................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
MARGARET BECKETT INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 23.2.97
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Margaret Beckett, a lot of change from
the Labour Party clearly in your attitude towards business. You, now, even
seem to be saying that privatisation isn't bad. Have you abandoned your
opposition to any further privatisation?
MARGARET BECKETT MP: Well, if the Government is intending -
as we hear suggestions in their Manifesto, which suggest the privatisation say
of the Post Office, or of London Transport - I think, we would be likely to
oppose both of those and they are, of course, extremly unpopular with the
general public and quite rightly.
HUMPHRYS: So, that's what you'd rule out. Would
you rule out absolutely everything else and say there will be no more
privatisation because we're against it in principle?
BECKETT: I don't think there's much left,
actually and I think this is, in fact, a cause for concern for the Government,
that they are running out of steam. This is the only - the nearest - thing to
an industrial policy they've had and they are running out of things left to
privatise. I think, this is the agenda of the past and what we're really
interested in and what most of the business community are interested in is the
agenda of the future. How do you make British business more successful, more
competitive? How can you get the kind of partnership between Government and
the private sector that many of our competitor countries run and run
successfully?
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but as you heard some people were
suggesting there that this is a kind of privatisation, a kind of litmus test of
your true conversion or otherwise. So, the question was: are you opposed, in
principle, to any further privatisation?
BECKETT: I think, only Tim Melville-Ross made
that point and, as I say, I think, the question doesn't really arise there is
so little left. And what is left? I mean in the case of the Post Office, for
example. What the Post Office needs is commercial freedom. It is a very
successful business in the Public Sector and it's had one hand tied behind its
back because other State-owned Post Offices, other Post Offices from elsewhere
in Europe who have more commercial freedom are able to compete with the British
Post Office here and they can't return the compliment.
So, their problem is not their
ownership, their problem is the arena within which they operate. Similarly,
with London Transport, as the President of the CBI - wearing, I think, another
hat - said the other day: what London Transport needs is a constructive
approach to planning and investment for the future. Their ownership is not
really relevant to that.
HUMPHRYS: But, there are one or two things left.
Indeed, quite a few little things. If I give you just one example and that's
national air traffic services for instance. Now, the Government's proposing to
sell that off. Gordon Brown because he has based his sums on what's going to
be coming in and going out of the Treasury when he takes over, if he takes
over, has included the proceeds of that sale in his sums. So, you'd be
perfectly happy, therefore, wouldn't you, to go ahead with nationalising....
privatising air traffic services.
BECKETT: We shall have to look again at all the
implications of the Government's financial settlement, what the policies are
that lie behind it, what the implications are, on both sides of the balance
sheet.
HUMPHRYS: But I thought you'd looked at it because
otherwise how could Gordon Brown have said that's what we're going to do.
BECKETT: No, Gordon is talking about accepting
the broad framework of the public expenditure and taxation settlement that this
Govenrment's reached. That's reality. No Government can just turn things
round overnight. We have to live with very much of what we inherit. But, of
course, the first thing we shall want to do is to look very hard at what we
inherit and see how much the facts square with what the Government's saying
now.
HUMPHRYS: Right. So, you might not, then,
privatise the .....
BECKETT: We would be looking at the case. For
example-
HUMPHRYS: No commitment, then?
BECKETT: There are very many examples of where
the Government has said about the costs of some of their proposals have turned
out to be quite unjustified. So, what we would want to do is to look at
specific proposals and say what's the real, financial cost. What's the real
implication? What's the real benefit? And, then, of course, you come to
judgments in office.
HUMPHRYS: Right. So, you're not ruling it out,
clearly, from what you're saying.
BECKETT: No. I'm not ruling it out.
HUMPHRYS: Right. So, it's -it's purely pragmatic,
then. It's based on purely pragmatic considerations - nothing to do with
principle, at all?
BECKETT: I think, what we're basing it on is our
belief that the Government should act in the overall national and public
interest. And, if it appears that it's in the overall national and public
interest to adopt a certain policy, a Labour Government would look at that.
But, we want to look at that against those factors. That's the basis of our
judgment.
HUMPHRYS: So, more privatisation is right, based
on those parameters, those figures, those considerations? You'd go ahead.
BECKETT: We don't rule it in and we don't rule it
out. But, what we're interested in is how we make British business and British
wealth creators work better in the future. We're not interested in going back
over the difficulties and disputes of the past.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I imagine Tim Melville-Ross,
Institute of Directors, will find that very interesting, won't he?
BECKETT: No doubt, I sincerely hope so. There
are some occasions when we agree with the Institute of Directors, some of which
we differ. But, what we always have is a constructive and interesting debate.
HUMPHRYS: Let's look at deregulation, the whole,
across the board, all sorts of things, the kind of things that businesses have
approved of during this Government - the sort of thing that Mr Heseltine talks
a great deal about: competition policy, deregulation and all that. Are you -
without going into great detail here - are you broadly signed up for that whole
package, or do you want to turn the clock back?
BECKETT: We've always been signed up for sensible
deregulation, and it's only the present government who it suited to pretend
that we weren't. I mean, why would anybody oppose taking off the Statute Book
regulations that are no longer relevent, but, in fact, you said yourself, Mr
Heseltine talks a lot about deregulation, he talks a lot more than he's
delivered. It was a Conservative back-bench group who pointed out that
something like thirteen times more regulations have gone on the Statute Book
since Mr Heseltine announced the deregulation initiative. But we are already
looking at practical ways to take this policy forward and make it effective.
We're looking, for example, to a meeting in a couple of weeks' time with a
whole range of groups. The Institute of Directors is one, the CBI, the
Chambers of Commerce and so on, and some Labour local authorities, to set up
pilot projects to see what local government can do to reduce the burden of
regulation that it puts on, particularly on small and medium sized businesses.
Now that's a really constructive and useful development, and it's being
undertaken now, even though we're the Opposition rather than the Government.
So our case is that we have a sensible approach to these things, and unlike the
government we don't just talk, we deliver.
HUMPHRYS: And the sort of things that they will
tell you, I'm sure they've already told you, is that they like it for instance,
that it's easier now for bosses to sack their workers. Nowadays you can - it
takes two years before a worker can claim unfair dismissal. John Smith wanted
to return that to one day - from the day you join a company from then on you're
entitled to this protection. Now, what are you going to do with that?
BECKETT: Well, what we're doing in general terms
across this whole area of the labour market and the way that it works is that
everyone recognises that employment circumstances have changed, patterns of
employment have changed, and it's a matter of how do you get something like
sensible, basic, minimum standards. Minimum standards on pay for example
through a minimum wage, and minimum standards in terms of people having the
right kind of flexibility and the right kind of employment protection. Now the
present government says there should be no standards at all. Now, I heard Sir
Edward Heath this morning saying that their argument against the Social
Chapter, against the National Minimum Wage was nonsense, that it was about
avoiding sweat-shop conditions, it was about avoiding exploitation, and there I
think, not always, but on this occasion I would see eye to eye with Sir Edward.
It's about whether and how you can get sensible, basic standards. This
government is opposed to any standards of any kind.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I've just given you an example
there of a case where they were protected - workers were protected. That
protection has been removed, that particular aspect of protection has been
removed by this government. I'm not quite clear whether you're saying you
would restore that or not.
BECKETT: Our Employment and Industrial Relations
Team is looking at what kind of a package of conditions is sensible and
practical to put in place.
HUMPHRYS: Shouldn't you have made a decision on
that by now? You've had an awfully long time to think about it.
BECKETT: They are consulting with the private
sector and with the representatives of the workforce about what's a workable
pattern, but of course they're looking at that in the context of a changing
employment environment particularly for the young unemployed, for the long-term
unemployed and so on. So it's part of that whole package, of an area with
which those colleagues are dealing.
HUMPHRYS: I note you say workable there, so in
other words you're as concerned with the business argument, profitability and
so on as you are with the principled - as some would say in your party, the
principled argument that workers' protection is paramount under, or should be
under a Labour government.
BECKETT: Everybody is concerned with what is
practical and will work. You will find ....
HUMPHRYS: Sometimes principle kind of overtakes
some things doesn't it, and you say, "Well actually, maybe a load of companies
wouldn't like this, but because we believe in the protection of workers'
rights, we a Labour Government are going to say we're going to do it, and if
there's a little price to pay, so be it!"
BECKETT: The principle is do you think there
should be any safeguard on workers' rights or on pay, or do you think there
should be some. That's the area of principle, and there is no doubt that the
Conservatives see no case at all even for the most minimal of safeguards, and
we do see such a case, and so too incidentally, do most people in the business
community.
HUMPHRYS: So you would change this then.
BECKETT: And then the area of practicality is how
do you get the best overall package that works both for the employee and also
for the employer.
HUMPHRYS: So this might not be one of those cases
that you just described.
BECKETT: Which this?
HUMPHRYS: Well, this, employment rights, you know,
unfair dismissal rights.
BECKETT: I've already said that I don't
think-Well, we're going over the same ground. I'm not here to much useful
purpose.
The principle is that we accept that
there should be some basic minimum standard.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, and I'm asking you whether-
BECKETT: With regard to care, with regard to
working conditions and so on.
HUMPHRYS: Precisely and I'm asking you whether
basic minimum standards should include protection of the kind that we've been
discussing - protection from Unfair Dismissal, the kind we've just been
discussing?
BECKETT: I believe that the proposals that are
being discussed and thrashed out now do, in fact, include some form of
agreement as to what is a reasonable period after which people should employ-
HUMPHRYS: Ah! So, there will-
BECKETT: -employment rights.
HUMPHRYS: So, there will be-Right, so there will
be what you define as a reasonable period. There won't be Day One, as we speak
now, it won't be two years as we speak now. It'll be less than two years.
BECKETT: If I look into (phon) - This is not a
detailed area of policy with which I am dealing but people are looking at what
that period should be for the mass of employees and they're looking also about
the special cases, the youngsters, the trainees etc., etc., So, those are all
areas that people are working on but working on with people of all interests.
HUMPHRYS: OK. Let's look at the burden on
industry, on commerce from taxes, overall tax, corporation tax - business
rates, the overall burden. Do you think that that overall burden is about
right?
BECKETT: We, certainly, don't propose to make any
major changes because it's part of living with the environment that we inherit.
But, certainly, we are prepared to look very constructively and, again, our
consulting about whether or not there is scope for say a two-tier Capital Gains
Tax, which might encourage people to hold investments for the longerterm. Now,
there are divided views about this in the business community but there are
those who argue and, indeed, the recent independent commission, which was
convened by the IPPR suggested that this might be a workable approach but,
basically, for much more longterm investments.
So, we're quite prepared to look at
issues like this, where we might be able to make beneficial changes in the tax
structure but within the same overall regime that exists today.
HUMPHRYS: Corporation Tax - thirty-three per cent
at the moment, dropped from fifty-two per cent - about right?
BECKETT: We, certainly, have not put forward any
proposals to change it.
HUMPHRYS: But, do you think, the overall burden,
therefore - if you include the whole package, Corporation Tax and all this -
and all that - you think that broadly is right? You accept the business case
that broadly it's about right as we speak?
BECKETT: Well, we've accepted the overall case
that the general settlement of the amount of revenues that is raised from
taxation is about right and that it, certainly, is a framework within which an
incoming Labour Government would have to work for quite some time because that
is the reality.
HUMPHRYS: Social Chapter. You say you don't want
extra costs to be imposed on business and commerce and industry, why, then, are
you signing up to the Social Chapter because that very well might incur them in
extra cost?
BECKETT: An awful lot of what's said about the
Social Chapter by the present government is, frankly, just nonsense. They talk
about it, including things which it's debarred from including and they talk as
if there's a great massive legislation simply waiting to pour into Britain if
the floodgates of the Social Chapter were open. This is all totally untrue.
What is true, though, is that, at the present time, Britain has an empty chair
in discussions about Social Policy. I heard the Prime Minister at his
conference and since say that on economic and monetary union, the important
thing was for Britain's voice to be heard because, otherwise, Britain's
interests couldn't be represented.
In fact, I think, he said you don't win
a football game when you're not a player on the field. That is just as true of
the Social Chapter. At the moment, as it happens, there are only two
directives in the Social Chapter.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but there might be many more.
This is the point. You can't actually stop. I mean, in the pipeline there may
not, at the moment, be hundreds and hundreds of things but there's no reason
why there might not be in six months's time - a year from now. You can't stop
that stuff coming down the pipeline. Once you're signed up to it, you'll have
to accept it.
BECKETT: There won't be anything in six months'
time or a year's time because there's nothing in the pipeline, despite either
desperate efforts of the British Government to pretend that there is. Nobody,
in fact, is envisaging a great flood of legislation under the Social Chapter.
But, if such legislation were at some point to be proposed the question is: how
is Britain's interests best advanced? Is it advanced by trying to hide in a
corner with our hands over our eyes and say: we don't want to know about this,
in the hope that it won't effect us or is it if there is something being
proposed, which arouses genuine concerns about Britain's interests, is it to be
in there as part of the negotiations with a say, and in some areas of policy
actually with a veto? It seems to us that's the right way to proceed, not the
present Government's way, even with works counsellors, which is in the Social
Chapter now.
British companies are setting them up.
So, we're effected by it.
HUMPHRYS: Margaret Beckett, there we must end it.
Thank you very much, indeed. And, that's it for this week. See you next week.
Good afternoon.
...oooOooo...
|