|
====================================================================================
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:
25.03.01
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. How
badly damaged has the government been by its handling of the foot-and-mouth
crisis? I'll be talking to the Cabinet Minister John Reid. Should politicians
keep away from God when they're peddling their wares? We'll be reporting
on that. And why is Labour so reluctant to talk about Europe? That's
after the news read by SARAH MONTAGUE.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: It's always said that politics
and religion don't mix. But some say Tony Blair is too keen to climb into
the pulpit.
LORD HATTERSLEY: "For the Prime Minister to
evangelise on behalf of one point of view, because that's what it is, might
just alienate people of a different sort. I think that's a very real danger."
HUMPHRYS: And Tony Blair's on the
European stage... but why's he so determined to keep Europe out of the
General Election?
JOHN HUMPHRYS: A few weeks ago the government
seemed to have it all sewn up. The economy was rattling along nicely,
the opinion polls could scarcely have been more favourable and it was an
open secret that the election would be held on May 3rd. The timing seemed
perfect. How different that looks this weekend. There is talk of a serious
recession; the papers have been full of stories of sleaze. And foot-and-mouth
is sweeping across the country - out of control. The polls tell us that
the last thing most people want now is a General Election. The government
has a problem.
The Northern Ireland Secretary,
John Reid, is with me and we'll talk if we may about Northern Ireland a
little later Dr Reid. But first of all, the question of the perception
of the government's competence. It has taken a battering, hasn't it, foot-and-mouth
raises that whole question in a way you can't possibly have expected. People
think, increasingly, you have handled it badly. We heard Professor David
King, the Chief Scientist, saying that it is out of control and yet your
people, the politicians, tell us endlessly, or had been telling us endlessly,
until Professor King spilled the beans, that it was under control.
DR JOHN REID: Well, if you're talking about
perception, it's interesting that of the three things you mentioned at
the beginning, in terms of economic competence, I don't think there's anyone
questioning the economic competence of the government...
HUMPHRYS: ...no I talked about
the possibility of recession, we're seeing what's happening on the stock
markets and so on. So I wasn't suggesting that the economic competence
was questioned in that sense.
REID: Well that's the important
thing, it's not within our control...
HUMPHRYS: ...lots of things are
important...
REID: Well it's an important
thing about the economy, it's not within our control to dictate what happens
in the American stock market but people know ...
HUMPHRYS: Indeed but foot-and-mouth
is a disaster that you have had to deal with and the view is that you have
not dealt it, increasingly the view is that you have not dealt with it
competently.
REID: Well I was dealing
with the first question that you raised in your introduction which was
the economic stability which is still there...
HUMPHRYS: ...no I didn't raise
that, but anyway, go on.
REID; ...on the foot-and-mouth
question I think people recognise, as the government does, that we've got
a huge and significant problem. I think people also increasingly recognise
that one of the problems that we're facing is the spread of the disease
and there is no doubt that a key element of that problem is the fact that
between the time when the first reports were given to the government in
Essex and they traced it back very quickly to Northumberland, but they
then found that between that point and when it had first arisen, there
was at least two weeks. And during those two weeks, there had been a huge
movement of sheep in particular, but livestock throughout the country,
much more so than in 1967 because there are many more transactions now
and the sheep flocks are much larger and it wasn't readily appreciable
right at the beginning just to what extent that had spread.
Now having said that,
the government has done everything possible, it has put in the resources,
vets, we started off with two-hundred-and-twenty, we've now got eleven-hundred.
The army are in, not to shoot, because we have plenty of people to carry
out the slaughtering but because this is a mammoth organisational task
and the command and control expertise of the army is of enormous benefit
there. We've established the COBRA, the emergency planning meetings, which
go on continually on this now, but the disease isn't spreading from infected
animals to infected animals. So if you ask me, is it under control, in
the sense that we've reached the peak and it's going down, we know exactly
where it will go and it will be finished in a very short period of time,
no, because we're in for the long haul, it is still spreading, if you asked
me, is it under control in the sense that we have some idea of where it's
going, that we are doing everything necessary in putting all the resources
in, in order to combat that, to control it, then eradicate it, the answer
to that is yes.
HUMPHRYS: My point is that it took
Professor King, not a politician, to tell us that it was not under control.
We had been assured right up until that point, by Nick Brown and others,
that it was under control. It manifestly is not under control and the
reason for that as Professor King himself, who has obviously no political
axe to grind, on the contrary, he's on the government payroll. He said,
it is partly the way, the fault of the way it has been handled. It took
so long between identifying the disease in an animal and killing that animal,
that the thing got a hold in a way that it should not have done.
REID: Well, let's just
examine what Professor King said. He actually...what he actually said
was what the government was doing, but he said, you have to do it quicker.
HUMPHRYS: It's crucial.
REID: It is crucial and
this is what we're applying all of our mind and all of our resources to
John.
HUMPHRYS: But you didn't do it
properly at the beginning, that's my point.
REID: Well, just let me
finish John and then we can sit in judgement on that. He said that in
order to control it, given the spread that we increasingly know has taken
place and the movements that have taken place of livestock of infected
livestock, that we have to reduce the time between the reporting and the
slaughter to less than a day. Now we had been doing everything possible
to do that but obviously if the spread is much wider it is more difficult
to do. But what I can tell you is that whereas it was taking on average
a day and a half, not a great deal more, but above that crucial threshold
which would stop it declining and cause it to increase, it is now being
reduced, on average at the end of this week, to point-six of a day. So,
to less than a day, as he was recommending, to almost half-a-day, but then
one particular area, which is Cumbria, where there...almost half of these
cases are taking place, in Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, it is still
slightly over a day, so in other words, what Professor King was saying
was not that the government was not doing something, he was confirming
that what we were doing was correct, but saying you have to get that time
down and that is one of the two things that we're now desperately trying
to do and putting the resources into it.
HUMPRHYS: Well, I suspect that's
a bit of a distinction without a difference but let's have a look at that
in a little bit more detail and of course, averages can be hugely misleading
because if in some areas farmers are having to wait four days, as indeed
has been the case, then enormous damage is going to be caused as a result
of that, but look at the figures...
REID: Can I just ask John,
I think you may be using the days between reporting and not slaughter but
reporting and disposal.
HUMPHRYS: No, I'm talking about
reporting and slaughter. I personally have spoken to farmers where that
has been the case, for all sorts of reasons, some of which obviously nobody
can be blamed for, but if we look at the total figures, at the moment that
are two-thousand...two-hundred thousand animals, waiting to be slaughtered.
Now in the last twenty-four hours, sixty-seven-thousand have been diagnosed,
thirty-three-thousand have been destroyed. So if you take those figures,
it's perfectly clear that that number of animals waiting to be slaughtered
is increasing and increasing and increasing and you are not on top of it.
REID: Well, let me tell
you some of things that we have done.
HUMPHRYS: Oh and you don't dispute
those figures.
REID: Sorry?
HUMPHRYS: Those are MAFF figures,
so you're not disputing those...
REID: No, I'm not disputing
the figures. What I am saying to you is that the average time now is point-six
of a day, it's less than a day, but in the area where there is the mass
number to be dealt with, obviously it's more difficult than the average
as you yourself pointed out. We have increased the number of vets from
two-hundred-and-twenty to over eleven-hundred vets now in order to do that.
We have got rid of the regulations, pre-existing regulations, for which
there was very good reasons that said that vets, after visiting one premise,
have to wait a reasonable time before going to the next one. We've done
that so that we can shorten the time and maximise the use of the vast increase
in vets that we've got. We have the army now in, carrying out the logistics
of it, there's a misunderstanding sometimes, people who may be, your viewers,
think that we're bringing in the army...
HUMPHRYS: ...no, no, I think people
understand that they're not shooting animals, they simply organising...
REID: ...it is because
the vastness of the problem we're tackling requires logistics operation
and command...
HUMPRHYS: ...and again, maybe they
should have been brought in earlier, but still, we'll...
REID: ...well, the army
are now involved in, all movements have ceased, we have also on the second
recommendation where we were originally doing it selectively, we have said
that in the areas where it is most badly affected, Dumfries, Galloway and
Cumbria, there will be the three kilometre cull inside it for...
HUMPHRYS: Ah well now, Professor
King wanted that extended throughout the country.
REID: Well we're extending
a cull in neighbourhoods throughout the country but to use the broad brush
and to say in every instance where there is one sheep, everything, all
cattle within three kilometres of that must be killed, is a pretty broad
brush.
HUMPHRYS: This is what Professor
King who has studied the epidemiology of this disease in a way that few
of us have, this is what he recommends.
REID: I think Professor
King would be the first to accept that there are local issues of geography,
of epidemiological considerations. There are numbers involved in it, what
we have done is that we have said we will apply that as he recommended
right...
HUMPHRYS: ..but you're not..
REID: ..let me finish John
- right round the area of Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway where the major
problem is and in also in other areas where there is perhaps only one sheep
there, we will apply it to all of the neighbour and it could be up to three
kilometres in those areas. But we have to take some allowance to local
geography, local population of livestock and so on. You can't just apply
the same solution to every area.
HUMPHRYS: But nonetheless you are
not doing what he wanted you to do, what he recommended.
REID: On both of those
problems John, which is the timing, we are doing everything possible to
bring the time for everyone down to less than a day and I've given you
some example of the resources we have put in and on the culling, we have
now accepted the principal, indeed we are originally doing it in many instances
but we are now doing it in terms of the major areas, Dumfries, Galloway
and Cumbria..
HUMPHRYS: But even there....
REID: ..and in neighbourhood
farms in the other individual cases.
HUMPHRYS: But even in Dumfries,
Galloway and Cumbria it hasn't begun yet. Now it's nine days since Nick
Brown said it was going to happen and there was even a cock up there. He
said it was going to include all cattle and then he changed his mind and
apologised and it wasn't. It still hasn't begun.
REID: Well, it has begun
John. It is now beginning but you see..
HUMPHRYS: Let's be clear about
this. They haven't started the cull. They've begun to make preparations,
they haven't started the cull nine days ago.
REID: No, let's just be
quite frank about this. If we were living in a dictatorship where irrespective
of what anyone thought or what anyone's possessions or property were, we
could just send the army in and shoot on sight. That would be a different
matter. We aren't. We take scientific advice, we try to work along with
the farmers, the vast majority of whom have been extremely co-operative
but naturally...
HUMPHRYS: ..so why hasn't it begun.
REID: ..naturally there
are resistance in certain areas and sometimes very good. For instance in
burying of cattle somebody said to me this morning, why didn't you bury
it all rather than just burn it, well the answer to that is that there
are problems associated with burial as well because soil contamination..
HUMPHRYS: ...in some cases...
REID: ..in some cases exactly
and water contamination and therefore it sounds easy to say you just have
a broad brush, you go in there, send in the army, shoot everything on sight.
Now you can't do that, what you have to do is take the best scientific
advice, apply the best resources and attempt to do it. But, I'll make one
final point, that we have been handicapped because of that fortnight's
delay at the beginning...
HUMPHRYS: Alright, you made that
point very clearly..
REID: ...because the vast
number of movements throughout the country, much more so than 1967 means
that this disease can spread very very rapidly now.
HUMPHRYS: But you do accept that
we now have a national crisis.
REID: We have a crisis
in the farming industry. That is not a crisis which at the moment effects
every section of the countryside, far less every section of the country.
But we have a problem there and we are meeting that problem with a commensurate
allocation of resources.
HUMPHRYS: And yet even though we
have that crisis, we are still, it seems, and we know this because of what
Tony Blair himself said just a few days ago, we are contemplating a General
Election. Not just the Local Elections, but a General Election. So once
again, people are looking at your record and at your competence and saying
how can they be serious about this.
REID: Well first of all
Tony Blair didn't say he was contemplating a General Election, he was asked
the question how long would you have to choose and he..
HUMPHRYS: ..and the answer, he
didn't say: oh, I'm not even thinking about an election. He answered it
in a perfectly straightforward way, in a way that he's never done when
people like us have asked him the same question.
REID: Well, I mean most
of the media have known exactly how long you have to choose. All you have
to do John, I don't have to teach you this, is to take the date on which
you think a General Election will be held and work back. But that is a
choice for the Prime Minister.
HUMPHRYS: So if I had said to the
Prime Minister, how long have you got, he'd have given me that straightforward
answer - I rather doubt it. I think he'd have said: look, the election
is not an issue preoccupying me, that's what he said to everybody who asked
him the question. He goes to Europe, he gets asked that question and he
answers it perfectly straightforwardly, unaware the camera is on him but
nonetheless he answers the question.
REID: The fact of the matter
is that the Prime Minister will choose the election date on his own. What
we are really talking about, I think, is whether or not the 3rd of May
elections for Local Government should be cancelled or postponed.
HUMPHRYS: But should he even and
this is the thing that puzzles people hugely, should he even be thinking
about a General Election under these circumstances.
REID: In the last four
weeks John, I have had six conversations with the Prime Minister and attended
five Cabinet meetings, not at any point in any of them has there been
any mention of a General Election from the Prime Minister.
HUMPHRYS: So why can't it be ruled
out?
REID: Because the Prime
Minister has the prerogative and he has to balance a number of things about
the date. What we are really talking about here is whether the Local Elections
go ahead on the 3rd May.
HUMPHRYS: We're talking about the
both, we're talking about the both, at least I'm trying to talk about the
both, because there is general concern about it, you can't dismiss that.
REID: John, I'm prepared
to concede that you're talking about the General Election, that the press
are talking about the General Election, that Mr Hague is talking, Mr Major..
the Prime Minister has not be talking about the General Election..
HUMPHRYS: Ah, so he doesn't have
it in mind then, does he, is this what you're trying to tell me.
REID: No, what I am saying
to you is that the Prime Minister is putting his time to trying to solve
a number of problems in this country, one of which is Europe, relationships
and the free market in Europe. One of which is the foot-and-mouth. But
if you come to the question, you are really asking me, sorry to teach you
to suck eggs on this, but really what you want to know is the 3rd May elections,
should they go ahead or are you not interested in that.
HUMPHRYS: What I'm putting to you
is this. Nick Brown, right at the start of this crisis said, look I'm
too busy to come along to the House of Commons to have a debate. "Surely
you people realise", he said to the Tories and others, "surely you realise
what really matters is getting on top of this and I mustn't be rushing
around going off to the House of Commons, no, I've got to get on top of
this" Now Tony Blair is now getting on top of it, he's being briefed every
hour. The notion that he might even be thinking about an election in the
midst of all this, when he is supposed to be managing a national crisis
is to many people preposterous. You would accept that wouldn't you?
REID: Every conversation
I have had with Tony Blair, I've told you, has been about the issues facing
the country, not the General Election. What is significant is half the
conversation I've had with you has not been about foot-and-mouth or the
issues facing the country, the call for a General Election.
HUMPHRYS: No, no. Three minutes
roughly because I have timings in my ear you see, so I know precisely how
long we've talked about it.
REID: Yes, but you're not
finished yet.
HUMPHRYS: I haven't finished yet
because I'm going to have one more attempt at this.
REID: Let me address the
question then. The Prime Minister will decide on the General Election.
When he does he will tell us all, including you and I.
HUMPHRYS: Right. That I fully understand
but.....
REID: If you're talking
about the local elections, which no-one has to decide on at the moment
because they are scheduled for the 3rd of May. There are arguments for
and against that which will be taken into account as regards cancellation,
because the farmers many of whom have been very tragically hit, and some
of the areas which have been hit are suggesting that they be postponed
or cancelled. There are other people like tourist industry for instance
who say, for goodness sake don't cancel them because that would be a signal
to the rest of the world and would add to the problems of the countryside,
and would lose billions of pounds and potentially tens of thousands of
jobs, so both of those will be taken into account, but our prime consideration
at the moment is to tackle the issues facing the country including foot-and-mouth
disease.
HUMPHRYS: And that consideration
ought to overshadow any other considerations including whether to hold
a General Election.
REID: The consideration
about the effects of cancellation or otherwise of the local government
elections will obviously be taken into account...
HUMPHRYS: You see the fact....Including...
REID: But the fact that
by doing one or the other they could seriously damage even further the
countryside, and I'm sure the Prime Minister and other ministers will be
giving consideration to that. As far as the General Election is concerned,
that's up to the P.M. and his whole concentration I can assure you at the
moment is on tackling foot-and-mouth.
HUMPHRYS: If it is delayed, let
me turn to your Northern Ireland portfolio for the moment - if it is delayed
it isn't going to help you in this sense, and alright I'll accept that
you don't know whether it's going to be delayed or not. If it's postponed
things are going to be put on hold aren't they - they have been put on
hold effectively now until after the election. Well, that's what people
tell us all the time in Northern Ireland as you well know.
REID: I haven't said that...
HUMPHRYS: No, you haven't told
me that, but then you're a very discreet man, but that's what they're saying
in Northern Ireland, as you well know. That is going to cause you a problem
isn't it?
REID: Well...
HUMPHRYS: I mean the course of
the peace process if that's what we must call it, a problem.
REID: Right. The peace
process - let's look at how we got to where we are. It took decades, indeed
centuries, so my own view is if a General Election occurs a few months
earlier or later then, in the broad sweep of history it is not going to
be a serious difficulty, it's not going materially affect it. Where are
we on this? Yes speculation about a General Election makes it less likely
that the parties to the Good Friday agreement will take big steps forward.
HUMPHRYS: Exactly.
REID: Nevertheless there
isn't a standstill. We're moving forward on four absolutely crucial areas,
and that is the area of the establishment of the new politics, we have
a new assembly, new executive which includes both traditions, including
Sinn Fein ministers in the assembly, on policing where we've made a start
on a brand new policing service in Northern Ireland, one we hope which
the whole community will participate in and respect, on normalisation sometimes
called demilitarisation from the Government point of view. We have got
troops down now to far below the high levels of twenty-six thousand to
roughly thirteen thousand now, we've closed down over thirty-three military
establishments and we've made progress on that, and on decommissioning....
HUMPHRYS: Well now, decommissioning.
REID: We have to have some
movement of a substantial nature on decommissioning.
HUMPHRYS: It's got to be completed
by June, this is the point that is the deadline, you have a deadline, this
is the point.
REID: I obviously welcome
the fact that the guns of the IRA have been silent for four years because
we lost three-thousand, six hundred people over the past thirty years in
Northern Ireland and many, many more families tragically affected, so I
welcome the fact they have been silent against the security forces. I
welcome the fact that the Provisional IRA have re-engaged with John de
Chastelain first of all by a telephone call. ...
HUMPHRYS: . They've not given up
any weapons and David Trimble is saying there must be decommissioning completed.
We don't have too much time for the history of it, and I'm trying..
REID: No, but I think it's
important in Northern Ireland to recognise how far we've come, not just
the challenges we face.
HUMPHRYS: I acknowledge that.
REID: So, we now have re-engagement
with the Provisional IRA and John de Chastelain. That must move on from
the stage of talking about whether they decommission to how they decommission,
and actual decommissioning.
HUMPHRYS: Yes.
REID: Right. And we have
set the target date last year in May, we set the target date for June of
this year. It's not the end of the .......
HUMPHRYS: But it's the second postponement
and the point is you cannot can you, postpone it again without causing
David Trimble and his Ulster Unionists a huge problem
REID: Well, David...
HUMPHRYS: Massive. It may finish
off David Trimble.
REID: David absolutely
- David has made his own view known, and that is unless there is substantial
movement on decommission as he put it, then he would not be prepared to
lift the ban on Sinn Fein ministers. We want to see that lifted as well.
If there was substantial movement he would respond positively, the person
who will decide that is John de Chastelain, the independent commissioner.
HUMPHRYS: You've got to - it's
down to you to decide whether you postpone that deadline and try to set
back that deadline again, that's up to you. Would you do that?
REID: Well, the key thing
is what John de Chastelain says. He has been appointed to oversee the
decommissioning. Now if he says - he's already said in a statement two
days ago that the IRA have re-engaged, that they are acting in good faith,
that's a very important point, that they are going to discuss again in
the near future, and he believes that there is the basis for further substantial
progress. Now, if that happens then of course it unlocks a number of other
things including David Trimble's reaction, which presumably would in those
circumstances be positive. But we have got a target date in June. We stick
to that target date and we want to see decommissioning progress.
HUMPHRYS: John Reid, thank you
very much indeed.
REID: Thank you John.
HUMPHRYS: Modern politicians have
tended to shy away from talking about religion because they've found that
it usually backfires on them one way or another. But that seems to be
changing. Both William Hague and Tony Blair have been making a pretty
blatant pitch for the religious vote recently this week. Mr Blair is talking
to the Christian Socialist Movement. And he seems keen to give religious
organisations a bigger role in providing welfare helping run schools.
But as Iain Watson reports, there are concerns in the Labour party that
he's making a mistake.
TONY BLAIR: I'm worth no more than anyone
else. I am my brother's keeper, I will not walk by on the other side.
IAIN WATSON: To remind people that Tony
Blair is a Christian is hardly a revelation, but for a man who once said
he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve, this week it looks like he'll
be positively besuited in his beliefs. Election victories tend to owe
more to mammon than God - but this time round Labour aren't placing all
their faith on the strength of the economy.
On Thursday, when Tony
Blair makes his first ever speech to the Christian Socialist Movement as
Prime Minister, we'll going to hear a lot about values in politics and
there's going to be praise for faith based organisations; those religious
charities and voluntary groups who do so much to help the least well off.
But there are those in Labour's broad church who feel more than a little
uncomfortable about such a high profile link between politics and religion.
LORD ROY HATTERSLEY: This is a basically an agnostic nation.
We're sentimental about religion but people don't take it as seriously
as they did even when I was a boy. And the Prime Minister to evangelise
on behalf of one point of view because that's what it is, might just alienate
people of a different sort. I think that is a very real danger.
MARTIN O'NEIL MP: I think that people make their
political judgements in elections for a variety of reasons and I'm not
sure in the UK if religion or faith-based approaches will be necessarily
that successful.
STEPHEN TIMMS MP: They're wrong. It's absolutely
clear, if you look in the Bible how close politics and faith are and increasingly
I think we're seeing in modern Britain those are very close as well.
WATSON: Tony Blair wont just be
addressing Christians but a multi faith audience this week. His supporters
say he'll look benignly on the opportunities for new partnerships with
religious groups if he's granted a second term
TIMMS: Quite a number of the themes
in our first term have in fact been taken up from the churches before the
election, the common good, the work that came from the Roman Catholic bishops,
the church's report on unemployment and the future of work, both of those
were very influential on this first term of government and I'm sure he'll
want to set out the moral vision that will guide a Labour government in
a second term.
WATSON: The Christian Socialist
movement has prepared a report called Faith in Politics to be published
this week; it will set out the views of people from all religious faiths
on the government's progress. There'll be praise for efforts to eliminate
the debts of poorer nations but the Liberal Democrats say they want to
see a more substantial commitment to ending poverty.
SIMON HUGHES MP: I would think that the church
as a whole and many church members as well as many members in other faiths
would be very critical of a government that hasn't narrowed significantly
the gap between the rich and the poor, hasn't made sure that we have a
society where wealth is more fairly distributed, hasn't honoured our international
commitment to give a decent amount of our income to the third and fourth
world.
WATSON: The real worry in Labour's
ranks isn't so much that the Prime Minister's is indulging in a bit of
religious rhetoric, some senior politicians are far more concerned about
what they see is a growing influence of religious values and religious
groups, over policy making, especially when it comes to welfare services.
But government ministers see faith based organisations as ideal allies
in their crusade against social evils.
The Salvation Army are perhaps
one of the best known of what are now termed faith based organisations
and raise most of their funding themselves. They're the second largest
provider of social services in the UK, after local government. But they
also offer pastoral comfort to the sick. The Faith in Politics report
will highlight difficulties some faith based groups face in getting access
to public money - but the Treasury are indicating that these problems could
be eased in future, in a renewed spirit of partnership.
TIMMS: I think the models for faith
based participation have been well established in recent years. I think
what I hope we can see in the future is those models being taken up on
a bigger scale, more churches, mosques, temples, taking part in welfare
to work projects, in addressing youth homelessness and addressing exclusions
from schools. So I think we've seen the examples well established in recent
years but in the future I'd hope we'd see a bigger scale.
WATSON: The government are looking
to the United States for inspiration, here in Washington DC a federation
of faith based groups committed to tacking poverty met last week under
the banner of Call to Renewal. Their convenor is coming to Britain to address
the same meeting as Tony Blair. He doesn't foist religion on those he
helps, but says faith organisations can teach people an important set
of values
JIM WALLIS: Our little neighbourhood
centre, the Sojourners Neighbourhood Centre, has a freedom school. On the
wall we have pictures of Martin Luther King Junior and Malcolm X and other
we call freedom fighters and the kids learn that they can be freedom fighters
too but only if they take responsibility for their own lives.
WATSON: Jim Wallis sees a role
for government in tackling deprivation but stresses that state intervention
isn't enough.
WALLIS: There are behaviours that
do entrench and perpetuate poverty but then there are structures that make
it impossible to move out of poverty even if you take personal responsibility,
unless you make policy changes in the way the society and the system functions.
The bible says that social change has to be both personal responsibility
and social responsibility. The bible holds rulers accountable and kings
and judges and employers and also talks about people and how they have
to change their lives.
TIMMS: Jim Wallis stands out as
the one well known US Christian who is firmly on the left and so in terms
of people like me who is in the Christian Socialist Movement he's a very
important figure. I think we've got a lot to learn from him. I think
equally he will be very interested to see the progress that's been made
in the UK, in faith-based involvement in dealing with poverty and unemployment
and youth exclusion. I think we've got a lot to learn from each other.
WATSON: It's lunchtime at the Salvation
Army's day centre in Hackney, East London. Local people, mostly pensioners,
regularly drop in for a cheap meal and a chat. The religious views of
the volunteers aren't forced down the throats of the centre's visitors,
something the Christian Socialist Movement would approve of. But even
the admiring biographer of the Salvation Army's founders has a warning.
He's concerned Labour may be tempted to rely too much on the contribution
of religious groups to welfare provision.
LORD HATTERSLEY: The danger becomes the argument,
the only people who are really competent to provide welfare to look after
health, to assist old people, to deal with young people in distress, are
faith-based organisations. Some states in the United States of America
regard them as the only appropriate providers of welfare and I think that's
a hideously inappropriate thing and it's very important not to start along
that road because who knows where it will end.
WATSON: Deep beneath St Botolph's
church, on the edge of the City of London, much needed warmth and a good
meal is provided for homeless people. The Tories say what motivates the
volunteers here and in many similar projects, is their faith and the government
needs to recognise and respect this when it comes to employment law.
DAVID LIDDINGTON MP: I think that if you are a
faith-based organisation you should have the right to employ people who
are of your faith or at least sympathetic to your faith and I think also
that it's quite wrong for central or local government to attach strings
to say that, yes it's all right to do youth work but you mustn't have a
banner saying that you're doing it for the glory of God as well as to,
for the good of your local community.
WATSON: But the Tories may be surprised
to find out just what Labour are contemplating if they get a second term.
Senior voices are saying that religious groups involved in welfare work
should indeed be given the right to ensure that the staff they employ adhere
to the faith.
TIMMS: Sometimes concerns are expressed
that there has been discrimination against faith-based organisations on
the part of some local authorities or some institutions. I think the government
is making it increasingly clear in its guidance that we want to see approaches
that work. I think in employment terms government needs to respect the
basis of those organisations and I don't think there's going to be a problem
here. I mean sometimes it's suspected that there might be.
O'NEILL: Ministers will have to
realise that there are a lot of dedicated professionals, people of considerable
ability, who might find it offensive to be asked what their religion was
first and then considered for employment because I could well imagine that
it wouldn't just be the religion, there would be other things that would
come into it as well and I think that it would be a very dangerous precedent
to set.
WATSON: The government aren't simply
wedded to the idea of supporting faith-based organisations in their welfare
work, they are also looking to them to help shape the attitudes of the
next generation. If re-elected, the government envisage an expansion of
faith-based schools in the state sector. Now although some Labour dissenters
say they haven't fully thought through the consequences, government ministers
are convinced this is a popular policy.
TIMMS: Well I think the conclusion
that David Blunkett has reached in looking at this is that schools with
a faith basis work. That they're popular with parents, that they're effective
in achieving high standards, that they're doing a very good job and we
want to see more of that kind of institution across the country.
O'NEILL: For those people who do
not wish there to be an undue amount of religion in their children's education,
I think they have a right to say, well we don't see why the local school
should become a faith-based institution when we've always seen it as being
the local comprehensive to which the whole community could go. And I think
that we could be in danger of reinforcing social divisions in the name
of alternative forms of provision.
WATSON: Some say that the Prime
Minister is giving sustenance to faith-based groups of one kind or another
because he's more interested in alleviating the symptoms and not the root
causes of poverty. As an adherent of the Christian Socialist Movement,
he should really only be eligible for membership on one count.
LORD HATTERSLEY: The Prime Minister is certainly
qualified as a member of the Christian Socialists as a Christian. He's
not qualified as a socialist, nor would he claim to be. The Prime Minister
wants a better society, a more compassionate society, more efficient society,
a more honest society. But he doesn't want to change the nature of society
and I think that's absolutely essential to Christian socialism.
WATSON: Tony Blair's on a mission
- to ignite enthusiasm amongst the faithful in his bid for a second term.
To do so, he'll be delivering a moral message this week but by bringing
politics and religion together, he won't necessarily be thanked by the
doubters and non-believers who still exist within Labour's ranks.
HUMPHRYS: Iain Watson reporting
there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: It might seem that Tony
Blair has enough on his plate with foot-and-mouth and all that. But in
London he's facing another big problem. Yesterday talks on the future
of the London Underground collapsed again. Bob Kiley, the American that
Ken Livingstone appointed to run the system, has accused ministers of intransigence
because they're insisting on partly privatising the tube. John Prescott,
who's in charge of transport, said this morning that he's waiting for a
letter from Mr Kiley to tell him what the situation is. Well, Mr Kiley
is with me.... so he can save the cost of a stamp and tell him now I suppose,
Mr. Kiley, just so that people understand, you want, if you're running
the Tube, you want control over the whole system, track and trains, and
you're not being given that but the government says, this is their view,
that they have given it to you, so what is the problem here?
ROBERT KILEY: Well in my dear John letter,
I recount what has happened over the last several weeks, because, early
in February, the Deputy Prime Minister and I reached an agreement, that
unified management control, which is really the issue that I have tried
to bring to the table, that has put the tracks back under the trains, was
really the key question here, and he agreed and said, go out and do it,
and bring me back some recommendations. But we went about ten days into
that period and those talks collapsed, because at some stage others came
to the table and said, this management control in your court is not negotiable,
we're not going to do that. Then he, at the end of February, wrote another
letter, saying, here are five pages of really interesting proposals I'd
like to draw to your attention, and they were interesting. We came back,
we talked, and then hours, day by day, those proposals vanished.
HUMPHRYS: What they withdrew them?
KILEY: They were withdrawn, or
they were diluted. And we got to the point yesterday where we talking
about this very issue of getting the tracks back under the trains, and
they're not, they're just not going to move.
HUMPHRYS: But what he says to this
is that you keep making new demands. You keep adding on new demands and
you're not really playing it seriously.
KILEY: You have to remember, they
own the Underground. This is their PPP, what we've done...
HUMPHRYS: ...that's public/private
partnership yes?
KILEY: Public/private partnership,
I, there, PPP could mean something else, but we'll call it public/private
partnership - and we've agreed to try to modify what it is they propose.
We've gone that far, we say look, because after all, they have the purse
strings, and we have to respect that, there's a big investment. The problem
with the Tube, with the London Underground is that there's been no investment
in it as far as living memory can recall, and that has to change. The
government has owned the Underground for the last sixteen years and they've
done nothing with it except watch it deteriorate. So it's good that they
have a proposal, but it's a dumb proposal, and we're trying to get it back
into the land of the sane and the manageable, and they just don't want
to move, it's amazing.
HUMPHRYS: Well, again, to go back
to what Mr. Prescott said just this morning, he was rather acid about you,
he said, I've been trying to talk to him, don't know really what he thinks
about all this, this, just at this crisis points in these talks he goes
off to America for three or four days, can't even talk to him.
KILEY: Well, I tell you John, I
did go to New York for two days, and I can get back and forth to New York
almost as fast as you can get from here to Edinburgh and back, and you
know, there's a rail crisis all across this land. We're trying to keep
the infection above ground in the rail system from spreading to the Tube,
and they seem to be insistent on doing the same thing that happened five
or six years ago above ground, to the Underground. They going to basically
sell off the system to private infrastructure companies to handle the maintenance
while the Underground is left moving the trains back and forth, which is,
it just doesn't pass the test of common sense. And that's all we've been
saying.
HUMPHRYS: But in that case, we
do have a complete and irremovable log-jam here, don't we, because you
won't accept public/private partnership, they are utterly wedded to it
for all sorts of political reasons, apart from anything else, we can't
go anywhere from here, can we?
KILEY: Well, I think we can. We
wouldn't, they like to say that we've met a hundred times in the last six
weeks...
HUMPHRYS: ...I was going to put
that to you, yes.
KILEY: ...yes, well it's interesting.
It's very boring actually most of the time, because we never get to the
heart of the matter, the heart of the matter is, you know, the Underground
isn't broke, it's the people who are running it who have problems, let's
change them, get a new order in, and get about our business. Don't split
it into four parts.
HUMPHRYS: The trouble is, as they
see it, you are trying to wreck their proposals. This is the government's
policy. To have this PPP and to make it work.
KILEY: It's no secret that I think
PPP is cockamaney scheme. I've said that since the day I set foot at
Heathrow. It is really, it makes no sense, it just basically doesn't pass
the basic rules of common sense. And so, I thought we were working together
to move the frame of reference back to actually running the trains, and
I think, I think John Prescott is largely there, but...
HUMPHRYS: ...do you?
KILEY: ...I think so. I don't
know why.
HUMPHRYS: Prepared to dump PPP
in essence.
KILEY: I think he's prepared to
make the modifications that will make PPP work. Public/private partnership...
BOTH SPEAKING TOGETHER
KILEY: ...who can be against motherhood,
or public/private partnerships? Nobody, of course.
HUMPHRYS: But it's the way it works,
and from your perspective, the proposals they put to you are unworkable.
Are you saying that John Prescott privately is prepared to go along with
your notion and dump it. So if that is the case, what's holding him back.?
KILEY: Well, I don't say that he's
prepared to dump it. I think he sees the flaws in it, which is why he
signed the agreement on the second of February, it's why he sent the letter
at the end of February, saying here are some proposals which I think can
carry us to a new common ground. And I agreed with him on the second of
February and the twenty-eighth of February, and now here we are at the
end of March, and they've retreated. You probably know better than I,
because I am a stranger in this land, what it is that, the dynamic that
goes on in the government, that causes this roller-coaster...
HUMPHRYS: ...well there obviously
is a certain dynamic between Gordon Brown in this case and John Prescott,
no doubt, but just, we've only got thirty-seconds left, as far as you're
position is concerned, are you just prepared to stay there battering away,
or at some point are you going to say, to hell with it, they won't do what
I want, I'm off.
KILEY: Oh no, no, not off. I'm
here to stay. I would like to get my arms around the Underground and run
it in a proper way, but I can't accept something that's unsafe and unreliable.
HUMPHRYS: So if you can't accept
it, and they are not prepared to change it the way you want, what happens?
KILEY: Well, my door is always
open, it's swung wide, we can keep talking, but there's got to be substance
to the discussions and until we get to that point, it is probably not worth
continuing the talks.
HUMPHRYS: Bob Kiley, thank you
very much indeed.
HUMPHRYS: Tony Blair has been in Stockholm
for the past few days talking to his European Union counterparts. He'd
hoped that the summit would strengthen his argument that Britain is winning
more influence in Europe. But there's a paradox here. HE himself likes
to be seen on the European stage, but he doesn't want his foot soldiers
to spend the election campaign (whenever it comes) drawing attention to
European issues. Paola Buonadonna asks: why not?
PAOLA BUONADONNA: Europe is on the move once again
- EU ministers head off to Stockholm for a summit which could be the last
before the British general election. The Belgian delegation is getting
ready - not just for this summit but for its own presidency of the EU which
begins in July, when they'll push for further integration. The Swedes,
who currently hold the presidency have been careful not to embarrass Tony
Blair in the run-up to the election campaign. But Labour can't deny that
difficult decisions on Europe are looming in the next parliament.
In a few minutes the Belgian
ministerial plane will take off for Stockholm - the theme of the meeting
is economic reform and job creation, music to the ears of Tony Blair. When
he addresses the House of Commons on Monday, he'll present the summit as
a success, showing that Europe is going Britain's way. But Mr. Blair is
determined to keep both Europe and the Euro off the agenda of the election
campaign - even though the next Parliament will have to tackle two fundamental
issues - whether or not to hold a referendum to join the single currency,
and whether the EU should move further towards deeper integration and possibly
political union.
FRANK FIELD MP: The government knows full
well that it can't raise the issue that it will fight the centralising
tendencies in Europe and convince the British people. And the last thing
it will want to try and begin that task, is during a General Election.
CLAUDE MORAES MEP: I think that we can present
a very positive image of Europe. It is very difficult in the current climate,
but it's important for me as an MEP seeing many of the positive things
about Europe, what that offers for the people of this country.
BUONADONNA: The Belgian finance minister,
Didier Reynders, is running late. He leads the finance ministers of the
Euro-zone, the so-called Euro-group. He has a key role in presenting a
positive image of the single currency. He shares Tony Blair's belief that
Europe's economy should be more competitive and flexible and supports the
process of liberalisation which began at the Lisbon summit last year and
has been reviewed at Stockholm.
DIDIER REYNDERS: It's a most important task for,
for the moment. We must go further in structural reforms, liberalisation
and a more efficient organisation for the markets for example.
FRANCIS MAUDE MP: There has been no progress since
Lisbon a year ago, in deregulating and liberalising, it just hasn't happened.
There may be some comforting words at Stockholm, as there were at Lisbon,
words with which we have no difficulty agreeing. What we want is action,
what employers want who are facing constant intervention, constant interference,
constant new red tape from Brussels, they want action, not just words.
BUONADONNA: Mr Reynders supports the efforts
the Swedes have made to create a single market for financial services.
But unlike Britain and Sweden Belgium wants further and faster integration.
Even pro-European Opposition MPs warn that Labour won't be able to get
away with telling just part of the story.
MENZIES CAMPBELL MP: Economic Liberalisation is
very important. It's very important to the success of the single market,
but it is not to be seen on its own. It doesn't stand discreetly apart
from the rest of Europe. It's part of the completion of the single market,
but it's also part of the greater degree of political integration in Europe.
BUONADONNA: Things may have slowed down
in Europe over the last few months but as the Belgians take over the presidency
in the summer, integration will gather speed once more. They want to push
ahead with the social agenda, for instance with new rules to compel employers
to consult their workforce. But as Labour approaches the general election,
it's determined to avoid talking about these issues.
MAUDE: There is a spectacularly
dirty deal done between British government and the German government that
this will be sort of, put off until after the election, so that this difficult
issue for the government won't be addressed until after the election.
Well, we're going to make sure that these issues are properly debated and
are properly understood.
JOHN MONKS: I would like the government
to celebrate what Europe has done for British workers. It's not one that
it puts in the shop window, it's signed the Social Chapter which has facilitated
these things coming on track in Britain. But it doesn't shout too loud
about that because some of the business community don't like it. But actually
it's been a very useful measure. We're proud of what it's done and I hope
Tony Blair would be proud of it too.
BUONADONNA: The British Government was
sympathetic to the plight of the Corus steel workers who last month learnt
about losing their jobs from the media, not the management. But ahead of
the election, it's determined to show business they're resisting attempts
to impose new rules about informing and consulting workers. And Labour
claims that there's now less regulation on business.
FIELD: If the government maintains
in the election or afterwards there's going to be less regulation, they
may believe it but I don't think anybody else in the country will believe
it.
RUTH LEA: I feel very much, when
I hear the social and labour market agenda being discussed in Europe, that,
that our government is either being disingenuous or dishonest, or, there's
some irony about it, because it is quite clear to me that what is happening
with the social agenda in Europe, that we're talking about more, and more,
regulation, you cannot get away from that.
BUONADONNA: But the Belgian vision is not
simply about more social regulation. Together with other continental countries
they have an ambitious blueprint for a European Union where further political
and economic developments go hand in hand.
REYNDERS: I'm sure that it will
be necessary to have a taxation power on the European level, because of
the more, more deeper integration political integration. If, for example
if we are going to directly elect a president of the European Commission,
if we are going to an enlargement of the European Union, if we are going
to more economical co-ordination, it's normal that we have also, for such
a political power, a taxation power.
BUONADONNA: Tony Blair has come to many
summits like this one in Stockholm and has forged good relations with his
European colleagues. But there's a club he still doesn't belong to - the
Euro. And in the next general election he's determined to avoid the issue
as much as he can. The government says that in principle it favours joining
the single currency, and that it will review the economic tests for joining
within two years of re-election, but that's all it wants to say. Many
feel this is unrealistic given the pressure the Opposition will exert and
even hypocritical, as a decision to go for a referendum might be taken
very shortly after the General Election.
MAUDE: It's completely dishonest
and this is a major issue, this is one of the great issues of our era,
political decisions to be made. And the public I think will feel really
offended if Labour try and brush it under the carpet, say, you know, don't
worry about this, it'll all be sorted out later.
GILES RADICE MP: The government strategy
is very clear that it's not going to discuss the Euro in detail at all,
if it can possibly get away with it during the general election. And it's
going to be able to decide in the next Parliament, within two years, whether
or not we should join. It may not be the position that all pro-Europeans
would like. We would probably like to be fighting hard on the issue, but
I don't think that they can be accused of being dishonest.
BUONADONNA: The Euro will reach people's
pockets in just nine months' time but across Europe notes and coins are
being produced right now, not least by the Royal Mint, which is helping
to manufacture coins for nine out of the twelve Euro-zone countries. Some
Labour politicians say the government needs to be forceful about the Euro
during the election to avoid problems later, if it really wants to have
a referendum early in the next Parliament.
MORAES: I can understand why Labour
wouldn't want to raise this issue proactively because it can be misrepresented
and exaggerated by the Opposition. But it is going to be raised by the
Opposition at some point in the election, it will be a campaign issue.
Therefore we should be in a position to talk about it, and to talk about
it positively and present our side of the case. To just leave it after
the election, in a sense, will not give all the positive arguments to combat
the negative mythologies about the Euro that may be propagated by the Opposition.
RADICE: The trouble is, if the
government spends the election being totally defensive on the Euro, and
not explaining in principle why it might be a good thing for the consumer
and business, and so on, I think it will give the Conservatives and anti-Europeans
a kind of - a big advantage - after the general election, so that in the
phase where the government will want to be immediately campaigning on the
issue, they may be somewhat on the back foot.
BUONADONNA: Tony Blair is confident that
he can turn public opinion around quickly after the election. But pro-European
observers are nervous that if the momentum doesn't pick up now, the timetable
might be too narrow to allow Britain to enter within the next parliament.
And Euro-group members warn that with economic integration gathering pace
in the Euro-zone, within a few years it will become much more difficult
for Britain to join.
REYNDERS: I have repeated meeting
after meeting, that it will be possible to have perhaps Mr. or Mrs. Euro
in two or three years. It's not the problem for this time, at the moment.
But after two or three years, we must have a more formal organisation so
if you are waiting more than two or three years it will be perhaps a problem
to be member after, of such an organisation with such a deeper economical
co-ordination.
CAMPBELL: If you're in favour of
something in principle, then surely you should be willing to discuss it
in public? If it's the government's view that it's in Britain's best interests
that we should join the single European currency once convergence has taken
place, then the time to start the argument for the referendum is now, not
in six months time, after the General Election.
BUONADONNA: Tony Blair is hoping that this
may be the last time Europe will take centre stage before the election.
His instincts are to stick to his core issues of the economy, health and
education, rather than play on the ground the Conservatives feel stronger
on. But he might end up looking too defensive on Europe and the Euro, which
could cost him not only votes but also the goal he says he wants to achieve.
HUMPHRYS: Paola Buonadonna reporting there.
By the way we did ask the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, and the Europe
Minister, Keith Vaz, if they wanted to come and talk to us about their
European policies. But they didn't.
That's it for this week.
If you're on the internet don't forget about our web site. Until the
same time next week... good afternoon.
25
FoLdEd
|