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