|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first however secure
a government may seem it can always be thrown off course by events that
no-one could have foreseen. Such an event, of course, as the foot-and-mouth
outbreak. Tony Blair has been forced to abandon his plans to hold the
elections on May the third, even though that was part of Labour's hope.
One cabinet minister with perhaps more reason than most to regret that,
in a sense, is the Trade and Industry Secretary Stephen Byers and he's
with me.
Mr Byers, it has been
said, I am sure you are one of those ministers, who said it, everybody
seems to have said it, Britain is not closed for business and yet that
is now the message that Tony Blair is delivering with the news that the
election has been postponed.
STEPHEN BYERS MP: Well let's wait to see exactly
what the official statement is, the only elections that have been planned
for May the third were the Local Elections.
HUMPHRYS: ..officially.
BYERS: ..officially planned for
May the third were the Local Elections and if there is a delay I think
it should be a short delay. I don't think it would help if it was postponed
indefinitely. I think that would send out the wrong signal, particularly
adversely effecting the tourist industry. But I think where we are at today,
there has been a drop in people visiting the countryside, going to tourist
attractions, I think we can overcome that with a heavy promotion and publicity
campaign and I think provided that we don't give the signal that things
are in great difficulty and that's why the Local Elections might be delayed
then we can overcome those particular problems.
HUMPHRYS: But it is bound to send
that signal isn't it. I mean one of your colleagues, the Culture Secretary
Chris Smith was saying just yesterday morning and I quote "we must send
the message that Britain..." - "we must not" - I beg your pardon - "we
must not send the message that Britain is somehow closed". So he clearly
wanted the elections to go ahead. I mean have you not been told?
BYERS: I don't think it will send
that message. I think what it will be is that the Prime Minister will want
to consider and he's been listening and he will make a decision as to whether
or not the Local Elections should go ahead on May the third.
HUMPHRYS: He hasn't told you yet?
BYERS: The Prime Minister will,
I think, tell the country whether or not the Local Elections will go ahead
on May the third. I don't know what decision he will take. What I do know
is that the Prime Minister's instincts, both personally and politically
are always to unite and not to divide. And I know that he will put the
national interest ahead of any party political advantage. I know he will
do that and then we will hear what he has got to say in due course.
HUMPHRYS: You say we'll hear what
he's got to say but obviously he or one of his lieutenants, trusted lieutenants
have already told the Political Editor of The Sun and the Political Editor
of the BBC. I mean we know..
BYERS: There's been a lot of speculation
John. If you were to go back a week you'll see people there were predicting
with great certainty it was definitely May the third. We wake up this morning
and people are saying it's definitely going to be...
HUMPHRYS: We work up yesterday
morning to hear The Sun telling us it was definitely not May the third.
BYERS: But a week ago, The Sun
was saying it was May the third so let's wait for the Prime Minister to
make a decision about the Local Elections. The important thing in all of
this though, is first of all to get on top of and contain the foot-and-mouth
disease. It's worth reflecting it's only effecting one per cent of the
livestock but in certain parts of our country, Cumbria and Devon and the
Welsh borders it is clearly having a dramatic effect and it's right that
we should be sensitive to the concerns being expressed by local people
in those areas but not to get it out of proportion because there are large
parts of the country which are simply not effected by the disease.
HUMPHRYS: But one of the reasons
that we have, if we have, got it out of proportion and clearly we have,
is that MAFF, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food led by Nick
Brown got it wrong right at the beginning because they told us "stay away
from the countryside". I mean that was the very very clear message, they
thanked us a few days after that first weekend for not going into the countryside,
that is why tourism has been destroyed. It sends quite a message about
MAFF, the Ministry doesn't it?
BYERS: I think people right at
the very beginning of the disease, recognising how significant it is and
the damage it can cause, were rightly cautious and I think people will
understand that. What if six weeks ago people had just said, well yeah
go to the countryside as normal, then I think John, you'd have been the
first to criticise if the disease had been spread more widely because of
that. What we have been trying to do is to contain the disease and I think
we are now on top of it and that means we are more able now to say yes,
the countryside is open, there are large parts of it which are not effected
at all, there are some areas where you have to be very cautious of course
but to say the countryside is still open for business which it is.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but the point is
that MAFF could have given a more measured warning, that's the point and
the reason that it didn't do that is because as a Ministry it is too narrowly
focussed. It has the interests of only one group of people as its concern
and that is the farmers. Nobody said, what about the rest of rural Britain,
nobody in MAFF said that, Nick Brown didn't say that. The Ministry is concerned
only with the farmers.
BYERS: I go back to the point I
made earlier, I think it's understandable that there is caution, that what
people want to do is to ensure that the disease did not spread rapidly
throughout the country. It was very important to be able to do that because
then by containing it, we can now concentrate in those areas where clearly
it is a very real problem. Had that not happened, then it could have been
actually spread far more widely than it has at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but the result
of the message that they did deliver which was 'don't go anywhere near
the countryside'. The result of that was the rural catastrophe, crisis
that we are now seeing; hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds lost
to businesses in areas that should not have been lost. You sometimes have
to wonder whether anyone really worries about rural Britain.
BYERS: Well they do and that's
why we've put in place some very positive measures to help those businesses
which are effected, not just the farming industry but the tourist industry
as well in particular, giving them help in terms of rate relief, in terms
of help with VAT, with tax, with National Insurance contributions and so
on. All of those measures are now in place, not just restricted to the
farming industry but to the whole of the rural industry which has been
effected.
HUMPHRYS: But that - those are
crisis measures aren't they and if you look at the broader picture, we
learned just Friday or Saturday that the Rural Affairs Committee, set up
to co-ordinate the government's policies effecting rural areas has met
only once since it was set up and that's a year ago. You're a member of
the committee, so you'll know about that.
BYERS: Well I am, it's a really
old fashioned way of looking at things, that you have to get people together
to sit around a table...
HUMPHRYS: ..that's how things are
done in Whitehall..
BYERS: Not with new technology,
not with being able to communicate with each other and the important thing
is there are a group of Cabinet Ministers that have responsibility for
the rural community, we communicate, we deal with each other, we meet occasionally,
we meet in cabinet and that's the way in which we can deal with things.
It is a very old fashioned way of looking at matters, a very BBC view John,
to look at committee structures as being the way forward.
HUMPHRYS: We've cut some of our
meetings, so I'm told, I don't go to any meetings so I wouldn't know...
BYERS: I think there is a better
way of doing it which is making sure there is a dedicated group of Cabinet
Ministers that have issues of rural concern as a priority and we do that
and we communicate with other.
HUMPHRYS: Is it not necessary to
get together occasionally, to say look, how are we doing and what's happening
here and what's happening there, and this is a very important committee?
BYERS: We do, we do. We meet in
cabinet, we talk about things there, we can talk on the margins of those
meetings. We have formal meetings occasionally, we've had a rural White
Paper. You know, we're addressing the real concerns. My own department
is doing lots of work establishing small businesses, helping the Post Office
network in rural communities. There's a lot that we're doing, there is
a shared agenda, and we're working actually in a very coherent way.
HUMPHRYS: Isn't the reality, and
I hardly expect you to say this, loyalty apart from anything else would
prevent you from doing so, but that MAFF, the ministry is a disaster area?
No matter who you speak to who used to work there - clearly people who
are there at the moment say "Oh no, it's doing a fine job" as you'd expect.
But the people who used to run the ministry almost invariably say "It's
bonkers to have this ministry still in two-thousand and one. Let's close
it down, let's fold the whole thing up and let's put its responsibility
into your department".
BYERS: Thanks very much.
HUMPHRYS: Well, there you go, if
you've got not enough to do, the Department of Trade and Industry, but
realistically that's where it ought to be, didn't it?
BYERS: I'm not sure this is the
right time to look at, you know, ......
HUMPHRYS: Possibly not.
BYERS: But the important thing
is to get on top of foot- and-mouth disease. Now we're containing it,
the National Farmers Union has said that the overriding policy I now right,
we are getting on top of it. We need to contain and eradicate it. I have
to say it's a terrible distraction to begin a debate now about the future
of MAFF.
HUMPHRYS: Well, except that it
does get to the heart of the thing doesn't it. I mean if you look at farming
now, we making a great fuss about foot-and -mouth, and quite rightly too
most people would say, because of the suffering that it is causing many
farmers and of course the animals themselves. But farming is a relatively
small industry in terms of the total economy. Looking at some figures
it's about point nine per cent. If you look at your budget, if you look
at your budget comparing it with MAFF, MAFF spends if you take out the
CAP and all those subsidies about one-point-three billion pounds, you spend
if you take out subsidies and things about one-point-four billion pounds.
That is manifestly crazy. Agriculture nought-point-nine per cent of the
GDP, manufacturing alone, apart from all the other responsibilities you've
had, eighteen-point-eight billion pounds. I mean it is silly isn't it.?
BYERS: Well, it's silly to get
to a situation where we have industries which are dependent upon subsidies,
and that's one of the very important.....
HUMPHRYS: Yes, but putting that
aside, ...
BYERS: The question you're raising
John, I think we've got to get to a situation where for example we reform
CAP, which is at the crux of many of the problems that we face not just
in the United Kingdom, but throughout Europe as well, and that's a top
priority to see changes there, because it would open up a whole round of
new trade negotiations world-wide for example, which would really benefit
British industry more generally. So we do need to look at the whole sort
of subsidy culture and I do think that farming has a very important role
to play within the United Kingdom and we should always recognise that.
Now, there will be changes and there's been some very progressive work
which we've been doing with the National Farmers Union in particular to
identify a new agenda and new way forward as far as farming is concerned.
But remember a year ago, farming was facing very real difficulties and
the first priority was to make sure that we could turn the corner as far
as farming was concerned, and indeed if you look at the figures up until
the turn of the year and indeed the first six weeks of this year all the
indications were that farming was on the up, that we had indeed turned
the corner, that the measures we'd put in place were working, and working
well, and then suddenly we got foot-and-mouth, and now we have to deal
with the consequences of that. That really has to be the top priority
for any government at the present time.
HUMPHRYS: And clearly the bigger
questions are going to be raised after the election as you suggest, but
your own position in this might be difficult might it, .this is why I raised
the point right at the beginning of this interview about delays, the delay
in the election having some knock-on effect. As far as your own position
is concerned it has been called into question because of the allegations
that were made in a book by Tom Bower over the way your department handled
the inquiry into the business affairs of Mr Robinson, Geoffrey Robinson.
You have threatened to sue the Daily Mail and the publishers of the book
as a result of those allegations. Have you issued the writ yet?
BYERS: Well, the allegations weren't
about my department. They were about my own personal conduct. They were
very serious because what they did say was that I received a report into
the activities of companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson, and when
I got that report I looked at it and I deliberately decided, to quote Tom
Bower, " to bury it, to suppress it and to deny it to parliament". That
is totally untrue, and what did happen for the record is that two weeks
after I was appointed to Secretary of State for Trade and Industry I received
advice from my Permanent Secretary Sir Michael Scholar saying that in his
view I should rule myself out of dealing with any business activities,
any investigation into companies associated with Geoffrey Robinson. I
took that advice and as a result I saw none of the documents and none of
the papers, and so I didn't see a report, therefore I was in no position
to deny it to parliament.
HUMPHRYS: Let me come back to that
in just a second if I may, but repeat the question. Have you received
a writ yet?
BYERS: No, what happens is if
you've been involved in this sort of process John, you will know that you
have to give the person making the allegation that I believe to be defamatory
the opportunity of an apology and a retraction.
HUMPHRYS: And they've said no.
Absolutely no, the Mail has said over and over again "He can whistle!"
BYERS: Well, there are letters
going between lawyers at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: So you have asked for
that apology?
BYERS: Yes I have.
HUMPHRYS: And the Mail has made
it perfectly clear that you're not going to get it. They've sent letters
back to you presumably.
BYERS: Well, there are still letters
going between lawyers as they do.
HUMPHRYS: Right., so if you do
not get that apology, because it's now a fortnight we're talking about
isn't it - if you do not get that apology you will proceed with the writ?
BYERS: Well, a fortnight is not
long in these matters, and I have apparently up to three years to bring
any action against the Daily Mail, so let's see what happens. I hope that
when the Daily Mail can see exactly what the sequence of events were that
they will recognise that what they said and what they printed wasn't accurate,
and they would feel able to say, put in the retraction and say sorry we
got this wrong.
HUMPHRYS: And just to be quite
clear about this, in the absence of a retraction from the Daily Mail within
a reasonable period, I mean clearly you're not going to wait three years
even if you could wait three years. If the Daily Mail does not issue a
retraction you will definitely issue a writ. Is that the situation?
BYERS: I hope it doesn't come to
that, but if it has to be the case then yes, that will be so.
HUMPHRYS: Because you'd have to
really wouldn't you. I mean not to issue a writ having made the threat
would be damaging, very damaging for you.
BYERS: It's not that so much.
I just want the record to be put straight, and I can understand why the
mistake was made, because all of the information would have led Tom Bower
to believe that I was actually involved in the investigation and was seeing
all the papers, which is why I think he.....
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
BYERS: ...he came to the conclusion
he did. That wasn't the case, and so all that I want really is for the
Daily Mail and for Tom Bower - he's a very good reporter - to actually
say: Look we got this wrong, we're sorry, and the true facts are that Byers
just didn't know of the investigation, didn't see the report.
HUMPHRYS: Right, well let's have
a little look at that then and forget about you being involved in the investigation
itself. Of course, you weren't involved in the investigation, nobody believes
that...
BYERS: ...I'm glad to hear it.
HUMPHRYS: ...as Sir Michael Scholar
- well, involved in the investigation itself. But now let's look at the
sequence of events that followed the publication of that report. You've
said that your department had absolutely nothing to do with the decision
as to whether that report was published. That you had nothing to do with
the decision as to whether that report was published because it was published
under Section 447 of the Companies Act. But, and this is an important point
it seems to many people, there were exemptions available to you, you could
have published, the fact is, that many people believe that your department
did not want to publish it, you didn't want to publish it because it would
have been embarrassing for the government, given what it contained.
BYERS: No, well actually you're
making a fundamental mistake of first of all believing that somehow politicians
decided what sort of investigation was to be carried out...
HUMPHRYS: ...no, I've already moved
past of the point of the investigation to the point of the publication
of the report.
BYERS: Right, so we're clear then,
that it was a decision by civil servants to conduct an investigation under
Section 447 of the Companies Act, which was the case, so let's be clear
about that. They decided it should be a Section 447 investigation, which
is the norm in this sort of situation, to be honest and my department conducts
between two hundred and three hundred such investigations every year.
They find out certain things during the course of that investigation.
In the light of that, they decide, without reference to any politicians,
that Geoffrey Robinson or his solicitors, can be informed that no further
action would be taken, because they didn't find out anything during the
course of those investigations, that they felt warranted any further action
to occur.
HUMPHRYS: Well, that really is
the nub of it, isn't there, I mean the fact is what Tom Bower reported
was that they had found an invoice, a signed invoice which proved, he says,
that Mr Robinson was not only paid a large sum of money, two-hundred-thousand
pounds but also solicited that money from Robert Maxwell. Now he was,
at the time of this publication, a government minister and he had said
that he had not solicited or received that money. That is a very substantial
difference isn't it?
BYERS: It's a very substantial
and significant allegation and I think the important thing, going back
to what can be published and what can't be published, is that an investigation
under Section 447 of the Companies Act, is covered by a prohibition under
Section 449...
HUMPHRYS: ...except that there
are strictly defined circumstances under which...
BYERS: ...which allows publication.
HUMPHRYS: That's right and can
I just, for the benefit of the viewer, point out that they say that under
those gateways, as you say, they can be published, results of an enquiry
can, such an enquiry can be published, relating and I quote "to discharge
by a public servant of his duty". Now in this case, there is no question
that Geoffrey Robinson was a public servant and there is no question that
when we talk about his duty, it is the duty of a minister not to lie to
Parliament. So there were very clear areas here that would have allowed
you, had you so wished, to say to Sir Michael Scholar, I want that report
published.
BYERS: No because I'd ruled myself
out of consideration of the matter and that's the very important thing
to realise. I didn't see any report or any consequences of the investigation
because if you rule yourself out the investigation, then you are ruled
out of it. You can't then dip back in and say, oh by the way Sir Michael,
can I have a quick look at the report and how it's proceeding...
HUMPHRYS: ...but you made a statement
to MPs. You told MPs in a written answer, there has been a thorough inquiry
in line with the procedures. Well difficult to see how you could have
known that there had been a thorough inquiry in line with procedures if
you'd not even read the report.
BYERS: Well, I have to reply to
Parliament. Officials cannot do that and it's my responsibility to inform
Parliament and what I sought to do was to be as open as possible, with
the advice that I had received without seeing the details of the investigation...
HUMPHRYS: ...so Sir Michael Scholar
then, so Sir Michael Scholar should have raised the point that I've just
made, should have exploited this exemption because here we had a public
servant being involved. Sir Michael Scholar should have come to you and
said, look minister, this is a very serious matter. This is what this
investigation has turned up.
BYERS: Well the decision taken
was that Section 449 meant that there was a prohibition on publication
but what I can say John, is...
HUMPHRYS: ...except in those circumstances
that I've pointed out...
BYERS: ...well there's a list of
them and there is a counter view to say that the prohibition applies to
the information that was achieved even in these circumstances. But what
is important I think at this stage is that the Parliamentary Commissioner,
who has now begun a further investigation into the activities of Geoffrey
Robinson, should be provided with all of the relevant information. Now
there is a problem as far as what my department discovered from the Section
447 investigation because we believe, and the department believes that
it's covered by a prohibition under Section 449, so what we've been trying
to do is to find another way in which the information can be obtained and
provided to the Parliamentary Commissioner and what we've indicated to
her during the course of last week and I'll be saying this actually tomorrow
more formally, is that there are other ways in which the information can
be obtained by her without falling foul of the restrictions under Section
449.
HUMPHRYS: So to be quite clear
of this, you will provide, you and your department, will provide Elizabeth
Filkin with all the material that she needs properly to look into this
herself.
BYERS: What we've done is to provide
her with the sources of the information that we received during the investigation.
Those sources are not constrained by Section 449 of the Companies Act.
HUMPHRYS: And you will encourage
them to tell her what they told the inquiry?
BYERS: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: So she will have every
bit of information that was available to that inquiry?
BYERS: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: And you, as the Secretary
of State, want her, I take it now, knowing what we now know, to conduct
a full and thorough investigation.
BYERS: Well, the Parliamentary
Standards body has already said that and that's why they've restarted the
investigation, so she's already been charged by the committee of MPs to
do this. My responsibility I felt, was to make sure that she did have
the relevant information. We are constrained by Section 449 but if we
can find another avenue which allows her to receive the information, then
I think we are doing the appropriate thing, we've managed to do that and
the information will be there for her.
HUMPHRYS: Let me move onto a completely
different area and that is the Euro, this is...we are also moving around
a little bit there. The postponement of the election means that it's going
to knock that whole process back, doesn't it, whether we are going to have
ultimately, whether we are going to have a referendum. The longer the delay
in the election, the greater the need to start assessing those five tests
that Gordon Brown has laid out, the greater the need to get that going
quickly, as far as you're concerned because we all know that you're a pro-Euro
minister, as a guess...
BYERS: ...I'm very pragmatic about
the single currency. I think the policy we have is the one which is absolutely
right. We can see the benefits of joining a successful single currency
in terms of trade, transparency of cost and currency stability but those
five economic tests have to be met. It's got to be in the national interest
and in all of this and whether it's in relation to whether or not the local
elections should be postponed or whether it's in relation to the single
currency, the national interest has to be put first all the time and I've
got no doubt that's what we will do when we come to look at the single
currency and the Prime Minister will do as he looks at whether or not to
postpone the Local Elections.
HUMPHRYS: ...one of the problems
with the strength of the pound, the weakness of the Euro, however you want
to look at it and the relationship between them is what the effect it has
on manufacturing industry. Peter Mandelson wants a referendum for regional....regionally
elected assembly for the North East which is of course your area as well,
our region must grasp the opportunity for constitutional reform, he says,
do you agree with him on that?
BYERS: I am pleased that Peter
has entered the debate about regional policy. I think it's very important,
first of all to have an active regional industrial policy, so that all
of our regions can share in the prosperity that we are seeing down here
in London and the South East and that isn't the case at the moment. So...
HUMPHRYS: But a regional assembly,
an elected assembly.
BYERS: In terms of the structure,
I think local people should determine this themselves. I think there has
to be a degree of accountability. We are giving more powers, we are giving
more resources to the regional development agencies.
HUMPHRYS: So you'd favour a referendum
then?
BYERS: I think we should find
a way. I'm not - whether it has to be a referendum or if there's some other
method then I think we do need to look at that. But we also need to look
at the structures that will flow from it, whether we then have to move
to a unitary system of regional government or local government as well
is something I think we will need to address.
HUMPHRYS: Stephen Byers, thanks
very much indeed.
|