This transcript has been typed at speed, and therefore may contain mistakes. Newsnight accepts no responsibility for these. However, we will be happy to correct serious errors.
Prime Minister, there aren't enough doctors or
nurses. There aren't enough teachers. There are
more cars on the road than when you came to
power. The train service doesn't work. Violent
crime is rising. Is that what you meant by the
No. We accept there are all sorts of things we
still have to do - to take each one of those
things in turn. There are more doctors than
when we came to power. There are about
17,000 more nurses. Crime is down 10%,
burglary down 25%. I would say, we don't say
we've done everything. We've made a start,
we've laid foundations.
You said "over the five years of a Labour
Government, we will rebuild the NHS."
We made a specific pledge on waiting lists.
And we said we'd start to put right the
rebuilding of a National Health Service
where it depended on need. And as a result
we've actually got some 17,000 more nurses
and more doctors.
But you said "over the five years of a Labour
Government we will rebuild the NHS." Did you
underestimate the task?
I don't think we underestimated the task.
Why say you could do it in five years?
You said you would rebuild the NHS in five
We made it clear we couldn't do everything
in the first term.
Why did you say it?
If you look at the full text, we made it clear...
It's in the manifesto.
It is in the manifesto. We made a specific
pledge, to get the waiting lists down by
100,000. We have achieved that pledge,
but it is plain that we have to... It is plain
that it was never going to be done overnight.
Of course it will take time.
It was a mistake to say it then?
No. We do have to rebuild the National Health
Service. We are doing it.
You said "we WILL" rebuild the NHS in five years.
What we said was that we will rebuild the National
Health Service. And that is precisely what we are doing.
Over the five years of a Labour Government. It says so.
We made it absolutely clear to people. The pledge we
gave on health was a pledge that we would reduce waiting
lists by 100,000. By no stretch of the imagination could
you say that is every problem the National Health Service
dealt with. We never pledged incidentally in the last
manifesto a single extra nurse, but we have provided
But you did pledge to...
We didn't commit ourselves to providing any extra
doctors or consultants but we have.
But you did pledge to rebuild the NHS in five years.
You accept that hasn't happened. You've made a start
We certainly made a start on it. Incidentally,
before you leave that, I made it absolutely clear
throughout that we could not accomplish it all
in one term.
Are you still committed to reaching the European
average on health spending by 2003/2004?
No, I didn't say we were committed to that.
You did say...
I said that by the end of the second Comprehensive
Spending Review, I wanted to reach the European
When is that?
The first Comprehensive Spending Review comes
to an end 2003/4 and then you have the next three-year
period after that.
We are talking about 2006/2007?
Yes. I made it clear again - because this refers
to an interview on the Frost programme - we
could only do that provided the economy remains
That would be the intention - to
reach the European average at that
date, not the European average at
the time you made the promise?
It's a promise firmly...
Assuming the strength of the
economy. I can't write the
Comprehensive Spending Review now.
So it's just an aspiration?
It's what I said at the time.
You probably have the words...
..Of what I said, you will see that I said
that, provided the economy remains
strong, then we should be able to
reach the European average. And
incidentally, if we do that, we
will only be able to achieve the
changes we want to the health
service if we accompany it by
far-reaching reform. Money is not
all it needs.
But it is a firm commitment that by 2006/7,
if the European average is 8% or 9%, it
will be that in this country unless
we have had economic collapse?
No, I didn't say unless there was an
economic collapse, I said provided
the economy carried on being strong.
I wasn't saying there would be a collapse.
Strong is a relative judgment.
It is. It stands to reason that obviously you can't sit
down and work out your spending
plans now. But it is our objective
to reach the European average, and
it is our objective to carry on not
merely raising health service
spending but education spending as
well. Which is why the choice in
the election is so stark. The
Conservatives are saying
£20 billion worth of cuts and we're
saying keep the investment going.
I assume you believe the economy will
I certainly do believe that, yes.
Can we look then at your longer term plans?
There are proposals in here, and
everybody understands that this is
a longer term project you are
embarked upon, but the plans here
stretch ten years. So not just this
government but the next government?
It's sensible in public services to
set out a longer term perspective,
which is why we have for health,
education, transport and so on.
But your budget plans only extend to
2003/4. Do you accept that at that
point you'll have to cut spending
plans or you will have to raise
No, I don't accept that. The
reason we've been able to get so
much money going into the health
service and schools now, why we
have forward investment plans for
schools, hospitals, crime,
transport, is because we have had a
strong economy and because of two
other things which are absolutely
vital. The first is a reduction of
the national debt, which is reduced
interest payments on debt. We were
paying out more on interest
payments on debt than on the school system
when we came in. We're now spending
£10 billion more on schools.
Secondly, because unemployment is
down, there are fewer benefit
claimants. Many people have moved
into work through programmes like
the New Deal, and so we have saved
several billion pounds like that as
So, it can be squared, this
Well, you can spend more
money provided you have a) a strong
economy, and b) you are making sure
that you are not spending on the
costs of economic and social
failure. You referred to my
manifesto at the last election. I
think it was the opening point of
the 10-point contract - was spending
less on the bills of social and economic
failure and more on investment in
You talk in the latest manifesto for this election
about using the private sector to support
public endeavour in the public services.
What do you think the private sector could do
that can't be done by the public sector?
You have a very good
example with the PFI programmes on
both school and hospital building.
They have been successful - we have built the hospitals
on cost and on time. That is one example.
Another example is in winter
pressures. This year, particularly,
we have been prepared to use the
private sector where the public
sector doesn't have enough
facilities to do so.
You have been talking about a radical second term.
You are now talking about more of
No, I am not talking
about more of the same but building
on what we have done. But that is not
the only thing about the health
service plan that is important. The
plan is also important, for
example, breaking down the demarcations
between nurses and doctors and consultants.
I see no reason why nurses can't prescribe
more medicines, do some of the jobs
that doctors or consultants have traditionally
There are doctors already in this country today
providing some of the minor surgery,
consultants reorganising the entire way
But when you talk about the
spirit of entrepreneurship entering
into the public services, does that
indicate that you made a mistake
in reversing many of the Conservatives'
divisions between providers and purchasers,
for example, or GP fund-holders?
In the health service?
No, I don't think so. The trouble with the
fund-holder system was you had a
How will it manifest itself then?
That is a classic example of a change that's
not to do with the private sector, but the
primary care trusts which bring
together groups of local GPs and
others, they are able far more
effectively to organise their
system and get decent health care
for people. By 2004 , they will
handle something like 75% of the
entire NHS budget. That is a hugely
radical change, but it is not in fact
dependent on the relationship with
the private sector. Having said
that, I see no reason why you
shouldn't break down barriers
between the public and private
sector and the voluntary sector.
What is the model here, Railtrack?
No, It's not. We opposed rail
privatisation and we are not
following that in any of the work
with the private sector we are doing.
What is the model then?
I have given you an example - the
private finance initiative for
schools and hospitals is an example
of the private and public sector
A lot of people
who work in the public sector have
asked me - will you ask the Prime Minister
why he is so in love with the private sector?
I am not in love with the private
sector. I simply believe in getting the
job done by the most appropriate means.
But don't you remember your remarks about
scars on your back?
That was about pushing through change in the
public sector and of how difficult
it is. But if you talk to a big
private sector manager who pushed
through change there, they would find it
What I was talking about was the nature
of change. It is difficult. Let me give you an
example. With when we started off
with the literacy and numeracy
strategy, we had a lot of opposition from teachers
and others. The teachers have done
brilliantly, we have put through that
strategy and we have the best ever
primary school results the country has seen.
So change can be difficult. There are
people - some of the complaints
of doctors, for example, relate
to NHS Direct or the walk-in
centres, where people can come in
and get immediate access to decent
Let me ask you a
And I'm not in love with the private sector,
I just believe that where you can use the
private sector, use it.
Do you think that
a company can make too much in
In what sense do you mean?
Do you think profits can be ever
I think they can be if they are monopoly
profits, which is why we taxed the
privatised utilities, got the exess profits
and put that to work in the New Deal.
But I don't believe that if you are acting
in a competitive market, that it's the job of government
to come along and tell a company -
you are making too much profit.
Do you believe that an individual
can earn too much money?
I don't really - it is not - no, it's not a
view I have. Do you mean that we should cap
someone's income? Not really, no.
Why? What is the point? You can
spend ages trying to stop the
highest paid earners earning the
money but in an international
market like today, you probably would
drive them abroad. What does that
matter? Surely the important thing
is to level up those people that
don't have opportunity in our
But where is the justice in
taxing someone who earns £34,000 a year,
which is about enough to cover a
mortgage on a one-bedroom flat in outer London,
at the same rate as someone who earns
£34 million. Where is the justice?
The person who earns £34 million, if
they're paying the top rate of tax,
will pay far more tax on the £34 million
than the person on £34,000.
I am asking you about the rate of
I know and what I am saying to you
is the rate is less important in this instance than the
overall amount of tax that people would pay.
You know what would happen, if you go back
to the days of high top rates of tax.
All that would happen is that those
people, who are small in number actually,
and you can spend a lot of time getting
after the person earning millions
of pound a year, and then what you
don't do is apply the real energy
where it's necessary on things like
the children's tax credit, the
Working Families Tax Credit, the
minimum wage, the New Deal, all the
things that have helped people on lower incomes.
But where is the justice in it?
When you say where is the justice in
that, the justice for me is concentrated
on lifting incomes of those that don't have
a decent income. It's not a burning ambition
for me to make sure that David Beckham
earns less money.
But Prime Minister, the gap between rich and poor
has by widened while you have been in
A lot of those figures are
based on a couple of years ago
before many of the measures we took
came into effect. But the lowest
income families in this country are
benefiting from the government.
Their incomes are rising. The fact
that you have some people at the
top end earning more¿
If they are earning more, fine, they pay their taxes.
But is it acceptable for gap between
rich and poor to widen?
It is acceptable for those people on
lower incomes to have their incomes
raised. It is unacceptable that
they are not given the chances. To
me, the key thing is not whether
the gap between those who, between
the person who earns the most in the
country and the person that earns
the least, whether that gap is¿
So it is acceptable for gap to widen
between rich and poor?
It is not acceptable for poor people not to
be given the chances they need in life.
That is not my question.
I know it's not your question
but it's the way I choose to
answer it. If you end up going
after those people who are the most
wealthy in society, what you
actually end up doing is in fact
not even helping those at the
So the answer to the
straight question is it acceptable
for gap between rich and poor to
get wider, the answer you are
saying is yes.
No, it's not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that my task is¿
You are not saying no.
But I don't think that is the issue¿
You may not think it is the issue, but it is the question.
Is it OK for the gap to get wider?
It may be the question. The way I choose to answer
it is to say the job of government is make sure that
those at the bottom get the chances.
With respect, people see you are asked a straightforward
question and they see you not answering it.
Because I choose to answer it in the way
that I'm answering it.
But you are not answering it.
I am answering it. What I am saying is the most
important thing is to level up, not level down.
Is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to get
What I am saying is the issue isn't in fact whether the
very richest person ends up becoming richer. The
issue is whether the poorest person is given the chance
that they don't otherwise have.
I understand what you are saying. The question is
about the gap.
Yes, I know what your question is. I am choosing to
answer it in my way rather than yours.
But you're not answering it.
You are answering another question.
I am answering actually in the way
that I want to answer it. I tell you why
I want to answer it in this way.
Because if you end up saying no,
actually my task is to stop the person
earning a lot of money earning a lot
of money, you waste all your time and energy,
taking money off the people who are
very wealthy when in today's world,
they probably would move elsewhere
and make their money.
What you are not asking me about,
which would be a more fruitful line of
endeavour, is what are you doing for
the poorest people to give them a boost.
Let's talk about tax. You have
Why don't we talk about
the poorest of society and what we
are doing for them.
I assume you want to be Prime Minister.
I just want to be an interviewer. Can we
stick to that arrangement?
that you won't raise the basic
level of income tax and won't raise
the higher rate of income tax.
You have conceded that national
insurance is a tax based upon
income. Why won't you¿
So are a lot of things, so is capital gains tax
Why won't you give a guarantee about
Because I am not entering into a
situation where we start writing a
Why are you prepared to
make a guarantee about income tax?
Because the specific manifesto
pledges we made last time on income
tax we have repeated.
But you also gave an assurance on national insurance,
not in the manifesto, but Gordon Brown gave it,
that the ceiling wouldn't be raised
Yes, but if we end up going through each of the
Why could you do it last time and not this time?
We are. We are making precisely the same tax
pledges in our manifesto as we did last time.
No you are not. With the
greatest of respect, last time you
promised the ceiling on national
insurance would not be raised,
or the Chancellor did.
What Gordon Brown was asked
was about the abolition of the national insurance
ceiling in the context of the 1992 shadow budget.
I have been asked this question ad nauseam in
the campaign and what I have answered is
that we have not clobbered higher tax earners,
we have no intention of doing so.
But if you start on national insurance, then you are
on to inheritance tax¿
I'm only asking about national insurance.
I know but that's where you would end up.
What I can't do is sit here and write a budget, I am afraid.
I am merely asking you why you could give this
guarantee last time but you can't give
it this time and whether any
reasonable person wouldn't suppose
that you therefore propose to
increase national insurance contributions.
Because we are not writing a budget now.
We have a record of four years to stand on
where we haven't done any of these things.
Indeed, we have been careful to make sure
that the highest income earners are not
put at risk or their incentives reduced.
I have no intention of going back on that now.
Isn't it intellectually incoherent to
say what you will do with one tax
and not another tax, which is
levied on almost the same basis?
No, it's not intellectually incoherent, you are
simply choosing what you will and won't say.
Wouldn't a reasonable person conclude that
the reason you don't wish to say it
is because you plan to raise it?
No, they wouldn't, because you could go
through 250 different reliefs and I can't sit here
and write a budget.
I am not asking you to write a budget.
I am asking about national
I know but if I give you answers on national
insurance and write the budget on that,
why not move on to capital gains tax, inheritance tax,
corporation tax, another 250 different reliefs.
All right. Let's talk about the euro.
Famously, there are five tests, which have to be met
before we can join the euro. Gordon Brown has said
the Treasury will be the custodians of those tests.
Can you overrule the Treasury?
You wouldn't overrule them, it would be
a collective decision of government.
But the Treasury are the custodians
of the test?
Of course they are, cos they're the Treasury.
So Gordon Brown decides when they
would be met?
No, the Treasury¿ When they say they're the
custodian of the test, obviously as the Treasury,
they are going to decide - are those tests in a
technical sense met, and the collective decision of
the government will be whether they are
met or not.
So Gordon Brown decides
whether we have a referendum or not?
No, Gordon Brown doesn't¿
Again, I have been over this.
The whole of the government takes a
collective decision. When we say
The Treasury decides whether the tests are met?
The Treasury are the custodians of the tests
and it's obvious why they should be.
In circumstances where there are
economic conditions and economic tests,
it's right that we make it clear to
people that there is not going to be any
political fiddling about with these tests,
they have to be met in a genuine economic way.
And Gordon Brown is the man who
will make that judgment?
The judgment is made by the government
as a whole but of course Gordon will
make the judgment with me and make it
on the basis of the government as a whole.
A re we to take it that the agriculture
secretary, the culture secretary and so on
will have a view on whether these tests have been met?
No. What it means is what it says.
The Treasury are the custodians of the tests
and that is to make it clear to people that these
are not going to be politically interfered with.
They have to be economically sound.
But the decision as to whether to recommend
entry into the euro has obviously got to be taken
by the Government as a whole.
I was asked this question a couple of weeks ago -
are you going to be involved? Well, of course.
But essentially you are rubber stamping Gordon Brown's decision?
No. I am not saying that and neither is he.
But he decides whether the tests have been met or not?
The Treasury, because they are economic tests,
the Treasury are the custodians of these tests,
obviously, to make sure that it's not simply done
on a political basis but is a genuine economic decision.
The decision then, the judgment as to whether we recommend
entry into the euro, is taken by the government as a whole.
Gordon, who has been a brilliant Chancellor, I have no doubt at all,
will make sure those tests are properly adhered to.
You will rubber stamp it then?
I haven't said that, Jeremy.
This takes us to the whole question of your judgment,
I have not made that judgment yet.
You haven't made that judgment and clearly you will
exercise your judgment on that.
Let's take a couple of examples of your judgment.
Keith Vaz shouldn't be sacked from his job because
he hasn't been guilty of anything.
Why did you sack Peter Mandelson?
For the reasons I gave at the time.
Which were that people had been misled and whether
it was inadvertent or not, it was right, he felt and I felt,
that he should go.
He didn't do anything wrong. The inquiry found
he did nothing wrong.
I said at the time that Peter went that I was sure that
the inquiry would find that he had done absolutely nothing
improper at all.
Do you still think he misled you?
I don't think it was a case of him misleading me.
As a result of answers that were given, people were misled.
That chapter is closed.
It's not entirely closed. This is a man who is a close
and trusted ally of yours. I suggest to you
Well, I am sorry but you are wrong. The reasons I gave
are the reasons that are still valid.
But he didn't do anything wrong.
I said at the time I believed he had done nothing improper.
So why did you sack him?
For the reason I gave at the time - that people had
been misled and it was right that, in those circumstances, he went.
It was a tough decision and a harsh decision.
So why didn't you sack Keith Vaz?
Because Keith Vaz didn't have anything to do with
misleading people. The Hammond inquiry found
he had acted, not merely had he not acted improperly,
but he had acted entirely properly throughout.
So it would have been grossly unjust to have dismissed him.
Keith Vaz is a good minister?
He has been an excellent European minister, and it's sad
that the moment the Hammond inquiry found
those allegations were unproven, the media moved on
to other allegations.
It is difficult for him in circumstances where people aren't prepared
to look at whether the allegations are proven or not.
I believe that strongly.
You talked about him in the past tense "has been".
He has been.
Is he in your next government?
I am not reshuffling on any basis, Jeremy. The election has not happened.
When we look at some of these matters, particularly
Mr Mandelson and Mr Vaz, essentially their mistake
was to cosy up to the Hinduja brothers.
Why should they be¿have anything done against them for that
when you have done the same thing.
I totally agree with you. That's why Keith Vaz is still a minister,
or was still a minister until parliament was dissolved.
But Peter Mandelson isn't?
Because I told you at the time it wasn't to do with
the Hinduja passports. So when you say to me
was there something corrupt in relation to the Hindujas?
No, there was not.
Of course there was not. He was cleared in the inquiry.
Yet you sacked him.
I said at the time it was not in respect of that.
I said at the time of the Hammond inquiry, that that indicated
that no-one had acted improperly in relation to passports.
Which is why the stuff about the Hindujas was all nonsense.
They were given their passports properly and not even that quickly,
and as the inquiry found, no-one did anything wrong.
But these letters from you to the Hinduja brothers,
two men with something of a cloud over them in India,
you are comfortable with all of those, are you, "yours ever, Tony"?
I am comfortable with them. They are leading members
of the Asian community, and you say "this cloud"¿
Would you take money from them again?
I didn't take money from them at all. They did donate money,
as the Hinduja Foundation has donated money to many causes
in this country. I'll just say in relation to the so-called shadow
hanging over them, that is in relation to allegations that,
to the best of my recollection, are something like 20 years out of date.
Do you think it's appropriate your party takes money
from people with a shadow over them like that in India?
My party hasn't taken money from them.
Would you be happy if they did?
I don't believe it would be right for us to take money
from people except in circumstances where we are satisfied
that that is appropriate. But, as a matter of fact, we haven't taken
any money from them.
So the answer would be yes?
No. We haven't taken any money from them.
Can we look at the campaign. When you look back to the launch
of that campaign at St Olave's and St Xavier's school,
how soon did you realise it was a mistake?
I don't think it was a mistake to launch my first campaign
in a school.
Come on! Seriously, there must have been a point where you are there
in front of the stained glass windows and you thought you were the vicar
of St Albions!
I tell you what I thought. The thing I did think was - I hoped people
would pay attention to what I was saying. That was a naive view
because they didn't in the end.
No - it was an audience of teenage girls. What have they got to do with
negative equity? It was a mistake, wasn't it?
No, I don't believe it was a mistake to launch in a school.
It was sensible and people should pay attention to what we said,
rather than whether there was a stained glass window behind me
or girls in the front row of the audience or not.
You don't regret it? You weren't embarrassed?
No. There are far more important issues in the campaign than that.
You didn't see the comical side of it?
I certainly saw the comical side in the newspapers the next day.
But then you have to have a sense of humour in my business.
It's nice Gordon Brown to take the rap for it?
I didn't know that he had done.
Yes, he has.
It would be unjust if he did.
On the subject of Gordon Brown, is he your natural successor?
I think that¿ How many days are we from the election? Three days
from the election? It's unwise for me to speculate as to whether
I will have this job after Thursday.
I assume you will be leader of the Labour Party.
Well, and certainly not to start speculating who my successor
may be. I have said on many occasions he is in my view
one of the most brilliant people in British politics,
he has done a fantastic job as Chancellor.
It is not an ignoble ambition to be prime minister of this country.
But as he says and I say, let's win the election.
You make him sound like the heir apparent.
I don't make him sound like anything, I simply say
what I've always said.
When you have been fighting this campaign,
there hasn't been a point where you haven't been ahead.
Have you ever felt the slightest twinge of sympathy
for poor old William Hague?
I don't feel any sympathy for what he is putting forward.
The Conservatives basically learned nothing from the defeat
in ¿97. They are putting forward policies for massive cuts
in public investment, for return to¿ Hang on!
You talk about sympathy¿
As leader of a party, presented as the underdog
throughout the campaign.
I sympathise with anyone who is leader of the
Conservative Party. I don't sympathise with somebody
putting forward policies that I believe¿
That you don't agree with!
Not just that I don't agree with but that I genuinely think
damage the country. Their policy on Europe, which hasn't received
much scrutiny, is one that would have this country on the exit door
for Europe. A policy of cutting a quarter¿
With the greatest of respect, we have spoken to him
about Conservative policies, we don't need to talk to you about them.
You are talking about the choices in the election.
Just as you are the interviewer, I am supposed to give the answers.
The answer is that it is actually important to defeat the Conservatives
in this election because the policies they are standing for, like taking
a quarter of university budget away, are policies worth defeating.
Could you ever have too big a majority?
I haven't got any majority yet. I have not and will not speculate.
You have a majority of 179 in the last parliament.
Not this election.
Could you have too big a majority after this election?
I am not speculating on the majority because I don't have one.
You guys in the media can speculate about it.
I am not asking you to speculate but this is a straightforward question.
Could you have too big a majority?
I know what you are asking me. I am not getting into the business
of predicting majorities. Or saying whether I think this majority
is right or that majority is wrong. Any politician in my position,
going into an election campaign, is out and hungry for every piece
of support. I am asking for the support because I believe in the policies
I am putting forward. You people in the media can speculate on the
size of the majority. The opinion polls can and the bookmakers can.
But it's the public who is the boss. They will making the decision.
We should leave it to them to make the decision on the basis
of what they believe.
Could too many of them decide to vote for you?
You are not putting that question forward seriously?
That I should sit here...?
Is it a danger having too big a majority?
We don't have any majority yet!
No, you haven't had the election yet!
Exactly which is why let's talk about the issues
instead of this stuff about - is the majority going to be this or that
when we haven't got one.
I'm merely asking you, Prime Minister, whether you think there is
any danger of having too big a majority.
There is a danger if people don't come out and vote for
what they believe in. I hope they vote for that.
For the health of democracy, you don't think there is a question
at issue here about how big a majority is healthy?
Surely the single biggest question in a democracy
is to get people to vote for what they believe in.
The idea the Conservative Party can come along,
every strategy having failed in this campaign,
their campaign useless because they have lost all the arguments
on policy, and say to the public we can't think of a good reason
for voting for us, but please Labour might win on Friday,
so lend us your vote and give us a bit of a shot.
It is unbelievable they should come forward with that.
You asked me if I felt sorry for William Hague.
I feel sorry for people leading the Conservative Party
in its present state, but I don't feel sorry for people putting forward
the policies they are putting forward.
If the public want us to put that money into schools and
hospitals, if they want us to strengthen the economy -
come out and vote for it.
Don't vote for the Conservative Party out of sympathy,
when they are going to reverse the very policies people support.
Prime Minister, thank you very much.