ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: Now the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott, has resigned from the Privy Council over delays to press regulation. Next week the Council will discuss a proposal for regulation put forward by some parts of the newspaper industry but it will not discuss Parliament’s proposals until September at the earliest. Lord Prescott said he would quit on a point of principle and he joins me now from Hull. A very good morning to you, Lord Prescott. As many commentators have been saying this is a very big step, people normally only leave the Privy Council because of doing something wrong, the last one to go was Chris Huhne. Why have you taken this step?

LORD PRESCOTT: Well because I’m extremely concerned that seeing the Leveson proposals about an independent framework put in for accountability and abuse by the press which had gone on in the last few years. Parliament agreed that there would be a Royal Commission, a Privy Council committee which would deal with what they call a Charter. A Charter, there’s two of them, one by the press and one by Parliament. Parliament has decided by 508 votes that theirs, the independent one, will be the name in the name of Parliament. The press has come along with theirs, rushed it in, it’s not supported by all the industry, it’s not as independent, it’s financed by them, it would appear to me that when I look at the delay programme that’s involved that this could go on for about 15 months up to the beginning, just before the election. It reminds me that the press, in seven inquiries over the last [17/70??] years, have used the delaying tactics to actually stop it and now they are using the Privy Council, which is in the name of the Queen, ignoring and giving less priority to the Parliament one. I will not participate in something, as a member of the Privy Council, that I see as a matter of delay and a conspiracy between the government and the press lords to defeat what Parliament intends.

DM: Ah, so you think that Mr Cameron is going along with it, despite of the fact that he set up the inquiry, that this is some sort of attempt to kick it into the long grass?

LORD PRESCOTT: Well Mr Cameron told us that Parliament’s view passed in March would be given to the May Privy Council. He now says no, it will go the autumn and we’ll give the press one, which is not agreed in the industry by everybody, which is one of the requirements, is not independent and is financed by them. Now he says let that one go on the fast track, that’s delay and I believe Mr Cameron intends to come to some sort of agreement with them on the parts he doesn’t agree about the press one and then that will go forward. Again, the press win, it’s not independent, the victim loses and parliament gets into a collision with the Queen through the Privy Council.

DM: But don’t you think it would be better, just on those tactics, to get some kind of compromise with the press in that some people say there is not that much difference between the two proposals and surely there must be some common ground and that the other route forcing the press to sign up to this could lead to confrontations in the future.

LORD PRESCOTT: Well first of all, the agreement of the three political leaders, which I went along and expressed my reservation, was to use this Royal Charter. That was the compromise. What’s now being used is the Royal Charter to give fast track to the press. That’s entirely different so the compromise is being ignored in my view and I couldn’t just stand there, see what’s happening and say that by January next year the possibility is they tell Parliament that we can no longer carry out the press one, there won’t be time to make a statutory change and on Wednesday, the Privy Council is basically controlled by the Cabinet and there’ll be Cabinet members there. How can they go along and give priority to a divided Press Council proposal and ignore Parliament’s? I don't think they can do that, they can’t have an open mind so all the signs of manoeuvre for the press to win yet again at the expense of the victims demands.

DM: You must be sad to go. How do you go about it formally, leaving the Privy Council?

LORD PRESCOTT: You just write a letter! I know it sounds a bit funny, you lose your Right Honourable name in order to be honourable but that’s my judgement, that’s what politics is about and I hope now that Parliament will see that the manoeuvre that’s underway, starting on Wednesday, perhaps will force them to put the two charters in. That might be some step forward but this is my way of saying this is controversial, it’s not supposed to be with the Royal Charter controversial, you involve the monarchy – let Parliament get on with its job and bring in the proper law.

DM: And in terms of your interpretation of what’s going on here, do you read into this that some of the press might be going for Labour, in particular Mr Miliband, perhaps because they don’t like Labour’s support for the parliamentary version of this and also they point to Hacked Off, the campaigning group, sitting in his office while it was all fleshed out and we see things like this union row, this Unite union row at the moment where he is really getting it in the neck, Ed Miliband.

LORD PRESCOTT: Well it’s no shock to the Labour party that the papers are coming for us, they constantly, whatever it is, leave the unions aside for the moment. If you look at what they agreed with the victims, what they agreed in consultation with Parliament – they didn’t agree with it, they didn’t like it, Parliament took another view – so the press are hostile, there is no doubt about it but it’s whether it’s fair, that’s what Leveson is about you know. It’s about whether you are fair in the case of damages or fair in regard to hearing a case or a complaint. With the press version you lose the independence, they have a veto, they have control and I think I have to bring this out into the public debate. This is one way I can do it. It is no good shouting at people and saying I’ll threaten to resign, I threaten to resign. If the threat is big enough, you should take the action I believe and I resigned because it focuses debate.

DM: And you’ve done that. On that issue of United, you know it all so well yourself, you know what goes on in the Labour party, is this an opportunity – and I’m thinking back to Tony Blair and Clause Four and the whole issue of nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy, is this an opportunity for Ed Miliband to show who is in charge of the Labour party?

LORD PRESCOTT: Well let’s be clear about this, the relation with the unions is a strong one. I was a seaman for ten years involved in industrial strikes, getting the legislative change that we had and I actually had to encourage people to go in the Labour party, get the Labour party to back our proposals and make the changes so the relationship between the trade unions and indeed the Labour party is a traditional one. There is one very distinctive difference, when we’re involved we’re on minimum wage, health and safety, public services and we decide, unions decided by conference, they pressed the Labour party to adopt that policy. How difference to a lot of high bank rollers actually at Number Ten having dinners advocating tax changes. They are just two different organisations but I do think what you have put your finger on is very important, it’s change. Change is always controversial particularly in the Labour party, it was when I was involved in one member-one vote, it was on Clause Four and it will be about party funding. We’re going to have to grip this issue of party funding, whether it is a rich union or a rich businessman, in parties they should not be dictating what they think is the position. They are entitled to put their view but when they suggested the influence is because of the money they give, which seems to be coming from a number of individuals and organisations, that is unacceptable. Let’s get on to proper party funding which I’ve always believed, though it’s not my party’s policy, to have state funding and get out of these individuals deciding what should be policy for the money they pay.

DM: Is Mr McClusky partially right when he says people like John Prescott aren’t representing the party any more, it is metropolitan types, people who have been researchers. He is writing today in the papers and saying what he wants to do is reclaim the party from those in Labour who bought into the free market myth wholesale. Is he right about that?

LORD PRESCOTT: Well I am certainly not against him saying it but I have to say, I was a waiter and I became a member of parliament and to assume that the next generation who go to university shouldn’t have a part to play, they have a part to play in the selection. The inquiry in Falkirk, I’m sure millions of trade unionists and Labour party members are looking at this and saying what the hell is all this about between the trade unions and the Labour party and exploited by the Tories? Of course working class people can get in but I have to let you into a secret, there are less and less of them and they can take their chance and it is only the Labour party where any working class people have had chance to be representatives and the unions have played a major part because I was a union candidate from basically the Seamen’s Union. There are two different organisations, the public understand that, but let us grip this issue of party funding. That’s what’s causing the problems. When Lord Ashcroft says he will give money to a Tory party that supports his views or Peter Sands or Paul Simons who says I will finance those who are against Europe, they are using their money to gain influence. From whichever side it comes, it should be tackled and the public should know that they are in charge. That requires you to look at public finance.

DM: Great to talk to you, soon to be The Honourable Lord Prescott there, thank you very much.

LORD PRESCOTT: Only Honourable!