|
====================================================================================
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:
06.05.01
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Remember
Blair's Babes and how they were going to change the face of British politics?
Well, they haven't and there will be fewer of them next time. I'll be
asking the Minister for women Baroness Jay, what Labour is going to do
about it. And can local politics help the Tories where national issues
have not. I'll be asking their environment spokesman Archie Norman. All
that and more after the news read by George Alagiah.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: General Election or not June
7th is the date for the local elections and later in the programme I'll
be asking if local issues could help the Tories out of the hole they are
in . And we'll be looking at the European Socialists agenda for a federal
Europe.
But first, women
in parliament. There are more of them now than there have ever been before.
And most are members of the Labour Party. That's because of the last
election of course. But there will be fewer after the next election and
that is an entirely safe prediction because fewer women have been selected
to fight in seats they've any real chance of winning. And that has upset
a lot of people because they say it will affect what Labour does for women
if it returns to power. There's growing pressure to change the rules so
it doesn't happen again. I'll be talking to Margaret Jay the minister
for women after that, about that, after this report from Paul Wilenius.
EXTRACT FROM BRIDGET JONES DIARY
PAUL WILENIUS: The first resolution in
Bridget Jones's diary is about love. But for some, romance takes a difference
form. For Jane Griffiths it all began with her election victory four years
ago.
JANE GRIFFITHS MP: I shall never forget it. What
we saw was the Blair's babes photo which has become a kind of icon and
we will all be in there forever, and we will never be able to lose it,
it's really quite difficult sometimes.
WILENIUS: But that line up of more
than one-hundred Labour women MPs was only possible because so many had
been selected from women only shortlists. Jane, visiting a retro fashion
store in Reading, hoped this would usher in a new age for women in politics.
Although Labour's policies on childcare, maternity leave and the minimum
wage have benefited women, with others she's having "negative thoughts"
about the future.
ACTUALITY: Get a bit closer.
WILENIUS: But instead of getting
closer to a target of more than three-hundred women in Parliament, Jane
fears it's moving further away. Like our eponymous author would say, it's
very, very, bad.
The fictional Bridget Jones spends much of her time in places like this,
worrying about the lack of men in her life. But for real life Labour women
MPs, the big problem is there's are far too many. And with so few women
selected in safe seats, after the next election, there's no doubt there'll
be even more men back in Westminster.
OONA KING MP: I'm desperately worried that
after the next election there'll be fewer women, I know there will be fewer
women and I know how shocking it is to me - deeply shocking, when I sit
in the Chamber sometimes and there are say, forty MP's in that Chamber
and I'm the only woman sitting there and I sometimes feel like going, hey,
has anybody noticed, there's thirty-nine men here and one woman, you know,
where are the women?
WILENIUS: When it comes to politics,
not everyone will be glad that Parliament, the government and Whitehall
will still be awash with men.
The high hopes of many women that full equality could have been achieved
quickly have been swept away, partly by Labour's male dominated trade unions,
which have continued to influence many selections.
GLENYS KINNOCK MEP: I don't think the unions are
necessarily making a concerted effort to exclude women, but what you do
see is that very often the people that they will promote will be male members
of the union because the unions tend to be dominated by, by men, and if
their interest has been in having that kind of representation, and in many
ways it's been, you know, if you like, a kind of reward for the contribution
perhaps, I don't know.
WILENIUS: This means the worst
fears of women Labour MPs like Jane, here snatching coffee in Reading station
with her assistant, have now been realised. Women only shortlists were
first brought in by John Smith, but were banned by the courts before the
last election. Now Jane feels the only way forward is to change the law
to bring them back. Many more Labour MPs would back such a move. But there
are also powerful men in the Labour movement who support such action.
JOHN EDMONDS: I think the law ought to
be changed, the law ought to reflect the aspirations of society and the
aspiration of society I think is to have a House of Commons which about
reflects the population, about half men and half women.
GWYNETH DUNWOODY MP: There is a problem with changing the
law because if you say the law says everybody is equal but, when I say
you are not equal you are not equal, firstly it is difficult to write a
law like that and secondly it is difficult to make it stick. There are
still going to be vacancies and I hope they are all going to be filled
by bright women. But that is a matter for those who decide to parachute
in candidates at the last moment.
WILENIUS: The arrival of so many
women MPs like Jane in Parliament was expected to radically change the
culture of Westminster and Whitehall. They travelled hopefully expecting
new opportunities, through modernisation and reform of the old system.
A system which many female MPs feel is male dominated, like a Boy's Club,
working against women intent on making a political journey.
JANE GRIFFITHS; I think there's an issue
for people with families, with young children especially, but I really
think that modernisation is important really for its own sake, we are a
twenty-first century government, fifth largest economy in the world, but
we're operating our parliament still in an eighteenth century kind of way
and I think that's wrong.
WILENIUS: But radical reform of
the Commons has been effectively derailed. Women MPs have more difficulty
than most balancing their lives. Even so they've not yet managed to convince
all of their fellow Labour women that Parliament should be changed to accommodate
them.
DUNWOODY: Frankly when I came in here I
was determined to go in anywhere where I was told women weren't allowed,
because there were all these unwritten rules, you didn't go in the smoking
room, you didn't do this, you didn't do that, any women that allows herself
to be deflected by that is really not capable of doing the job and shouldn't
be here.
WILENIUS: But there are women now
in the corridors of power who feel it is a great disappointment that modernisation
has been so slow, and that this has led to some women quitting as MPs and
is putting others off politics altogether. They believe Westminster is
lagging behind other Parliaments in Britain and across the world, and the
attempt to get more women interested in politics is being blocked.
JOAN RUDDOCK MP: The public believe we are crazy
to stay here until midnight, night after night, wearing ourselves out and
frankly not making the best decisions as a consequence.
KING: The Modernisation
Committee came up with proposals and they have succeeded in preventing
us being here through the night, the quid pro quo, 'cos you've got to remember
that's all politics ever is, is that our average time now approximately,
our finishing time, has gone from ten-thirty pm was the average time when
we finished, to now, it's eleven-thirty pm is the average time, and that
just sums up the House of Commons in a nutshell, to take a tiny step forward
it took us three years to come up with a proposal that means on average
we go home an hour later.
WILENIUS: Harriet Harman - sacked.
Mo Mowlam - sidelined and quitting. Baroness Jay - moving on. Betty Boothroyd
- bowing out.
ACTUALITY
BETTY BOOTHROYD: Time's up.
WILENIUS: The hole left by the
loss of such high profile Labour women will be hard to fill, so the government's
under pressure to do more to help women MPs to succeed.
KINNOCK: There are certain women
that have been in parliament, women like Betty Boothroyd and Mo Mowlam
in particular probably, who people have identified, women have liked because
they're strong, because they make their mark and they have really you know,
good extrovert personalities and that's gone down very well. But there
are other women, and those other women can build up I think a similar standing.
And we do need them to be there.
WILENIUS: If he wins the next election
in a month's time, Tony Blair will come under pressure to promote more
women to his Cabinet and government. Many Labour MPs are also ready to
resist any moves to scrap the Women's Unit, or even abolish the post of
Women's Minister.
When Jane and Labour arrived in power they set up a Women's Unit to co-ordinate
the work of all departments to give all women a better deal. But there's
now speculation that it will be replaced with an Equalities Unit. This
would be highly controversial.
KINNOCK: I would feel very concerned
if a decision was taken to abolish a women's unit. To assume that it isn't
necessary to have units which focuses entirely on women's issues as they
are represented through every department of government.
Having a women's minister has always been very important for us in the
Labour party, and all those dark days of Thatcherism, we used to dream
of having a women's minister, and is important and we should not lose sight
of the fact of having an individual with people working with her, who is
able to look after women's interests.
DUNWOODY: I've always believed that the
best way to control what goes on in individual departments is to have some
very bright woman at a very senior level watching everything that goes
on, not just the things that are referred to the women's unit. And I don't
believe it is a good idea to have a central unit charged with just one
very narrow responsibility.
WILENIUS: This is about as romantic
as it gets. Dinner in the new Portcullis House Parliament building. Jane
and her husband Andrew, hope Labour's love affair with the voters will
survive through the delivery of popular policies. Women were decisive in
giving Tony Blair and Jane victory in nineteen-ninety-seven.
ACTUALITY: Bleep....
WILENIUS: But polling evidence
shows that women are more likely to be dissatisfied with the government's
performance than men.
JESSICA ELLGOOD: Amongst men, the balance of opinion
is minus seven, ie minus seven points they're more likely to be dissatisfied
with the government's performance, among women it drops to minus twenty-one,
it's the real difference in how the different sexes perceive the government's
record.
EDMONDS: Frankly the long term
political dangers are for any party that looks as if its representatives
are very different from the population at large. Now at the moment Labour
has got less of that problem than the Tories, but Labour ought to do better.
I mean it's Labour which is the reforming party, it's Labour which is
trying to push forward the barriers, push them out of the way to women,
so Labour has got a real leadership role here.
GRIFFITHS: The hours are quite
ridiculous, I cannot see why we should have to be voting on really important
matters at ten, eleven, twelve o'clock, later, into the small hours sometimes.
WILENIUS: Another late night for
Jane, but it's not a calorie and Chardonnay fest, as seen in Bridget Jones
diary. It's just being there at all hours and voting through the government's
policies, which she also believes must be sensitive to the needs of women.
RUDDOCK: If the government doesn't
continue to deliver for women then I think of course ultimately we'll pay
the political price, because women will not vote for a government that
they do not see representing their interests, we've done so so far, but
we need to keep doing it.
KINNOCK: It is women who all the
polling consistently shows that it's women, it's often young women as a
recent poll showed, who are disaffected, who do feel that politicians are
not speaking to them, who are not interested in their particular problems,
or their particular sensitivities or interests.
WILENIUS: The big question over
the next month, is do the women voters still fancy Tony Blair enough to
give him another term in office. But for Jane and other women Labour MPs
there's more, they won't ever really be able to relax until they're sure
the long term political battle for women's equality in Parliament, is finally
won and a lot more men are shown the door.
HUMPHRYS: Paul Wilenius reporting there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Margaret Jay, Oona King
is shocked that there are not more women in Parliament. There are going
to be one or two fewer in the next Parliament if the election goes the
way we expect it to go. Are you shocked as well, not just because there
will be fewer women but because less will be done for women as a result
of it?
BARONESS JAY: I don't think that less will
be done for women and without starting to niggle about the figures it actually
is I think at the moment probably only going to be one less woman on the
safe seats but we don't of course know when the election will be called
and we don't know what the result will be.
HUMPHRYS: You wanted more afterall,
not fewer,
JAY: Certainly, but there
are about fifty women in Labour seats, in Labour constituencies, who if
the polls are anything like they were last week might indeed win seats.
So I don't think we need to be too pessimistic. We're not talking about
a huge cull of women MPs, but you are right there may well be fewer and
that is a bad thing.
HUMPHRYS: And why haven't you done
something to make sure that there are more not fewer.
JAY: Well I can announce
today, confirm today because there has been speculation about it, that
we will make a manifesto commitment to change the law if we win the next
election, to allow political parties to make a change which will enable
them to be positive in their selection of women.
HUMPHRYS: Now, that means you did
try at one stage to have all women shortlists, you couldn't go ahead with
it because the law said you couldn't discriminate in that way. What you
are talking about is passing legislation that would make that possible
- all women shortlists, or something like that.
JAY: That's right because
the problem was with the previous arrangement is that it ran foul of the
employment law. This would be a change, we hope, in the electoral law,
which would, as I say, allow parties to make that choice, to take positive
action to have more women candidates. That's something which happens across
Europe in a great many political parties, so we feel much more confident
that that wouldn't be subject to a successful legal challenge.
HUMPHRYS: So why haven't you done
it already?
JAY: Because frankly it's
taken some time to sort this out. The Home Office has been working on this
in its election law, part of its operation, for some time and we are now
pretty convinced that we can do it and personally I am very keen that we
do work on that procedure early in the new Parliament, if we are the Government
in the new Parliament, so that it will be possible to have a new system
before the next round of selections is made.
HUMPHRYS: Right, so it's going
to be in the manifesto and you believe that it will happen early in the
new Parliament?
JAY: Well I would very
much hope so because I think as we heard in the film, the thing that's
frustrating people is the process of selection and as we know selection
goes on throughout a Parliament so I would hope it would be possible to
make a change in time for there to be future selections made on a new basis.
And of course this would apply right across the board. It wouldn't just
be for the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, there are quite a number
interestingly, of prominent Conservative women who believe that the system
needs to be changed and so it would be up to the individual political parties
to make that choice and in the Labour Party's case it would go to the National
Executive Committee and they would make a recommendation to the Party Conference
about how they thought it most sensible to go ahead but all women shortlists
might well be the way.
HUMPHRYS: Would you like to get
it done in time for the elections in Scotland and Wales which I think are
next year aren't they?
JAY: Well as I say, I won't
be in the next government if it is a Labour government, as I have already
said that I am stepping down but my personal view is that we should try
to push ahead with this as quickly as we can.
HUMPHRYS: So that will help in
future, presumably. But
what you could have done, even though you didn't have the law to enable
you to do it this time, what you could have done, was you could when, you
are as they say, parachuting candidates in, that's to say you have a seat
where the Labour candidate is standing down, a safe seat perhaps, you have
to replace him with somebody, you could have said, as a party, we are going
to parachute in lots of women. You didn't do that, you're not doing
that from what we hear, what you're doing is you're going to parachute
in a lot of men.
JAY: Well parachuting is
a particular issue which happens in a very tight little window in the context
of an election having been called probably, so we're talking about a speculative
period...
HUMPHRYS: ...we've had all sorts
of names drifting across the radar and none of them is women.
JAY: Well one of the problems
I think has been and I think we should be absolutely frank about this,
I think that we had hoped was that given the success of the all women shortlists
procedure before the '97 election, that somehow the culture of selection
might change, it might buy a process of just changing attitudes, you heard
Glenys Kinnock talking about that in the film and also John Edmonds, so
there might be a slight change of approach. It hasn't frankly happened
as quickly as we'd hoped and that's why we went back to look at the law,
we were concerned about the problems of the employment law and the Sex
Discrimination Act and that's why we've taken the different approach of
trying to get into this through the election law in a way which we are
pretty sure will be foolproof even at the European level.
HUMPHRYS: So what you are saying
is that you are having to railroad this through a reluctant party, at least
not a reluctant party at your level perhaps but a reluctant party at constituency
level. I mean if you say that the culture hasn't changed, which it manifestly
hasn't, then you are going to have to push this through, that's really
what's happening isn't it.
JAY: Well I think, as I
said, that this will be up to the Party Conference to make the decision
about whether or not it wants this change. As I said,
this is all about choice, this is all about political parties having the
ability to make these decisions, this is not about railroading or imposing,
it's not about the Labour Party imposing a system on its self or indeed
on other parties. But the law will be changed so that the parties can make
the choice to take that positive action and I think that's the change that
I certainly want to see happen as quickly as possible.
HUMPHRYS: You could send quite
a strong signal couldn't you by parachuting in - to use that silly phrase
- a few women over the next few weeks, few days and weeks maybe if we are
going to get the election called on Tuesday. Aren't you going to be seeing
Mr Blair, presumably tomorrow, when he has his emergency special Cabinet..
JAY: ...emergency political...
HUMPHRYS: ..political Cabinet meeting
- quite so. Are you going to tell him that, are you going to say why don't
we do this then Tony?
JAY: I expect that what
we are going to be doing at that Cabinet is talking about a number of the
issues which do effect women. I mean they effect the whole of the electorate
but they will be the ones that are about the economy, they will be the
ones about the way in which we are going to improve public services still
faster because I thought it was interesting in the film, that you were
noting that some women were dissatisfied with the rate of progress and
I think we are absolutely clear that we do need to make faster progress
on public services and certainly I know from my experience that women are
the ones who tend to be the ones with the children at the school gate,
or taking the kids to the GP or whatever, they are the ones that see progress
or you know, not as fast as they might wish on the ground and that's certainly
something that I am sure the focus of the political Cabinet will be. The
strength of the economy and then the ability to improve the public services.
HUMPHRYS: But you might raise this
question of parachuting in some women - on top of all that.
JAY: I think the question
of parachuting people in is something which the party always decides. I
don't like that expression myself, I think what we need to do is to change
the system so that we build on the strengths that we've got in Parliament,
of the numbers of women that we have there and don't let's get too depressed
I think on the latest calculation it was only one fewer likely in the next
Parliament, not a good state but not a devastating result.
HUMPHRYS: But you wanted more rather
than fewer.
JAY: Yes exactly.
HUMPHRYS: Let's look at the other
issue that was raised in Paul Wilenius's film and that's the reform of
Parliament.
JAY: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: And the reform of the
House of Commons in particular.
JAY: I feel very strongly
about that but of course I'm in the House of Lords...
HUMPHRYS: ...you're in the House
of Lords where things are no better, if not worse, apparently...
JAY: ...well I would certainly
say they weren't better, no indeed and we've had some debates and discussions
in the House of Lords about whether you could make it more family friendly,
as the jargon goes, you know, have changes in the rules and regulations,
maybe even we suggested, you could have some form of child care because
although people think of the House of Lords as being exclusively elderly
men, there are actually quite a few women there, mainly on the Labour side
who've got school-age children, for example. I have to say for me, the
discussion was characterised by one quite young Tory MP..Peer sorry, not
MP, one young Tory Peer who got up and said he thought it would actually
make life simpler if instead of having child care, we had a kennel.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, I think the word
unreconstructive comes to mind there, unless he was joking of course...
JAY: ...well he may well
have been joking, but it was quite interesting...
HUMPHRYS: ...give him the benefit
of the doubt. But let's go back to the House of Commons which is where
this really matters. I mean, you promised reforms to make the House of
Commons more friendly for women, it hasn't happened. I mean there had
been some changes certainly, but not enough to satisfy the women who are
there.
JAY: I think that's right.
You heard the women in the House of Commons expressing that very clearly
and of course I wouldn't want to speak for them, but I was actually last
week at the Scottish Parliament, where they have made enormous changes,
they've got these days for working between nine-thirty and sixish in the
evening, you know, talking to David Steel, for example who's the equivalent
of the Speaker there, he said, they very rarely have sittings after seven
o'clock in the evening, how sensible and also they do
mark their vacations, the sessions that they have, by very closely relating
them to school holidays. I don't think anybody's complaining that they're
less serious, or less active in scrutinising their legislation than we
are.
Of course in the House
of Lords we do have an additional twist to this, which is that a lot of
people, because it isn't a paid house, it's still a part-time house in
that sense, do have jobs, so we would have to think about that a bit but
there's no reason why the overall hours shouldn't be altered in some way.
HUMPHRYS: So, as far as the House
of Commons is concerned you would like to see them copy what's done in
Scotland?
JAY: Well, I, it's not
for me as a non-member of the House of Commons to speak about their rules
and regulations...
HUMPHRYS: ...sure, but I mean as
a ...
JAY: ...I think listening
to those women MPs and listening to colleagues that I've talked to a great
deal, there is a lot to be said for the Scottish way of doing things.
The Scottish Parliament has sorted it for themselves and as I said, when
I visited there last week, it didn't seem that the end of the world had
come because they met at civilised hours. And I tell you one thing that
is rather peculiar, you know, as a Women's Minister and my colleague, Tessa
Jowell, who's in the Commons, and is the other Women's minister, and I
do this a lot, we go around the country talking to businesses, talking
to employers, about making work time more flexible for their women employees,
making it more family friendly, and you know, we then look at our watches
and say, oh, so sorry, I've got to go back and vote now, nine o'clock in
the evening, or whatever it is, and they raise their eyebrows and think,
well what's she talking about? And of course, you do feel on slightly
strange ground.
HUMPHRYS: What about the Women's
Minister, you talk about yourself as Women's Minister of course, we were
promised, the nation was promised, in your manifestos in 1983, 1987, 1992,
that there would be a Women's Minister, a women's ministry, the minister
would be in the Cabinet. Now that disappeared from the '97 manifesto.
The Women's Minister, not in the cabinet, now even that...
JAY: ...I'm in the Cabinet...
HUMPHRYS: ...yes, yes but Tessa
Jowell isn't in the Cabinet. She's in the House of Commons...
JAY: Ah, no but that's
as I say, we're a good job-share, we share the job very effectively.
HUMPHRYS: Well, true, but it isn't
quite what people had in mind was it? And we now understand, tell me if
this is true or not, the whole thing is now going to be watered down, the
Women's Unit is going to go the way...
JAY: Well, the Women's
Unit is, I think, very effective, precisely because it is a cross-government
body. It isn't shut off in one ministry and I think this is where the
thinking changed in the eighties and the nineties, quite rightly in my
view, that if you have a Cabinet Office unit in the way that we have at
the moment, we can operate right across government and we can represent
views on every single committee because we sit on half a dozen of them
each, and make those representations, and it's been pretty effective when
you look at the changes that have been made, in things like maternity pay
and parental leave, those kind of things. But there is an issue, I think,
about whether or not, that particular form of doing things needs to be
set in concrete, and certainly I believe that you have to look at things
as they evolve, but the Prime Minister of course it's up to him how he
decides to dispose people and units and so on after the election if we
win the election. But
of course he has been on record quite recently in correspondence with
the Women's National Commission, saying that a women's..or unit which specifically
represents the interests of women across government will be still there.
HUMPHRYS: Ah, as a women's unit,
not just as some sort of equality unit.
JAY: Well, I think as I
say, that these things are not fixed in concrete, but he has, as I say,
committed himself firmly to the idea that a unit representing women's interests
across government will be still there. I really can't speak further than
that because again, I have to plead that as I will not be in the government
myself...
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, sure.
JAY: ...it is up to the
Prime Minister to decide precisely how this happens. But in my view, women's
interests will continue to be extremely well represented. I mean, after
all, if you think there are twenty-nine, or is it thirty now, women ministers
in every significant department who do carry all that message forward,
that the Women's Minister chairs a sub-committee of the Cabinet which looks
after these issues specifically, I don't think anybody can say that those
issues have not been well represented and it's my view they will continue
to be, right across government.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I don't know, Gwyneth
Dunwoody had a different view on that, didn't she? But I mean, the point
is that there was meant to be, originally, there was meant to be a Women's
Minister, specifically a Women's Minister on the Cabinet, I mean you're
on the Cabinet as you say, but you're there as Leader of the House of Lords
and that is slightly different, and you happen also to be Women's Minister
in the Lords. But that is different, isn't it? Do we take it that that's
gone forever that, we're not going, that promise is never going to be...
JAY: ...I would be surprised,
again, I have to say, I'm obviously not going to be person making the decision,
but I would be surprised, if a ministry specifically devoted to women was
created, and I do think that thinking has moved on, I do think it is that
we have seen work very effectively this cross-government representation,
it has meant for example that I can pull together all these women who are
ministers, whether and it's like my colleague Liz Symons in the Department
of Defence, or Patricia Hewitt in the Department of Trade and Industry,
and we work very effectively. You only have to look
at the results John, I mean, look at the results, you know, you've got
improvements in, enormous improvements in things like maternity pay, and
maternity leave, you've got enormous improvements, record increases in
Child Benefit, you've got the minimum wage. All of these things are a
result of the influence of the women ministers...
HUMPHRYS: So Glenys Kinnock, when
she talked about dreaming in the dark days of Thatcherism, those dreams
are not going to be delivered upon.
JAY: Well, I think, you
didn't ask Glenys the question whether she thought the dream would come
true but I'm pretty sure that she would say....
HUMPHRYS: I think we're got a fairly
clear idea that they hadn't, but there we are.
JAY: Well, maybe she has
a different view about the system, but I think the point is that we've
got all these issues which are important to women firmly on the agenda
and not just on the agenda, we've had action which has produced good results
HUMPHRYS: Barbara Jay, thanks very
much indeed.
JAY: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: European socialist parties
are meeting in Berlin tomorrow. Mr Blair was supposed to go but he's pulled
out of that meeting we were just talking about, he is on the point, as
we know, of calling an election. But the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook
will be there and he will be confirmed as the president of all Europe's
socialist parties. But is there likely to be more embarrassment than glory
in that appointment? Not only have the Germans just launched their blueprint
for a federal Europe but the rest of Europe's socialists are about to join
in. As Paola Buonadonna reports you get some idea of the way they're heading
from the title of the latest document agreed by most socialist MEP's: "The
New Federalism Manifesto."
PAOLA BUONADONNA: Children at the Langefel Primary
school in Kent are looking forward to Europe Day. On Wednesday the EU flag
will be raised over schools and public buildings all over Europe in an
attempt to foster a sense of shared identity. Although Europe Day is still
a very new concept over here it helps to give the impression that Britain
is now a fully fledged member of the European family. Tony Blair has been
given an easy ride in Brussels since he came to power four years ago. And
his EU colleagues have - until now - abstained from raising issues which
might embarrass the Prime Minister on the eve of a general election. But
if Mr Blair thinks he can ignore questions about further political integration
he will have to think again. The proposals for a federal Europe which were
leaked from the office of the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, earlier
this week, were the first official indication of a debate which has raged
in Europe for some time and which Britain will find hard to avoid.
LOUIS MICHEL: The contribution of Chancellor
Schroeder is very, very important because it bring us naturally to a debate,
we are obliged to react to what's these positions' strengths are. Belgium
its rather favourable towards these positions.
MICHEL ROCARD MEP: Germany is evidently looking
for some solutions to the present problems and wants to give great importance
to the debate. France will have to do so, Britain will have to do so.
BUONADONNA: Socialist MEPs are a powerful
force in the European Parliament and the centre-left is in power in 12
out of the 15 countries of the EU. Tomorrow European socialist parties
meet in Berlin for their annual conference. The British Foreign Secretary
is expected to be elected president of the group. But some Socialist parties
don't consider Labour to be sufficiently pro-European and Robin Cook's
nomination has not been welcomed by all.
PERVENCHE BERES MEP: Inside the group I must say
if they, if we had to vote on this name I'm not so sure he would have been
the elected president. Now that things are done and we have to try to work
with it. If it can help Great Britain to move towards the mainstream in
Europe, inside the socialist family I think it would be good news.
GRAHAM WATSON MEP: I know that there have been
moves in other socialist parties to have a different candidate as leader
of the European socialists. Personally I wish Robin Cook every success
but I suspect that again, the government might find this is not the right
time to be putting forward a UK candidate for the presidency of an organisation
which is beginning to look extremely federalist.
BUONADONNA: Last week Belgian Foreign minister
Louis Michel and Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt had star billing as they
launched Belgium's programme for its presidency of the European Union.
They'll be running the show from July and will prepare the ground for a
new round of institutional reforms. They aim to get agreement on the scale
of the changes by the end of this year. Together with other founding EU
nations they want Europe to become a strong political entity on the world
stage. They say that will require further integration.
MICHEL: The European idea means
that each country will lose somewhere, a part of its decision, of its own
decision capacity, that's Europe, that's the idea of Europe. That's the
magic aspect of Europe in fact.
BUONADONNA: The Belgian government is voicing
ambitions which are widespread in continental Europe. More than half of
all Socialists MEPs here at the European Parliament have signed a controversial
Manifesto, calling for a 'new federalism' , which they'll present to the
Berlin conference tomorrow. It will not make pleasant reading for Tony
Blair and Robin Cook, with its calls for a EU Government and a written
constitution. And the list of signatures won't cheer them up either. Together
with former prime ministers and vice-presidents of the Parliament they'll
find the names of three Labour MEPs.
DAVID MARTIN MEP: I haven't been encouraged to,
to sign the manifesto, but I haven't had anyone coming and saying I should
remove my name or disassociate myself. So, again I think that the party
is recognising these issues have to be debated at some point. They cannot
continually be put on the back burner.
FRANCIS MAUDE MP: The fact that the three have
signed it, is very, in itself embarrassing for the government. The fact
is, we know this is the direction most of them want to go. It's the direction
much of the government wants to go. It's simply that they won't be honest
about it, because they know they are so fundamentally out of tune with
what the main stream majority of the British public want.
BUONADONNA: Enjoying the limelight at last
week's parliament session these are the MEPs who initiated the New Federalism
manifesto. They're known as the "Spinelli Group". They want to build a
fully federal union as a counterweight to the United States and to defend
the European welfare state.
ROCARD: What we need is a functional
connection between all ourselves to be efficient where it is better and
more efficient to act together than to act separately. Federalism is a
good designation of that.
MARTIN: If we really do want to
achieve our objectives in a second term of enhancing our environmental
standards, enhancing our social standards, of continuing to drive down
unemployment, then that's going to require co-operation at a European level.
And I equally hope, that the Government would be committed to doing that
through transparent and democratic means, and that inevitably means strengthening
the European institutions as well.
BUONADONNA: Klaus Haensch, the former President
of the European Parliament, is the most senior German Social Democrat in
Brussels. He was involved in drafting both the German Chancellor's proposals
and the New Federalism Manifesto.
KLAUS HANSCH MEP: There are a lot of powers given
to Brussels in the last ten twenty, thirty years, which shouldn't be in
Brussels. And there are other powers where Brussels should be strengthened.
For example, we have a common currency. We need a closer co-ordination
of our fiscal and conjunctual policy. We are starting a closer co-operation
in defence matters. This has to strengthen the Brussels powers too.
BUONADONNA: The new federalism manifesto
wants to simplify the European institutions. The MEPs want an EU Government
instead of the European Commission and an EU Prime Minister rather than
the European Commission President. A concept both the Government and the
opposition dislike.
MAUDE: The European Commission
instead of becoming a Government of Europe, should actually become, which
is what it was always intended to be - a Civil Service - an impartial
Civil Service, which should more and more in the future, be there to service
the Council of Ministers because it's the Council of Ministers who are
directly accountable, back to their national parliaments and we would want
to see its role being strengthened.
MARTIN: If you call the European
Commission the European Government or you call President Prodi the Prime
Minister of Europe, that of itself doesn't mean we're arguing for more
powers for those institutions or for that individual but simply saying
the name should convey better what they happen to do.
BUONADONNA: The manifesto also calls for
a written constitution incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The MEPs say this would enable Europe "to take an additional step on the
road to integration". They want to decentralise decision making to the
national governments as much as possible, for instance some aspects of
regional aid. But at the same time they want the EU to do more in some
areas - for example in foreign policy and defence.
MARTIN: On the one hand the written
constitution makes it a constraint of the institutions. On the other hand
it also I think enables certain powers to be transferred to the European
level where appropriate because it would reassure people that this is not
a one way process.
MAUDE: I think a written constitution
in the sense of a final disposition of the powers of the various parts
of Europe, first as the nation states, isn't going to make sense because
we're now in a Europe of constant adjustment.
WATSON: I've no doubt that the
Tories and their Euro sceptic friends will present it as a federalist plot.
But in reality a constitution would actually define which powers need to
be exercised in Brussels which powers are more rightly the province of
national governments and I hope which powers should be reserved for local
government.
BUONADONNA: At the heart of the new Federalism
manifesto, conceived here in Brussels, is the call for much more integration
among the Eurozone countries on social and economic policies, including
taxation. The introduction of the Euro notes and coins on the first of
January next year will inject a new momentum in the drive towards further
political union among the Eurozone countries which could lead to a two-tier
Europe. What was once considered a philosophical debate is now a pressing
reality.
MICHEL: You cannot have an economic
policy on European level if you have not a social convergence, so all the
policies are linked and I think so it is necessary to try to have more
common policies along those levels.
MAUDE: What we actually see happening.
What people get animated about and actually work for, is further centralisation,
further integration and that's the direction it's going. It's the one
way street towards the European Super State and we need to have something
different. We need a two-way street with some powers coming back to the
member states.
BUONADONNA: The prospect of more power
for Brussels doesn't just worry the British Government but also Denmark
and Sweden. They all have a formal veto over constitutional changes. But
this isn't going to deter the others from trying.
HANSCH: I think what we started
now is a debate on the future structure and those who started the debate
really want some results and we want those results with all the member
states of the European Union. If some or one or two or three exclude themselves
from this mainstream that is deplorable but it will be a fact.
MARTIN: There's a serious threat
of a vanguard and I personally would think it very regrettable if Britain
found itself out with the leaders of Europe. I do believe our future is
in a European Union. We have the same problems as every other member state
of the European Union, the majority of these countries are recognising
that closer and closer European integration is the way to tackle their
problems. I don't think we can stand aside from that and if we do, our
influence in Europe will weaken considerably.
BUONADONNA: Three days to go to Europe
Day but the debate on the future of Europe has already started. The new
federalism manifesto comes at a rather inconvenient time for the government
which wants to be seen at the heart of Europe yet is desperate to avoid
any embarrassment on the eve of a general election.
HUMPHRYS: Paola Buonadonna reporting there.
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The Conservatives have
been doing well in the local elections since Labour came to power at Westminster,
far better than they've been doing in the opinion polls. Not that that
would be difficult. And, of course, we shall have LOCAL elections in England
and Northern Ireland on June 7th whether the General Election is called
for then or not. So what effect might that have on Conservative fortunes?
The man in charge of local government for the Tories (and the environment)
is Archie Norman and he's in our Leeds Studio.
Good afternoon Mr Norman.
ARCHIE NORMAN: Good afternoon John. How
are you?
HUMPHRYS: I'm fine thank you. One
of the messages that you want to deliver over these next few weeks, is
that you want to set the people free. You want to set councils free.
Which is all very well, but there is a price to be paid for that isn't
there and if you look at council spending for instance you say you will
not cap council spending, we might then see Council Taxes going up. You'd
have to live with that wouldn't you?
NORMAN: Well it's hard to believe
John, that they could go up more than they've done in the last four years
under Labour, where we've seen a thirty per cent increase in Council Tax
for Band D taxpayers. And I think what our launch of tomorrow's Local
Government Manifesto really enshrines is the choice between a party that
really believes in Local Government, in localism, and giving back Local
Councils the ability to control the quality of life in their neighbourhoods,
the number of houses being built, the litter, graffiti, all these things,
and a Labour Party which is really by instinct centralising, that actually
wants to create more and more regional bureaucracy and is committed to
abolishing County Councils.
HUMPHRYS: But to return to the
question of taxes, you say they couldn't go up much more. They could of
course, they could go up a great deal more, particularly if councils want
to deal with the sort of problems that you've just been describing, and
Mr Hague talks about the moral case for low taxation. Well, here you are
wanting to make a moral case for greater freedom, but having to confront
this opposing force. It is difficult for you isn't it?
NORMAN: Well, you're right about
that, and let me explain how we want to tackle that. I mean the first
point is that the driving force behind the increase in Council Tax in recent
years has been the cost passed down from central government on to local
government, for instance things like fuel tax, the pensions tax and so
on, and we wouldn't be pursuing that policy of taxation by stealth anyway.
But more than that there is an issue that some councils have a very poor
local mandate, democratic mandate, not many people turn out to vote for
them, and equally have a poor record in financial governments and financial
efficiency. Now what we're saying is that we are going to give those councils
with a good track record of financial efficiency that are committed to
a viable financial plan for the future, in other words one that doesn't
mean putting up Council Tax. Good councils like Kent and Hampshire, we
will set them free, they will be for a period of five years, have the ability
to agree a contract with government, whereby they can be free from regulation
and the audit culture that Labour have introduced, and pursue policies
in the interests of their people. Meanwhile of course there are councils
that can't demonstrate that sort of track record and don't really have
a mandate, and we will close down very tight on them.
HUMPHRYS: Sorry, you mean you'd
cap them down. Can I be clear about this, so we're talking about limited
freedom for a limited number of Tory councils?
NORMAN: No, we're talking about
very unprecedented levels of freedom for those councils, Labour or Conservative,
that can demonstrate a good track record, because you see John, I think
what's happened in recent years is that because of the concerns across
all parties about the nature of local government, and about problems that
there have been in some failing councils, we've introduced a sort of audit
box ticking culture which has imposed a lot of cost, which has created
a lot of new bureaucracy and costs for local government, and in effect
the policies and the measures designed to deal with the failing inner city
Labour councils like Leeds, like Doncaster and so on have imposed costs
on the very successful councils like Hampshire and Kent. We're saying
those councils should be set free to pursue their own policies, whilst
those councils that can't demonstrate that capability, until they can,
until they qualify, should have to continue with a very tight audit regime.
HUMPHRYS: So let's be clear. Would
it mean capping Council Tax?
NORMAN: No, it wouldn't. We are
committed, and I think this is another very big division between the parties,
we said that we are going to abolish rate capping, we won't be capping
Council Tax. We want people locally now to make their own decisions about
the Council Tax they raise locally and the money that's spent locally,
and we believe until you do that, until councils do feel and people feel
responsible locally for the amount of money that they raise and spend,
we can't really restore local democracy, and it's a very important part
of today's Conservatism that we want to give people back a sense of real
ownership and control over their neighbourhoods, the quality of their local
services, and they way in which the quality of life locally, the number
of houses that are built for instance, is managed.
HUMPHRYS: So you wouldn't cap the
taxes, but you would penalise them in other ways if they didn't manage
their affairs in the way you thought appropriate?.
NORMAN: Well, you have to remember
that in the last four
years we've seen an enormous increase in the controls on local government,
much more special grants that councils have to apply for, they don't get
automatically. Much more control in the forms of audits, local plans
they have to produce, box tickers, auditors from central, what's called
the best value regime, huge amounts of bureaucracy. Now we're saying:
Look, the purpose of that is surely only to address those councils that
have a problem. We must help them become more efficient and succeed.
But those councils that really are efficient, they should be given the
opportunity to perform better for their local people without all the cost,
the dead weight of central government.
HUMPHRYS: Right. You would also
let...because you mentioned housing earlier, this is a crucially important
area obviously for local authorities, in the context of freedom you would
give them the freedom to build on Green Belt land if that is what they
chose to do, or NOT - sorry, let me be quite clear about this, NOT to build
on Green Belt land if that is what they chose. In other words there would
be no central dictate that said to the South East for instance you must
have x number of homes in Kent, or whatever it happens to be? What we would
then have is freedom for the local authorities to say no houses on Green
Belt land, no freedom for people who wanted to let's say move to the South
East or people with you know, expanding families who wanted to move into
another home or something. You'd have this sort of "nimbi" culture developing
wouldn't you, so freedom for one group of people, no freedom for another
group of people?
NORMAN: No, that's not right at
all John. You see, I think people have got into a syndrome over the last
few decades whereby we, for some reason believe that we have to build more
and more houses on the countryside and the Labour government under John
Prescott have accelerated the amount of building on our countryside. Let
me give you an example, in the South East, John Prescott has said we have
to build nine-hundred-thousand new houses in the next twenty years, half
of those on greenfields, in what is already one of the most congested parts
of the country and our point about this is that if we pursue this, it's
not just the death of the countryside, it's the death of the inner cities
too. Because for every one of those families moving into an executive
home in the countryside in Surrey, or Hampshire or Kent, there's a family
moving out of the inner cities, and that means the school role and decline
in the inner cities, it means shops closing in inner cities, it means crime
rising. So our policy is to protect the countryside for future generations,
but at the same time, concentrate on improving the quality of life in our
inner cities so we can make them attractive places for people to live in
the future.
HUMPHRYS: So they could say effectively
they'll pull up the drawbridge, we're alright.
NORMAN: No, they can't say that,
I mean, what we will say is that local councils will be obliged to meet
the evolving needs of their existing population, so they can't simply say,
we'll fossilise the local housing, the local housing situation. But what
we are saying is that where, the view from people's front-room, where there
are huge local developments are concerned, where villages and market towns
are going to be destroyed by new housing, local people should be able to
make that decision for themselves, and yes, the countryside and the green
belt should be protected. You know, Labour are now committed to reviewing
the green belt in five regions in this country, there are three instances
of very large house building that John Prescott has commissioned, or allowed,
on the green belt, it really is under threat, and you know, taxes can go
up and they can come down again, but once you concrete over the countryside,
it's lost forever.
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
NORMAN: And you see my point, the
reason we care about this passionately is not just because we care about
the countryside, it is because we care about the inner cities, and we believe
the real challenge facing Britain today is to renew our inner cities and
make them attractive places where people want to live, where families and
able people want to live and have their children educated, and if we do
that, we'll do something that is lasting for future generations and tackles
at core the problems of welfare dependence and poverty in our country.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, as far as the
cities are concerned, then let's look at congestion charging, now you don't
like congestion charging. A lot of local authorities say, it's the only
answer, our cities are getting jammed up, we have to do something, they
wouldn't have the freedom to introduce congestion charging if they wanted
to?
NORMAN: No, they wouldn't because
the current problem as we all know in this country is that we tax the motorist
more than almost any country in Europe and fuel tax has gone up tremendously
under Labour, and what we're saying is that the car driver is already paying
enough, and that actually in many places, the people who are penalised
by congestion charges and more car parking charges, and this sort of thing,
are the people who depend on the car. Those are often pensioners, they
are people who happen to live in the countryside and have to come to town
to shop or to work, they are people with families who have to get their
children to school. And these taxes are very aggressive, they tend to
penalise the least well off people worst, and they produce no great advantages
in terms of the transport system. Until we can offer people a really attractive
public transport alternative, better buses and trains and tubes in the
case of London, there's no sense in trying to tax the motorist off the
road.
HUMPHRYS: So no freedom for people
who are fed up with sitting in traffic jams?
NORMAN: Well, the way to create
freedom for people who are fed up with sitting in traffic jams is firstly
to progressively improve the road system so that there are fewer jams.
And let's remember that Labour have cut the spending on our roads in the
last four years and brought about precious little improvement, and secondly
to say to those people, look we're going to provide for you a much better
bus service, a much better railway service, so if you wish you can leave
your car at home and take the public transport alternative. And yet, we've
seen in the last four years, if anything, a deterioration in the public
transport system.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, final area where
your commitment to freedom comes under a bit of a test, and that's section
twenty-eight, there are limits, it seems, to your willingness to give people
freedom. The government wants to get rid of it, failed to get rid of it,
next time around may or may not, you want to retain it, so you're not prepared
to say to people, to local authorities, you can decide on this, if some
schools or local education authorities want to accept homosexuality as
an alternative lifestyle, you may do so. You're not prepared to go that
far are you?
NORMAN: Well I think John you've
very seriously misrepresented in your introduction just then what section
twenty-eight is about. You know, we as Conservatives respect all people,
especially all children, to pursue their opportunities in life, regardless
of their sexual preference. What we don't think is right is that local
authorities should raise council tax, raise taxpayers money, and spend
it on propagating a particular lifestyle. Now this is an issue that was
considered by both houses in parliament during the last couple of years
and it's been rejected by parliament. We think it's a dead issue, we think
it's quite pointless to raise it again, and we do believe that there is
a case for saying that councils shouldn't be spending their money on propagating
a very particular lifestyle at the expense of any other.
HUMPHRYS: Archie Norman, have to
end it there. Thanks very much indeed for joining us this morning.
NORMAN: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: And that's it for this week.
Next Sunday, assuming the election has been called, we will be starting
a series of debates with the leading figures, so join us then with Jack
Straw, Ann Widdecombe and Simon Hughes and if you're on the internet, don't
forget about our website. Until the same time next week for that debate
good afternoon.
22
FoLdEd
|