................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
ROBIN COOK INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 28.9.97
................................................................................
HUW EDWARDS: Mr Cook, I want to talk to you about the
main ways in which the government is trying to transform the country. Mr
Blair, in his recent speech to the TUC outlined four main areas, one of which
was Europe so given your vantage point, I'll start with that. There are some
in the party - some - who would like us to join a Single Currency right at the
outset. Is that, at least, a possibility?
ROBIN COOK: It's a possibility in the sense that we
have never ruled it out but Mr Blair, Gordon Brown, myself, we have all said
that it is unlikely that Britain will join in the first wave and there are
formidable obstacles in the way of doing so. We'll make up our minds at the
turn of the year when we've got the final figures for this year and if the
answer is yes, there will be a referendum of the British people, who will get
the final veto. But it's unlikely we'll decide to go ahead then. Partly
because we've inherited an economy from the Conservatives, only very recently,
we're a young government, a new government, with a very ambitious programme,
we've got a lot to do.
EDWARDS: Not wanting to split hairs but let's be
quite clear, there is a possibility, however small, that we could be in on day
one?
COOK: We have never ruled it out but I'm not
wishing to suggest that that possibility has grown in recent days. Indeed
Gordon Brown this morning stressed that there has been no change in our policy.
Our position remains as it has been ever since before the election. We think
it unlikely we'll be joining in the first wave.
EDWARDS: Well let's take it on a little. What
then do you make of other suggestions that you could be ready to join a little
after the start date, an early entry nonetheless.
COOK: Well I don't know a little after. I
have myself always said that if the Single Currency proceeds and if it's a
success then in the longer term Britain could not stay out but that's in the
longer term, it's not a little after.
EDWARDS: It's not a year or two after?
COOK: I was asked this very question a year
ago and my answer is not different. If we conclude that it's unlikely we will
join in 1999, the economic considerations that point against joining in 1999
are unlikely to change within one single year. But of course this is an option
we'll keep open, we will keep under review and if we ever reach the conclusion
that the British economy and particularly British jobs would be better served
by joining then we will put that case to the British people in a referendum.
But that's for the longer term.
EDWARDS: That's quite significant because you
were making that case and mentioning the jobs concern that you have before you
were at the Foreign Office, so are you saying that during your time in office,
so far, you've seen nothing to change your mind on the possible timing for
entry?
COOK: Absolutely right and there has been no
change in the government's position, there has been no effective discussion,
there has been no shift in any view that Gordon Brown or I have expressed.
Gordon made that perfectly clear this morning, I'm repeating it as Foreign
Secretary today at lunchtime. I very much hope that out there people will
realise that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary are
both saying our position on the European Single Currency has not changed, it
has not changed.
EDWARDS: So nothing you've seen, the papers
you've had, all those experts you have at the Foreign Office that you talk to,
nothing you've heard or seen or discussed has led you to believe that the
position of the government has changed to what you were saying during the
election campaign.
COOK: I know the position of the government
has not changed and also, if I may say Huw, we did give this very careful
consideration in opposition, we debated it, we discussed it, we did meet with
other experts. The position on which we fought the General Election remains
the position that we've taken today. And I think that's very important, not
just in the context of the Single Currency but in the context of all the other
policies that we've fought for the General Election. We've got a mandate on
the basis of what we said in that Election, we're not going to abandon what
we said in that Election.
EDWARDS: Given the fact that we're entering a
very important phase certainly for you and the government, next year we're
handling the presidency of the union, would it be possible for us to maintain
an element of influence if we had not signalled positively that we were ready
to join the Single Currency, not within ten years but within a realistic early
time scale?
COOK: Well I have discussed this very point
with my European colleagues and I have said on a number of occasions, I said it
as recently as only a couple of weeks ago, that when Britain is present at the
European Union, starting in January next year, we will of course then be in a
position to provide a lot of influence in Europe. In connection with the
Single Currency I have given an assurance to our European partners that if we
decide not to join in the first wave, we will as president, honourably carry
out our duty as the chair of the European Union, to enable those who wish to go
ahead to do so. We will not impose a national perspective from...chair.
EDWARDS: Of course - understood. But surely the
case is that if that were the position we'd be, to say the least - and, to put
it politely - undermined, would it not? Our influence would not be as great as
it would be if we'd signalled positively that we were to join at some stage.
COOK: Ah, from our European partners I've had
a full understanding of our position, partly because we've been clear about it
and we've been consistent about it throughout, that it is unlikely that we will
join. So, if we should decide that we don't join, having made it clear that we
think it unlikely that we join in the first week - no, there'll be no
undermining our position.
EDWARDS: So, they're saying: Don't worry, Mr
Cook, or don't worry, Robin, everything's OK, you go your own way. We don't
mind what you do and if you're not signalling that you're going to join and if
you are signalling, if you're not signalling-
COOK: No-
EDWARDS: -we don't mind.
COOK: Maybe, I can correct the whole drift of
the presumption behind your questioning? There is a very strong welcome
throughout Europe for the new Labour government of Britain and the positive
approach it is taking to Europe. We are now respected in Europe as a partner,
not resented as an opponent. And, because of that we do have influence. We
got a much better deal at the Amsterdam summit than we would have ever had from
the stale opposition from the Conservatives. We are welcomed and respected in
Europe as a Government you can do serious business with.
EDWARDS: The key word there was positive attitude
- the litmus test for many people in the Party even. The litmus test of that
positive attitude is saying an early yes to a Single Currency. Do you not
accept that?
COOK: I don't acccept that that is the only
way you can measure a positive engagement with Europe - no.
EDWARDS: It's the quickest way, at the moment.
COOK: No. I don't accept that at all.
EDWARDS: It's the biggest question you face for
that reason-Because what?
COOK: No, it is a very important question and
it is a question we will answer in what is the interest of the British economy.
If we believe that answering Yes to that question will assist jobs, will assist
exports, will assist investment in Britain, then, we will give that Yes. If,
however, we are in doubt about that, then, we will not go in early, in the way
that you are suggesting if that is going to put at risk British jobs, British
investment and British exports. That has got to be the right approach for the
British government.
EDWARDS: Well, let's pick up on the jobs issue
because you have persistently made this case and you've made your concerns in
this area very clear. Has that changed? Has the jobs position changed in that
sense? Do you now see conditions not just in Britain but across Europe which
make you less concerned about the impact on Employment of joining a Single
Currency than you were, say, three or four months ago.
COOK: No.
EDWARDS: Nothing's changed on that?
COOK: No. But, why should it? I mean, these
considerations_
EDWARDS: Well, no-
COOK: These considerations of major economic
issues, Huw, do not change in a short few weeks.
EDWARDS: Well, your perception of the threat to
Employment could well have changed over the last four or five months when
you've seen how economic trends develop.
COOK: Well, if you have some concern there,
Huw, I hope I've just answered it. Our position has not changed.
EDWARDS: So, the big concern about jobs, your
main concern, remains?
COOK: Our concern-We are determined to make
sure that we bring down Unemployment. We are making very important strides
towards that. The new deal that Gordon Brown announced in his first Budget
will, actually, make major inroads in Unemployment over the next eighteen
months. We are going to bring down Unemployment. We're certainly not going to
do anything that would put up Unemployment. Now, if we came to the conclusion
that joining the Single Currency would assist us in that task of reducing
Unemployment and creating jobs, then: yes, in those circumstances we would
join. But, that conclusion we will reach when the time is right, not before -
as we have said. It's unlikely that when that time comes we'll decide to join.
EDWARDS: So, as long as that threat to jobs
remains, we won't be joining?
COOK: As long as we take the view that joining
the Single Currency would not meet our tests of benefiting the British economy,
of stabilising investment, of increasing Exports, of increasing Employment,
then, we want jobs. We'll make a decision of what's right for the British
economy - nothing else.
EDWARDS: Let's move on, Mr Cook.
A second area, mentioned by Mr Blair -
you've made lots of inroads into this area - Constitutional reform. You've
been an enthusiastic campaigner for Devolution. That's going through in
Scotland and Wales. A very important element there Proportional
Representation because there are elements of that in both packages. You're
again a fervent supporter in this area. You've led the way. Do you think, at
this stage, that we are still in a position where Proportional Representation
for the next Westminster Elections is still a possibility?
COOK: Well, it's a possibility Huw, but I do
have to say that the timetable is very tight and we've always recognised that.
Now, in terms of where we proceed now, we will shortly be announcing the
Commission on Voting Systems, which we're committed to in our Manifesto, in the
statement we made with the Liberal Democrats before the last Election. We've
set out that that Commission should report, within about a year. So, we could
expect a report from it sometime in the autumn of next year. It-How fast one
can, then, move thereafter towards a referendum will very largely depend on to
what extent that Commission manages to find a consensus and alternative and
that that consensus is acceptable.
EDWARDS: So, broadly speaking, we're still
sort-of on track for PR for the Westminster Elections for the next time around?
COOK: We're on track for what we promised in
our Manifesto, which is that we would set up the Commission early in this
Parliament and that that Commission would report within a year and would be
followed by a Referendum. That was the commitment we made in the Manifesto and
those commitments are the ones we're keeping.
EDWARDS: If I was a Liberal Democrat watching I'd
be trying to decode what you're saying and-
COOK: No-
EDWARDS: -thinking: well, perhaps, it doesn't
look as if Mr Cook's totally confident that at the next General Election will
be fought on a basis of PR.
COOK: Well, I'm not speaking in code. I'm
speaking in plain English and I'm trying to speak frankly and I'm also speaking
honestly about the difficulties in a way and what one can realistically
achieve. We have never given-it was not in the Manifesto that the next
Elections would be fought on a changed system, partly because that timetable's
very tight and partly of course, because it's all down to the British people.
They're the ones who'll decide in the Referendum.
EDWARDS: Of course, and talking of which if
you're going to get that system in place for next time around, you'd need a
Referendum by when? By 'Ninety-Nine?
COOK: I wouldn't wish to fix a deadline for a
Referendum.
EDWARDS: But, you would, wouldn't you? If you
would-for the next Election - if you were to put it in place for then? You'd
need a Referendum in a couple of years' time.
COOK: It's a matter of commonsense that the
longer it takes us to get to the Referendum the more difficult it will be to
change the Electoral system, in time for a subsequent Election. I would say,
though, Huw, if you look at the majority that we have in the House of Commons
on the last Election, if you look at the tremendous success of the Labour
Government's chance of retaining support, the enormous endorsement given,
particularly, to Tony Blair as Prime Minister; and, if you balance that with
the shambles we see on the other side in the Tory Opposition, at this stage,
I'd be fairly hopeful Labour's going to be around more than one Parliament and
we're going to need more than one Parliament to complete the changes that we
want to do to the British Constitution, to make it modern, to make it more
democratic, to share power with the people.
EDWARDS: Are we going to need more than one
Parliament to get PR in for Westminster?
COOK: I'm not saying that Huw, but I'm hopeful
that we will have two parliaments to complete our task. Rember we are looking
here at what is after all, a very major constitutional change. It would be
wrong to take - cut corners on that. We have to make sure if we're going to
make that change, if the British people vote for that change, that we achieve
it in a way that's going to be right for Britain and carries maximum consensus
for Britain. Now, if the people vote for it, if it can be done for the next
election, I personally prefer that, but if not I'm confident we'll have anothr
parliament to complete the job.
EDWARDS: Could I ask you about the nature of the
change that you have in mind. Is it possible that the Commission that is being
set up would actually come up and say: well alright, we've considered all the
options, and what we'd actually like is an alternative vote system, not full PR
as some people would describe it but AV as it's called. Is AV a possibility?
COOK: Nobody can say to the Commission, you
cannot consider the alternative vote, and it is for the Commission to decide
what they're going to recommend, and I may say I think it would be premature
now to begin a debate as to what they may or may not decide since they
themselves have not actually even started. Personally I would say that the
alternative vote is not a proportional system. It would not meet the test that
we set out in our document before the election, that it should be a
proportional alternative. But it's for the Commission to examine it, for the
Commission to make up its own mind.
EDWARDS: The reason I'm asking not least, is
because I remember the press conference you gave at Westminster earlier this
year, and you and Bob Maclennan of the Lib-Dems seemed to be saying pretty
clearly then that AV was not an option. Were you speaking then in a personal
capacity, or were you speaking in a more official capacity?
COOK: I was speaking then as the Chairman of
the Joint Commission, and the Joint Commission was...
EDWARDS: That was pretty definite. I mean I
crossed out AV when I heard you say that at that stage, was I wrong to do that?
COOK: No. No, Huw, I mean you were listening
to what I said then and I hope you're listening to what I'm saying now.
EDWARDS: I certainly am.
COOK: The Alternative Vote is not a
proportional system. What the Commission said is that when we've set up this
body to look at the voting systems it should recommend an alternative to first
past the post, a full referendum of the British people, and that alternative
should be proportional. That would suggest that it could not be the
alternative vote, but it's not for me to decide in advance what the Commission
may recommend.
EDWARDS: I accept that.
COOK: I'd frankly be surprised if looking at
that remit they were to come back with the Alternative Vote, but it would be
undemocratic, it would be improper to say they can't even consider it.
EDWARDS: I'm just amazed that so many of your
colleagues, and Peter Hain among them, would seem to think that the Alternative
Vote would be a great solution, and there are people who actually think this
would retain some kind of proportional element. What do you say to those?
COOK: Peter has been an advocate of the
Alternative Vote for about ten years now.
EDWARDS: He's wrong.
COOK: No, it's not a question of being wrong,
it's a valid system which he's perfectly entitled to advocate, but Peter
himself would be willing to admit that it's not a proportional system. It
solves one of the problems of the British electoral system, which is that some
members of parliament get elected without the support of the majority of the
constituencies, some of them without even the support of two-fifths of their
constituents, but it doesn't solve the other major problem which is that across
large parts of Britain even the Labour Party finds it difficult to get the
votes for it translated into seats in parliament. We want a system, I say I
personally would want to see a system which fairly reflects the way that
Britain votes, and avoids as ever going through again the eighteen years we had
under Conservative government, of rule by a party that never ever got a
majority of votes from Britain and ruled in the interest of an elite.
EDWARDS Just finally on this Mr Cook, you don't
think you're setting the Commission an almost impossible task, a nasty circle
to square on this one?
COOK: It's a very tough task, and nobody's
going to pretend otherwise. They are being invited to look at what would be
the best electoral system, proportional system for Britain into the
twenty-first century. That's a very big job, and trying to find a consensus
round one alternative proportional system will not be easy for them, but it is
a very important task, and it's a task that we are setting out on precisely
because we believe that the best way forward on this question is to let the
people decide, to put it to a referendum. That's what this Commission's there
to do, to shape the question of that referendum so the people can decide how
they elect their politicians.
EDWARDS: Very well. We move on to the..well one
of the other themes Mr Blair mentioned the other day, he's made quite a lot of
the theme of compassion, including people socially and I don't think anybody
would deny, Mr Cook, that in the areas of Welfare to Work and other policies
that you've brought forward, you've certainly gone quite far towards providing
people with some kind of mechanism to get back into a decent livelihood
etcetera. I want to ask you about people who are not in a position to work.
Those who are living on the breadline, who are not in a position to work,
pensioners are included. Can I put it to you rather bluntly that you're not
doing much for them?
COOK: We've been there five months Huw, we
haven't yet had a pension review.
EDWARDS: Well a signal would be something. A
singnal about it.
COOK: There's been plently of signals and
indeed we have committed ourselves in the manifesto to make sure that the
pensioners today share in the rise in living standards of Britain.
EDWARDS: How?
COOK Well that must be to make sure that they
do actually benefit from the increase in the economy, the increase in income
that's available to the rest of Britain must also be shared with the
pensioners.
EDWARDS: Higher pensions.
COOK: Huw if I can first of all go on from
there. We are a new government, we have though started in train how we
translate that commitment into practice and later this year there will be a
Green Paper on our welfare proposals which will be looking at this question
among others and setting up how we intend to achieve that.
EDWARDS: Fine, I accept that. That's fine, that's
the plan, that's the strategy. What about today, those people who are living
on the breadline today. You've been in there five months, you could actually
(INTERRUPTION)...you could actually if you're really serious about this, we've
had all kinds of plans from Gordon Brown, if you really were serious about
this, you could have stumped up a little more cash for those people who are
actually on the breadline today to help them, why haven't you?
COOK: You cannot be serious Huw.
EDWARDS: I am serious.
COOK: You know you cannot be serious.
EDWARDS: Deadly serious.
COOK: No, I'm sorry Huw, I mean if this is a
serious problem which has to be addressed seriously in the interest of the
millions of people who are caught within it. We cannot simply trivialise on
the basis that we could have stumped up more cash.
EDWARDS: I don't think there's anything trivial
about offering people higher pensions. It's not trivial at all.
COOK: The pensions issue is not trivial. I am
suggesting to you Huw that you are minimising it as a serious issue when you
simply say we can be stumping up more case. We inherited a public spending plan
from the Conservatives based on the budget that they brought in last November,
that's what we're working within the present year. Of course over future years,
as we actually manage to change the economy in the way that we wish, as we get
people back into work through the scheme to which you have referred to and you
admit that we are doing a lot to get people back into work, as we bring in a
national minimum wage to protect those who at the moment are at the bottom of
the pile in work, as we introduce a fairer tax system, for instance, as we have
already done by cutting VAT on fuel in a way that helps pensioners. As we do
those things, we'll then over a period of time, be able to tackle the remaining
problems of those who can't benefit from our proposals to get people back to
work. But Huw, it is reasonable to judge this government over that period of
time, we were elected for five years, not five months. Let's not do the
...analysis now.
EDWARDS: So you do it then . Okay, well thenI'll
turn it round then to a positive point rather than have you get shirty with me
again.
COOK: I wasn't getting shirty with you.
EDWARDS: Let me tell you the positive, you are
saying then that you will eventually get round to the problem of tackling the
level of benefits, not least pensions. You will get round to that problem and
do something about it.
COOK: I've already said to you Huw, that by
the end of this year there will be a Green Paper setting out the options by
which we can do that. I've also said to you we are committed to making sure
that pensioners share in the rise in living standards of Britain and five years
from now I'm quite confident you will be able to see we've delivered on that
commitment.
EDWARDS: Well let's hope you will be less shirty
this time Mr Cook. I'll turn to the party. I'll turn to the party. No you're
not shirty. I'll turn to the party. Lots of reforms going on, it's a period
of great change at the moment, I need hardly tell you that. Do you think that
people have a case when they say - and I'm talking here about Party members -
when they say the trend is clear, heard it before but they're making the case
even more strongly now. The ultimate destination is a severing of the links
between Labour and the unions, people have a case when they say that don't
they?
COOK: Well I personally don't believe that we
should sever our links with the trade unions. I also see nothing in the
proposals before our conference this week to suggest that we are going to sever
our links with the trade unions. On the contrary, the party into power
programme, makes it perfectly clear that the trade unions will retain a major
place on our national executive committee. They will play a part in our new
policy process. The trade unions are part of the Labour movement and there is
nothing before us this week to suggest that they are going to cease to be. But
what we also have to say, is that as a government, we will make sure that
members of trade unions are treated fairly. That's why I myself, as Foreign
Secretary, restored trade union rights to the staff of GCHQ, that'swhy we are
going to produce a paper setting out the right to representation by trade
unions where a majority of the workforce want it. But it's going to fairness.
It's not a favours to the government.
EDWARDS: Again, let's talk about the party
structure itself. There is a diminished role for trade unionists, not least
within policy making. That's one of the proposals that is on the table. Are
you happy with that?
COOK: First of all, I don't accept that
there's a diminished role for anybody within policy making.
EDWARDS: Really?
COOK: No, not under the Party into Power
process. Under the Party into Power process what's going to happen is that
there is going to be an opportunity for wider consultation than ever before
both with the members of our Party in the country and also with the trade
unions who are affiliated to the Party. Once they've had that process of
consultation, the reports will come back to the Party Conference, reflecting
that consultation with options and alternatives that reflect differences of
views revealed in the consultation, then this Conference can vote under those
alternatives. Now, if I may say so, that's a new power for Conference. Before
Conference, trade unionists,... seats of Parties or whatever have simply had to
swallow whole reports. In the future, under these proposals, they'll be able
to amend them - that is going to make Conference much more meaningful.
EDWARDS: But looking crudely at the whole
picture, the actual role and influence and weight of Trade Unions is
undoubtedly diminished in the new structure is it not?
COOK: No I wouldn't accept that as a way of
approaching it Huw and I wouldn't accept that as a fair statement. I think it
is true - this I think the Labour Party can regard as a positive success - that
we have got many more members than before. I mean our Party membership in real
terms has probably doubled over recent years and because we've got a larger
membership, a stronger membership, it is certainly fair to say that that new
individual membership of the Party is getting a stronger say in Party policy -
that's one of the reasons why at Party Conference - with the agreement of the
Trade Unions - we have switched the votes so that half of the votes are now
held by those Constituency Parties and their membership. That is also why we
are looking at ways - both in the Trade Unions and in the Party - that we can
communicate directly with members so we can get the views of the members
themselves.
EDWARDS: Is there any point in the Conference
happening from now on simply because it's being described more akin to an
American convention - it's a rubber stamp? I know it's been said before but
it's perhaps even more of a rubber stamp than it's ever been. Is there a point
to it anymore?
COOK: Well first of all it's not an American
convention and I've been to American conventions. I've seen them and this is
not an American convention. This is a serious body that still has a very
serious job to do. Secondly, it is not a rubber stamp. It is a very clear
body of opinion from representatives of the Labour movement, which is making
very serious decisions on the basis of what they believe is right for Britain,
not just what's right for the Party. And under the Party into Power proposals,
Conference actually will have a more meaningful role. First of all it can
amend ........ Secondly, conference will be able to ballot on what
resolutions of debates, at present it doesn't have that power and thirdly, it
will be able to hold ministers to account and to question them and get answers
from ministers. At present what conference does is it hears speeches by
Ministers and give the applause, rather like an American convention. In future
they will be able to give questions and demand answers.
EDWARDS: Lots and lots of changes. Has the time
come-
COOK: For the better.
EDWARDS: Has the time come to take a breath and
say: Hang on, let these bed down before we go on with any more?
COOK: Well, these are proposals that are
before Conference this week. If they are approved by Conference, they'll take
effect-
EDWARDS: Assuming it's approved.
COOK: If they're approved. I said 'if'
they're approved. If they're approved, they will take effect next year. It
hasn't yet happened, Huw - bit early to say: let's see how they bed down. But,
I have been Chair of the National Policy for the last two years, I've also been
to Conference for thirty years - my thirty-first Conference - I have to say,
Huw - having seen both sides - I've absolutely no doubt that the Policy Forum
means working with open, frank discussion, working groups, consultation,
empowers ordinary delegates and ordinary members of the Party in a way that the
grand rituals of Conference debates do not.
EDWARDS: Robin Cook - a hundred per cent
moderniser?
COOK: I've always been in favour of making
sure that we move with the times, Huw and after all Conference arrangements
have not changed much in the last eighty years. They date from a time when we
didn't have that capacity to communicate with each other, to travel more, to
exchange direct views with the Membership of the Party. Time we did move with
the times, time we did modernise and I, actually, do believe, as is so often
the case in modernisation, people will find themselves more comfortable with
the change once it's happened.
EDWARDS: Foreign Secretary, thank you very much
for talking to us.
COOK: Thank you. for
...oooOooo...
|