................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
FRANK FIELD INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 29.3.98
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The Government tells us that its
commitment to the vulnerable people in this country is not negotiable. It
would have been pretty extraordinary if it had said anything else. The
question is who ARE the really vulnerable and what is that commitment worth?
Frank Field, the Minister for Welfare Reform, told us quite a lot last week
about how the Government wants to make it possible for people to help
themselves. But what of those who can't - the MOST vulnerable - the old, the
sick, the people who'll never be able to find a job and help themselves? Mr
Field is with me.
Good afternoon.
FRANK FIELD MP: Hello.
HUMPHRYS: Can I offer you what you may think is a
slightly mischievous suggestion but there were those who said that you hadn't
gone quite as far as you might have, hadn't quite thought the unthinkable? And
this morning we read- we see in the Sunday Express a couple of memos from
Alastair Campbell, the Press Secretary, to you and your boss, Harriet Harman,
ticking you off for the way you've allegedly behaved; the differences between
you, the way you've been rather naughty. Might that be why you were a little
bit reserved?
FIELD: Well, there are two questions there: one
is whether the papers lived up to what people thought the expectations were,
'though before it was published we were told-
HUMPHRYS: Your own papers, your own document.
FIELD: The Green Paper. The comments were: why
can't we have the principles and then we can actually get on with the debate?
Well this goes far beyond the principles. It actually lays a set of principles
down on-through which we will now debate Welfare Reform for the rest of this
Parliament and I hope Parliaments to come. We will, therefore, be able to
judge whether each policy, as it's debated and then legislated, fits in, is
locked onto those principles. And for the first time, any government in the
free world has given a whole series of success measurements. So that we in
Government can be-to make sure that we are actually moving towards those goals
and use that as a platform to debate with the Electorate, to be accountable
with them. To say this is actually what we promise, this is what we're
achieving. So, that's what was asked for. People say: well it's somewhat of a
let-down, which you're suggesting. Part of the reason for that is maybe I just
flopped,or maybe that some of those arguments put in opposition are now so
accepted as part of the normal argument that nobody thinks it's worth
commenting on.
HUMPHRYS: But, what about the-
FIELD: Can I just give you a couple of examples
here because I remember you interviewing me early in the morning when I said
that we should move away from the passive Welfare Service, which just paid out
money, to one which paid out money and positively, actively, helped people back
into work. You said: Fine idea, Frank - doubt whether you'll get it. When I
actually talked about one was going to have a counterfraud strategy, the like
of which we've not seen, which we will be publishing proposals on soon. It may
be that the debate has moved on so quickly that people now are actually wanting
the next stages and the next stages will be coming 'cos there's a whole series
of Green Papers on specific areas promised which will be out soon.
HUMPHRYS: Can I come back here to that and
just pursue the thought of Alastair Campbell first and those memos, those faxes
that he sent to you and Harriet Harman. What was your reaction to that?
FIELD: The letters were addressed to both of
us, telling both of us off.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, very sharply.
FIELD: And it's very sensible for us to
actually respond to that. I did actually-one other thing that I thought -
Alastair might actually be watching - I thought of actually correcting some of
the English and sending it back. That was my second reaction to it.
HUMPHRYS: Oh! And what was the first reaction?
FIELD: Well my first reaction was it's quite
serious when somebody as senior as Alastair feels it's necessary to write such
a letter and-
HUMPHRYS: Was it necessary?
FIELD: Well it's part of all - it's been quite
good fun for the press to try and stoke up differences between myself and
Harriet but let's go back to last week, to the publication of the Green Paper.
I obviously wanted to make that statement to Parliament.
HUMPHRYS: Oh, but that's not what he was talking
about, he was talking about other things.
FIELD: No, but the first I saw of what
Harriet's response was, was a note in the Department when she said that I
should actually do that statement. Now, I know that doesn't fit the image that
people on the outside want to do and it's very easy to peddle that. The truth
is a bit more complicated. Sometimes-
HUMPHRYS: Alastair Campbell clearly wasn't
satisfied with the way you were behaving. Neither-both of you, apparently from
those-
FIELD: He certainly wasn't happy that briefing
was going on and I think he had every right to say so and to write those
letters.
HUMPHRYS: So you weren't cross. As an elected
Minister, you weren't cross that an unelected official was ticking you off in
that way?
FIELD: It's not so much an elected and
non-elected official. I think it's very important Government draws on a whole
range of qualities. Mrs Thatcher did that and I think we will be very wise not
to have drawn on Alastair's qualities here.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's go back to-
FIELD: To the substance, yes?
HUMPHRYS: To the substance.
FIELD: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: Although that's not unimportant because
the way Government behaves-
FIELD: It's not unimportant about how
Government operates. It's not central to the Welfare Reform.
HUMPHRYS: Yah. Indeed. Central to the Welfare
Reform is this: work - getting people into work - absolutely central. Now, the
incomes, as you will know, of the top fifth in this country, have risen by
fifty per cent since 1979; the incomes at the bottom fifth have risen scarely
at all. Now that isn't right. The only way to help the very poorest and I'm
not now talking about those people who can go to work and with a bit of
encouragement, perhaps, will go to work. But I'm talking about those you cannot
go to work - the very poorest. They have to look to the State, do they not, to
increase their Benefits if they are going to close that gap, to get a bit
better off?
FIELD: Well they don't look to the State. They
look to-because Government doesn't actually have any money.
HUMPHRYS: To the taxpayer.
FIELD: They actually look to others, fellow
taxpayers. But one of the reasons, and it's not fully understood, but one of
the big reasons why inequality widened so dramatically under Mrs Thatcher, was
partly the world economy changes, where skills became much more valuable to
lack of skills. So there was a pull in all countries, but particularly in this
country large numbers were actually excluded from the labour market and that's
why the huge programme for which Gordon raised five billion pounds from the
private utilities is about trying to help people move from-
HUMPHRYS: But I'm not talking about those people.
I'm talking about people who cannot go to work - of the old. You wouldn't tell
my old Granny - if I had one - that she'd got to go to work - of course you
wouldn't. You wouldn't tell somebody severely disabled: you've got to go to
work. They're the people I'm talking about. They're the people who haven't
got better.
FIELD: I think, it's important that we take the
argument in stages 'cos there are large numbers of people in this country who
want to work, who have been written off for decades-
HUMPHRYS: I understand that.
FIELD: -and that the writing of that group has
now ceased. You are perfectly proper to say that there now are actually those-
large numbers of people who actually can't work and that one of the themes of
the Green Paper was work for those who can for security for those who cannot.
HUMPHRYS: Dignity and security.
FIELD: And, within the space already of ten
months, we've actually seen us fulfilling more than we promised as a minimum
we would do for pensioners. We said that the State Retirement Pension remained
the cornerstone. The first building block for an adequate income in
retirement.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah but it's not adequate at the
moment, is it?
FIELD: No, no, of course, it isn't.
HUMPHRYS: And, what I'm saying to you is: what are
you going to do to make it so?
FIELD: Well, I'm coming on to that. But, one
has a problem of some moderately well-placed pensioners and others not so
well-placed. In one of the first things that Gordon did was to announce this
Fuel Bonus. A Fuel Bonus that went to all pensioners but went most - and, was
most valuable - to the poorest.
HUMPHRYS: But that was a recognition that they
needed it and, therefore, were very poor.
FIELD: Of course, it was. And, within ten
months that has now actually been paid.
HUMPHRYS: But, it was a one-off. It doesn't help
them next year.
FIELD: Well, it's promised for next year as
well.
HUMPHRYS: The year after that and the year after
that.
FIELD: Well-
HUMPHRYS: But you're not suggesting that is
closing the gap, are you? Because all that is doing is dealing with a
particular problem.
FIELD: All I'm saying- when I get back in again
- all I'm saying is that in that instance for the very poorest pensioners
their income now is higher than if we'd actually gone back to what was some
people say we should do and that is link pensions to earnings. So, for the
very poorest pensioners, we've actually done more than that. We've, of
course, done more than that because the reductions in-
HUMPHRYS: -link pension to earnings?
FIELD: For this year, it's a greater value for
the poorest when you add-when you take into account the winter fuel bonus.
HUMPHRYS: But, that's fifty pounds - one off.
FIELD: Well, it's-earnings and prices this year
have been pretty close together - thank goodness. That's why-
HUMPHRYS: Yes.
FIELD: -they're actually trying to do a stable
economy. We've not merely done that, there's been the reduction in VAT
on fuel to the lowest possible level, after the Tories put it up. And, also,
one of the things again, which you used to remind me of, early in the morning
in Opposition, when I would make a plea about the million poorest pensioners,
who have between fourteen to sixteen pounds a week, which they're eligible for
from Income Support, of which the previous regime did nothing about. We've
actually started our pilot studies to find how we can do that by using this
horrible technical terms 'data tracking' and, also, in other ways for those
that we can't track. That will cost - that sort of programme - we're
determined to be successful - a billion pounds - that's a billion pounds which
will have to be found from Tax. We want to find it, we actually want to make
that charge but it will be a programme, which while keeping the universal State
Pension is, also, trying to make sure that we get additional help on top
of that to the very poorest pensioners.
HUMPHRYS: It still doesn't deal long term with the
problem of the very poorest pensioners. The way that - your Party at one stage
thought it had to be dealt with, you were very cross with the Tories, the break
in the link, was the link between Earnings and Pension, as opposed to Prices
and Pension. Now you've abandoned that. You've therefore got to do
something for them long term, have you not?
FIELD: We have a Pensions Review which is about
to report, which will be looking at what is the most important things that we
should do for pensioners now.
HUMPHRYS: Could that mean restoring the link?
FIELD: It has an agenda which allows it
to do so. I hope to be able to see the report next week. So, you may try and
shoehorn information out of me on that but I, actually, can't give it to you.
HUMPHRYS: No. But, let me just ask you an
absolutely straightforward question: you're not ruling out the restoration of
the link with Earnings, are you?
FIELD: We did not rule that out as a
question which the Pension Review should look at and they will, actually,
report on that. My position, which may make me vulnerable, is that when I was
asked in Opposition I did not argue for the restoration of the Earnings link.
I wanted other ways of actually making sure that the poorest pensioners were
helped now, whereas the success which we have now for a growing body of
pensioners, which is through occupational and private pension schemes is spread
from what is now a majority of pensioners to all future pensioners, so in a
sense the Party is committed to universal provision still but is actually going
to seek that by a two-pronged attack keeping the State Retirement Pension and
making sure that everybody in the future has an adequate second funded pension
provision, though that, again, highlights the point you're making. I'm not
trying to duck it. It's of central concern to this Government and I would have
thought you might have - though it would have, perhaps, not quite have been
your style - to say: well in ten months you haven't actually done that bad,
you've gone further than you said you would go.
HUMPHRYS: I have acknowledged that you've
done-you've given help to get people into work - everybody acknowledges that!
FIELD: No, no. On the pensioner front, with
actually VAT, with our-our additional payments geared-giving most to the
poorest pensioners over fuel payments. If we'd only done that at the end of
five years, then, you'd have had, probably-you'd have been justified in trying
to carve me up this morning. These have been-
HUMPHRYS: Only seeking information.
FIELD: These have been done - I don't mind you
trying to carve me up; I mean, that's what I'm here for! But, I mean, these
are actions which have been done within ten months. It is possible to
say, to be grudging about it. It is possible to say: this actually does tell
us something about the priorities of this Government, which is different from
the previous Government. The previous Government did not do any of these
actions.
HUMPHRYS: There's a report in The Observer this
morning that says you're going to raise pensions for the over-seventy-fives -
those most in need, of course - is that true? Is there something in that?
FIELD: Now the Green Paper is out, you'll be
into the next stage, which is totally proper because we want a debate, of
people actually guessing what the next stages are. A number of rganisations
and a number of MPs from both sides of the Chamber. I mean, Steve Webb, for
example, from the Liberals as well as some of our own backbenchers have been,
actually, making the plea. If you look at who are the poorest pensioners
then in fact, the older we get not only the frailer we get the lower our
income gets. Even if it was adequate when we started at sixty-five, pensions,
then, don't actually always keep pace with rising living standards. So,
there's a case there to, actually, look at we'll actually be coming back when
we've got a position to take.
HUMPHRYS: Final thought then - if by the time you
leave office, or rather end this parliamentary term, you have not done more,
considerably more for the poorest pensioners in particular than you have done
so far, that will be failure will it?
FIELD: Well, it will be shameful, and it's
quite clear if you look at those thirty-two success measurements, one of them
is that we should actually do that. We're not trying to back away from this-
HUMPHRYS: No target though.
FIELD: No, but there is actually a commitment,
and part of- the next stage of that is how do we firm that up so it's not just
soft words, but it's something which holds us to account, which governs how we
behave actually in office, and how we can actually report back to the
electorate.
HUMPHRYS: Right Frank Field. Thanks very much
indeed for joining us.
....oooOOOooo....
|