................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 9.3.97
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. Cromwell led one revolution. Tony Blair says he'll lead another if Labour wins the election ...a CONSTITUTIONAL revolution. I'll be suggesting to the general in charge, Robin Cook, that they're getting into the fight without a battle plan. And... the first interview with Sir George Gardiner after his defection to the Referendum Party. That's after the News from MOIRA STUART. NEWS If there is one big difference between the Labour and the Conservative Parties, putting Europe aside, is that a Labour Government would reform the constitution. There would be a Parliament for Scotland, an Assembly for Wales, an end to hereditary peers in the House of Lords and a referendum on the way we choose our MP's, not to mention a Freedom of Information Act and a Bill of Rights. Powerful stuff if you add it all together, but it's not going to be straightforward. Robin Cook, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, is the man chosen by Mr Blair to oversee the whole thing. And he joins us now from Edinburgh. Good afternoon Mr Cook. ROBIN COOK: Good afternoon John. Can I just make it clear before we start, that I was not one of those that phoned Mr Gardiner. HUMPHRYS: I'd rather made that assumption, oddly enough. Now, devolution: Scottish MPs are going to be able to vote on English matters; we have a Scottish Parliament, English MPs aren't going to be able to vote on many Scottish matters. Now, do you think the English will put up with that in the long run? COOK: Well, first of all John, let's be quite clear that the proposals for devolution to Scotland, are to resolve an anomaly, a major anomaly. The fact that Scotland does not vote for the policies that have being imposed on it over the last twenty years. There are only ten Tory MPs from Scotland and yet they are the ones whose views are imposed by way of legislation on housing and education and health, ignoring the views of the other sixty-two. Now that's a major anomaly that must be adressed if we're going to have stability in the Constitution. As to the continuing presence of Scottish MPs at Westminster, that's absolutely right, we are not proposing separation, nor are we proposing federalism. There's a devolution; the Westminster Parliament will continue to be the Parliament that provides the bulk of the funds for the Scottish Parliament, they will vote on the Scottish grant, and it is entirely right and proper that since all the English MPs will be voting for the sum of money for the Scottish Parliament to spend on housing, education and health, that Scottish MPs should come to Westminster and have equal rights with English MPs. HUMPHRYS: It may well be that the English are sympathetic to what the Scots want, that isn't what I am discussing here, but you yourself, on this question of five years ago said you had your concerns, you were then the Shadow Health Secretary and you said that you could not be the Health Secretary in a Labour Government with a Scottish Parliament because the English would not accept it. If that was the case five years ago, why isn't it the case today? COOK: That is a different question from the West Lothian question John. As a matter of fact, I don't expect to be Health Secretary in the next Labour Government. I expect to be Foreign Secretary, and
....INTERRUPTIONS It does not stand at all, since we intend to have a united Britain, since we're not proposing separation, any Scottish MP is of course, is entirely entitled to expect to be Foreign Secretary,because Foreign Affairs will continue to be a matter resolved at Westminster. HUMPHRYS: But no Scottish MP could be any other Cabinet Minister then, could hold education or health or.... COOK: This is a Parliament which is going to be a unity Parliament, it's elected under the present rules, the Conservatives are certainly not going to choose the rules that have given them so much power over the last eighteen years until they're defeated, and until we are in a position to return power to the people, and MPs being elected to this Parliament under the present rules are perfectly entitled to take any of the posts in this unity Parliament for the lifetime of this Parliament. That is actually what I said five years ago. HUMPHRYS: Well, yes, but you said that you yourself could not, as a Scot, you couldn't stand.... COOK: Yes but that was looking forward to the Parliament after that one, in other words, it's not going arise in the next Parliament, it's an issue we can confront in the future. HUMPHRYS: So, in other words, it is still a real issue and in future in the longer term, a Scottish Labour MP under these situations, under these circumstances, could not be Health Secretary, Education
Secretary, Transport Secretary, whatever you like? COOK: These are issues which can be adressed in the longer run, but I'd say it was a slightly fanciful discussion, John, because the reality is after the next election, there are going to be Scots Labour MPs in the Cabinet and they are going to hold posts, but they are posts that they're entirely proper that they should hold because they are going to be posts that are going to remain at Westminster. HUMPHRYS: But I'm talking about the longer term. COOK: I'm talking about the next Parliament, John. I mean let's fight this election .... HUMPHRYS: And beyond that... COOK: Well, we can fight the next election after we've won this one. Let's not count too many chickens in advance, John. HUMPHRYS: But that's precisely what - counting chickens is one way of putting it, considering the long term future of the United Kingdom is another way of putting it - and it appears that you're going step by step here without considering what may be on the other side, INTERRUPTIONS COOK: Our plans for devolution are very detailed and worked out in considerable depth, indeed I do have to say I can never recall any policy issue on which any opposition has prepared so much detail as we have in our plans for devolution, plans that we not only prepared in-house, but which we have discussed with other Parties, particularly with the Liberal Democrats. HUMPHRYS: Well, let me put another possible problem to you then. If, after there is a Scottish Parliament, the English say "Well look, we're a race as well, we are a nation ourselves just as the Scots are, just as the Welsh, they'll have their Assembly, now why shouldn't we be able to vote on our own Parliament, because they have their Parliament, they've got their Prime Minister, Premier, whatever you call him or her, why shouldn't we be able to do the same"? Would you say to them "Alright, you too, the English too may have a referendum on an English Parliament? COOK: Well, first, John, I'm not going to get into a position of saying: No, or for that matter, Yes, to what is a totally hypothetical question. What we are addressing in the Labour Party is what are the real questions that are being asked by electors in England at the very present time. And, they are not asking for a separate English Parliament. HUMPHRYS: Yet. COOK: Now, John, let's deal with what they're asking because we're fighting this General Election within the next six weeks. We're dealing with it in the context of what the people of Britain want in 1997 and over the next few years. And, what many of the people in England are asking for is that they want decentralisation. They agree with so many of us in Scotland that there's too many decisions being taken by too few people at the top. They want decision-making brought back closer to local people and the Labour Party is proposing to answer that question. That is why we are proposing a programme of progress towards regional government in those regions where the people want it. We are, actually, addressing what it is that English people are asking for themselves in change of their .... HUMPHRYS: Except that that doesn't address it at all, does it? I mean, there's no parity of esteem there, is there? What you're saying is: if you like in the North-East, for instance, you can have your glorified County Council, or whatever it turns out to be but the English - the English - you say - we've not even looked at whether the English as a nation could have their own Parliament. COOK: John, you- HUMPHRYS: Now, how can you deny that? COOK: John, you are now asking a different question. I mean, we are shifting- HUMPHRYS: Exactly the question I asked you two questions ago. COOK: The question you asked earlier - a moment ago - was responding to the wishes of the people of England. There is no demand for a separate English Assembly. HUMPHRYS: No, there isn't a Scottish Parliament yet! COOK: Well, let's get the Scottish Parliament created and let's also-So, the very real pressure which the people in England do feel, which is that they find their present Government too remote. There are not actually asking for another Assembly in London. What they are asking for is more ability to take decisions on their own regions without referring it up to London. Now, that is something we're going to address and provide, for instance, London, itself, with an elected strategic authority. In the absurdity that we are the only country in Europe which does not have an elected Government for its capital city. Now, that, actually, does answer very real, very strong feelings across many of the English regions. HUMPHRYS: It doesn't begin to address the basic unfairness. It doesn't address the West Lothian question. It doesn't address the fact that Scotland - excuse me - Scotland is over-represented with MPs, at the moment and will continue to be under your proposals because you're not prepared to give up the seat in Scotland, for the very obvious reason that it would cost you dearly because they're largely Scottish - doesn't address any of those questions! COOK: Well, they are largely Scottish, John but, I think, you've ..... HUMPHRYS: I beg your pardon. COOK: Yes, but, look, we are going to fight this Election to win. We're going to fight this Election to win in every constituency. We are going to win in a large number of regions across Britain. We're going to actually have-try and build up a governing majority in London and if I may say so, at the present time, it looks as if we can be hopeful that we are going to get that majority in England as well as in Scotland. It is not a question for the next Government- HUMPHRYS: How? COOK: -depending on those Scottish votes. (phon). There is also another aspect. HUMPHRYS: So. Right. Well, before we-Just leave that, if I may - just because you say you expect to get a majority of seats in England. COOK: No. I said we're fighting to achieve that - that is what I said. HUMPHRYS: And, you went a little bit further, didn't you? You're saying: well, we're rather hoping that we will get there. COOK: What we are hoping to do- HUMPHRYS: Yes. Precisely. COOK: -in this Election is achieve a majority in England, as well as in- HUMPHRYS: So, you are building, therefore. You are building profound Constitutional change on the possible outcome of an Election, which if it does not go the way you hope will leave that fundamental question unanswered. COOK: No, John, that's not what I said at all. You were saying that it would cost us dear, if we were to reduce the Scottish representation. I make the point that we are not doing it-ruling it out on the basis of a Party position. On a Party position, we are hopeful that we will have a majority in England, as well as in Scotland. We do rule it out because it is a perfectly accepted rule of many elected and democratic Parliaments that those regions that are furthest away from the centre should get a representation that compensates for that. Also, one of the reasons why Scotland does have that representation is because we've got well, a very large part of the land mass of Britain. It would be very difficult to treat the Highland and island (phon) seats on the same electorate as, say, Central London. But, there is - can I say to you - another angle to this. You are perfectly understandably and I'm happy to debate it going on about what happens to Scottish representation at Westminster and the Conservatives do that all the time. But, you know, this Conservative Government itself has proposed an almost identical solution for Northern Ireland. They've proposed a Parliament there with law-making powers directly elected, devolving to that. And, they, themselves, are not proposing any change in either the number of Irish MPs or their voting rights at Westminster. Now, in Scotland, I have to say they find it rather curious that the Conservatives think that's acceptable in Northern Ireland but totally unacceptable- HUMPHRYS: Well- COOK: -in Scotland. HUMPHRYS: Well, let's follow that up, then. There was a convention, when we had a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland. There was a convention that Ulster Unionists did not vote on purely English affairs, or for that matter, have a seat in the Cabinet. Now, if you're suggesting to me that you will accept that convention - fine. Are you? Prepared to accept that? COOK: There is a convention that the Northern Irish MPs developed for themselves. HUMPHRYS: That's right (sic) COOK: Listen, John. No, John, we are seeking- HUMPHRYS: But, there's an answer. COOK: No! No, John. If you go down that road and apply that, in the case of Scotland, then, where you're heading for is separatism. Now, we're not advocating separatism. HUMPHRYS: Hah! We do think that's precisely where you're leading us! COOK: No, we're not - we're not. HUMPHRYS: Northern Ireland can become separate. COOK: No, we are not, John. No, we're not. No, please, I must deal with that point. What the Labour Party, the Liberal Party many other non-Party forces in Scotland - like the Trade Unions, many of the Churches - a whole range of public opinion in Scotland has come together to make a very reasonable proposal for a sensible improvement in the government of Scotland. The real danger of fuelling the fires of separatism is if Government in London continues to say: no, we are not going to listen to that sensible requirement. HUMPHRYS: But, Northern Ireland-But, Northern Ireland did not go down that separatist path. So, if you're offering me Northern Ireland as the answer or the explanation for what you're doing here, how can you do that, bearing in mind the history of Northern Ireland? COOK: Well, I've got to say that the history, in that case, in Northern Ireland does not necessarily provide us with a model, John. HUMPHRYS: Precisely. COOK: You say to the people of Scotland: Look, you cannot have a seat in the Cabinet that Robin Cook, for instance, could not be Foreign Secretary because you have a Parliament.. in Housing (phon). HUMPHRYS: I didn't say that. I'm talking about voting on English affairs - as well as. COOK: No, no. You talked about taking a seat on the Cabinet, John - you did. And, the moment you start to say that you are saying to people in Scotland you either have independence or you have the anomaly of the past twenty years in which ten Tory MPs overruled sixty-two non-Tory MPs. If you say that to them, then, you are the one who's putting at risk the .. of Great Britain. HUMPHRYS: Let's move on then to Proportional Representation or for changing our voting system generally, you've agreed with the Liberal Democrats just this past week that there would be a Commission looking at a new voting system, if you come into force. Now it has to come up as I understand it with one alternative to the present system, does that have to be a proportional system, that is that the number of MPs elected would be directly reflected in the number of votes cast? COOK: Well, first of all what we are trying to achieve here is a referendum that will give the people of Britain a clear and fair choice on the voting system for Westminster and we think it is very important that it's the people who should decide this, it's they who elect the politicians, policiticians shouldn't be left to decide for themselves the form of election that is most convenient to them and we do believe that the most effective fairest referendum would be one that offered them the present system - if they want to stick with it - or an alternative. And, yes, we have said in that document that the alternative should be a more proportional one. HUMPHRYS: Right. COOK: Now, of course, it is difficult to achieve a system which is going to be absolutely and totally proportional but the alternative must offer a more proportional outcome. HUMPHRYS: Right. So, therefore, it would not be what they call - or be an alternative voting system because Mr Blair, himself, has said that that is not proportional. COOK: The alternative vote system is not a proportional system - that's perfectly correct. I mean I would, myself, expect the advisory commission to examine an alternative vote. I certainly wouldn't prevent them from examining it. But, it would be extremely surprising if they were to recommend it because it would not fit the remit of finding an alternative proportional system. HUMPHRYS: So, it's effectively ruled out? COOK: It's for the advisory commission to consider it and if they wish to make a case for it they can but it's difficult to see how they could, if they're looking for a proportional system. HUMPHRYS: Right. Let's look at the House of Lords. You have said that you will get rid of hereditary peers and replace them - COOK: Yes. HUMPHRYS: - with life peers, appointed by the Government to reflect the way we voted last time, plus some... COOK: No, next time John. Not the way you voted last time. HUMPHRYS: Right. Or, even the way well, we voted in that last Election - you know what I'm talking about. COOK: Yes, yes. HUMPHRYS: Precisely. When he does it, we will have already voted, won't we? So, we'll be voted... Well, anyway, in other words, we would have one undemocratic institution replacing what you, and many other people regard as another undemocratic institution. Now, how long could that - effectively, a quango - how long could that quango exist? How long could we tolerate that? COOK: The first step is to clear out hereditary peers, who are getting into Parliament. HUMPHRYS: I take that point. COOK: No, well, it's a very important point. It is the centrepoint of the immediate exercise. It'll put into practice the principle that if you wanna go to Parliament - and, take a seat in Parliament - you should not do so by the accident of birth. Often, an accident of birth that goes back for four or five hundred years too, when your peerage was created. There is absolutely no reason why Britain should drag that Mediaeval lumber into the next century. Now, having said that, John and that's the immediate priority it's only one step in a process and the process is aimed at creating a more representative, more accountable Second Chamber. We have said that we will proceed with that in the subsequent Parliament but so we can get things in train for it and prepare for it in the next Parliament, we will set up a committee of both Houses to look at how we would both structure that new Second Chamber - more accountable, more representative - and also what would be the balance of powers between the two Chambers. These are very big questions. We would intend to have the answers to that by the end of the next Parliament, so we could put them to the people in a General Election and carry them out in the next Parliament. HUMPHRYS: Right, so, in other words, we would go through the whole of one Parliament with this undemocratic institution, this
appointed quango continuing to operate. COOK: Well, we would go through the next Parliament without the hereditary peers which is a major step in the right direction and a big break from the imperfection of the Constitution of the last two or three hundred years, which has allowed people because they're born in the right families to decide what all the rest of the families have to obey as Law. HUMPHRYS: So, let me be clear about what's there, then. We'd have the abolition of the hereditary peers as the first step. COOK: Yes. HUMPHRYS: We would, then, following on that, immediately, have Tony Blair saying: alright, all you other men and women now can take your seats in the Lords because that's what I have decided. This is his decision soley, or at least the leadership of the Party. Now, that would take us through to the end of that- COOK: Yes. HUMPHRYS: -Parliament. And, then, in the next Parliament, we would come up with another system - whatever that may be, to replace that lot but, maybe, not for some time. So, we could go - we will go for at least five years with this undemocratic body. We might possibly go for another five years? COOK: Well, first of all, John, we wouldn't be coming up with the answers in the next Parliament. We would be examining the answers and coming up with them in the next Parliament and if we fight the next General Election on that commitment, there can be no question of deferring the changes and the reform into yet another Parliament. It would take place in the next Parliament. Secondly, I do want to get one point right. We're not proposing that there should be an avalanche of new peers immediately - in the way that you are saying. First of all, we said that we want to move, over the lifetime of the Parliament - to a House of Lords that more broadly reflects the way the nation votes and, surely, that's got to be right. And, we've also said - and, I think, this is a very important qualification. We believe no Party should seek a majority of seats in the Second Chamber and, therefore, Labour's representation - even in the course of the next Parliament - in the House of Lords - will be likely to be less than its representation in the House of Commons because we're not going for an outright majority there. We do believe that the cross-Party tradition of the House of Lords and the presence of cross-benches is a viable feature of the Second Chamber and one we will want to preserve. HUMPHRYS: Can I look at what your priorities are going to be during the next Parliament? If you get into power, that is. Of course, we've got devolution, we've got reform of the House of Lords, we've got PR - we talked about that - we talked Freedom of the Nation Bill, we've got a Bill or Rights - an awful lot to get through. All of that in one session of Parliament? COOK: It's a very ambitious programme and none of us are concealing that. HUMPHRYS: But, you're going to do it all in five years? COOK: And, people are taking a positive pride in the fact that this is going to be a great reforming Parliament in the tradition of some of the great reform Parliaments of the last century. Yes, we believe we can achieve that programme. We have made a specific commitment that the Bills for Scottish and Welsh Devolution will be in the first year. The rest we will seek to get through in the process of that full Parliament. HUMPHRYS: Are you- COOK: In that four or five year period, I believe we can do it. HUMPHRYS: Are you looking forward to the great second Labour landslide this century? Is that good for democracy? COOK: We will be fighting the next Election to win. We'll be fighting the next Election to win in as many seats as possible and, perhaps, more important than that, we will be fighting the next Election
for the votes of everybody in Britain. There's no vote counted yet. There's no vote- HUMPHRYS: ...landslide. COOK: We're going to fight to win, though. HUMPHRYS: You expect a landslide. You told us you expected it - a great Labour landslide - you expect that. COOK: No, I didn't actually say I expected a landslide. HUMPHRYS: Looking forward to it. COOK: I'm certainly going to work for the biggest, highest possible Labour vote. HUMPHRYS: Robin Cook, thank you. COOK: Thank you. HUMPHRYS: Thank you very much, indeed. And, that's all for this week. Next week, I shall be talking to Gordon Brown, the Shadow Chancellor and to Brian Mawhinney, Chairman of the Conservative Party. Until then, Good Afternoon. oooOOOooo