................................................................................ 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...