, it's about people putting forward their ideas and their opinions
and their ambitions and their hopes, and those things you can't regulate,
you can't say that's an acceptable idea, that isn't an acceptable idea,
that's an idea that's not, you know, not proper. Who the hell is going
to sit in that kind of judgmental role? They can't.
LORD RENNARD: It is a shame though, that
perhaps there isn't some control, such as there is over other adverts.
The Advertising Standards Authority, I think, would be very interested
in some of the claims made by parties, but in practice of course, there's
a very short period of time between these adverts appearing and polling
day, so I think what's crucially important is that the media themselves
must actually scrutinise the claims made by the parties in their advertisements
and help guide people, as to whether or not these claims are realistic
and honest.
GROSSMAN: New Labour fell in love
with advertising. They saw the success it helped the Tories achieve and
dreamed about what it could do for them. A strong advert also fitted in
with New Labour's obsession with staying on message - whatever the leader
writers and journalists were chattering about, a paid advert would always
stay focused and true to the party line. But now Labour isn't attacking
the government, it is the government.
Well away from the Westminster front-line, in advertising agencies like
this, they manufacture ammunition for the politicians. Chris Powell designed
fizzing grenades for Labour to lob at the Tories from the mid-seventies
right up until nineteen-ninety-seven. In advertising terms, he says he
believes governments give the tougher brief.
POWELL: I think it is more difficult
to run campaigns as government as advertising campaigns. It's interesting
that when the Conservatives were in government, if you look at the way
that they advertised, they always did it as though they were the opposition,
in that they always attacked Labour as though Labour was really the incumbent,
and said how incompetent and useless Labour was, because the alternative
really is just to boast about how good you are, which is deeply boring
and exactly what you'd expect someone to say. So, it is a bit more difficult,
but I think the answer to the difficulty is to make sure that you spend
your time lambasting the opposition rather than praising your own efforts.
GROSSMAN: And that lambasting has
begun. The themes of Labour's campaign are already obvious. While one
poster, with some "y-shaped" scissors attacks the Tories for planning cuts
in the future, another reminds voters of the Conservative's record. This
is one film Labour thinks voters won't want to see again. As an election
strategy though it's a classic, according to Lady Thatcher's favourite
ad-man.
LORD BELL: What the Labour Party
is bound to do is what we did in nineteen-eighty-three. We ran a campaign
for Mrs. Thatcher that was called "Britain's on the right track, don't
turn back" and we also made a great song and dance about the winter of
discontent that occurred in seventy-eight, when everything was on strike
and you couldn't bury your dead and so on. And we ran a great campaign
called "Do you remember the winter of discontent?" They will run a campaign
that is "Do you remember the Major government?"
GROSSMAN: Meanwhile outside Conservative
headquarters the Tories are almost ready to unveil their latest effort.
They too, more or less have to go negative, hitting out at Tony Blair for
not delivering on promises, or for planning to scrap the pound. This time,
ready to point at the words for us, is the Shadow Chancellor, Michael Portillo.
Now, Labour's "y-shaped" scissors have been turned into an attack on Tony
Blair. Sharp certainly, but will it do the job?
DR MARGARET SCAMMELL: I think it would be a nightmare to
be a Tory strategist at the moment. Room for manoeuvre is so slight, they're
going to have to wage a negative campaign, they simply have no option,
their positives are very low, what are they going to do with Hague? They
can't run a positive campaign around William Hague in the way that Labour
were able to run a positive campaign around Tony Blair with his message
of hope in nineteen-ninety-seven. They can't do that, the Tories, because
Hague isn't particularly respected even by people who say they're going
to vote Tory.
GROSSMAN: But the Tories also tried
a very negative and personal billboard campaign at the Scottish parliamentary
elections. And even dressing up the then SNP leader, Alex Salmond, up
as a telletubbie, didn't get the voters saying "again, again." Nor did
making Mr. Brown into a reservoir dog. Advertising, it seems, isn't guaranteed
to be a devastating weapon, no matter how negative and personal you are
prepared to get.
POWELL: It's actually a very weak
conversion tool, and thank goodness that it is, because if people were
really that manipulable, we'd live in a very difficult world. So if you
get someone trying to deny your experience, it just doesn't work, because
your experience is obviously much stronger to you than what any advertiser
might say. So you may remember in the past there was some wonderful advertising
that said it was the age of the train, or it's the wonder of Woolies, when
it clearly wasn't, and it didn't have any effect on anyone. And to the
same point really, the demon eyes advertising saying that Tony Blair was
a devil, didn't create a single, even teeniest-weeniest little blip in
the polls, it created enormous media interest, as does taking down your
trousers in public.
GROSSMAN: All the Liberal Democrats
are taking down is the cover on their new ad. The party's MPs and candidates
let out a cheer, not just because they're being told to, but also because
they rather like the fact that much of their advertising, as here, is very
often positive. Actually, they don't have the budget to get down and dirty
with the other parties. They parade their limited means as a virtue. The
Punch and Judy show, as they call Labour/Tory billboard ding-dong, is just
not their style.
LORD RENNARD: Well actually I think the
Conservatives are being so negative about Labour, and Labour are being
so negative about the Conservatives, we don't need to say anything negative
about either of them really. We will concentrate on what we will do to
invest more in Education, and in Health and giving pensioners a better
deal, and protecting the environment, and that's a very positive message,
backed up by saying where the money would come from.
GROSSMAN: Money in this election
is important. For the first time, campaign spending will be capped. It
means the the parties will have to get high-tech.
The limit on campaign spending will have an impact on what the parties
can do. In nineteen-ninety-seven, both Labour and the Tories spent over
twenty-five million pounds, trying to persuade us to vote for them. For
a May the third election they'd be capped at fourteen-point-eight million
pounds. So, if they can't spend bigger, they'll have to spend smarter.
Whilst in the eighties, politicians would talk with breathless reverence
about the power of advertising, today the big wheeze is marketing.
LORD BELL: The vast majority of
the funds are going to be spent on what we call direct marketing. What
that means is, communicating directly to individuals in their homes, direct
mail-shots, telephone calls, communication to e-mail addresses through
the web. Basically, advertising is mass-marketing, you say something and
it's looked at by millions of people, direct marketing is actually individually
talking to each person by name. I mean, I know that both big parties have
got the names and addresses and telephone numbers of every uncommitted
voter in every marginal seat, those poor people are going to be telephoned,
written to, have their doors knocked on, contacted on their e-mail address
if they have one, that's what direct marketing is about and that's what
the bulk of the money is going to be spent on.
GROSSMAN: If you're in a key constituency
and one of the parties knows your e-mail address, this is just the sort
of thing you might find in you inbox. What the Tories call an e-vert,
can be dispatched to millions of computers for less than the price of one
first-class stamp. So, does that mean the poster is past it?
POWELL: If you stopped advertising,
the other side probably wouldn't stop advertising, and rather like trench
warfare, it's probably safe while you're both lobbing shells at each other,
and in fact that is rather the case, that what happens during an election
is usually very little. The efforts of both parties cancel each other
out, but if they stopped, and the other side kept shelling, you might well
be over run. So I think, you know, the large part of the expenditure on
advertising in election campaigns itself, is to neutralise the incoming
fire that's coming at you.
GROSSMAN: Although the billboard
might be out of favour with party strategists, a snappy ad still inspires
the troops like nothing else. The parties will probably never entirely
do away with their full-page ads and bellowing billboards, but in the spiel
for votes, the incessant whisper of direct marketing is probably the voice
of the future.
HUMPHRYS: David Grossman reporting
there. And that's it for this week. If you're on the Internet don't forget
our Web site. Until the same time next Sunday, Good Afternoon.
21
FoLdEd
|