............................................................................... ON THE RECORD JOHN EDMONDS INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC-1 DATE: 15.1.95 ............................................................................... JOHN HUMPHRYS: Well, John Edmonds, what about your union. Ought it to support Tony Blair? JOHN EDMONDS: Well, I think Charles Clarke in that story in the film really summed up the strange position we're in at the moment because we know what Clause Four says, but we don't know what the alternative is because we're in the consultation process. And that's what we're doing in the GMB, we're sending the value statement that the Labour Party executive has prepared out to our members and getting back from them their views on what should be in a new Clause Four. HUMPHRYS: So was Charles Clarke right when he said you should have had the wording ready? EDMONDS: Well, I think that's one of those glib little statements that's easy to make in hindsight, but Tony would have been hanged either way wouldn't he? If he'd have said, "Oh, by the way in my back pocket I've got a new Clause Four", people would have said, "Oh great" (INTERRUPTION) Where is the consultation in this"? - Well I don't think that's very likely either because he's gone through a consultation process and that's the sensible way. If he'd have tried to pre-empt the discussion even if he'd have got a comma wrong, then there would have been press stories,"Tony Blair Climbdown", so the consultation route is best but it's got some problems. HUMPRYS: But you are quite satisfied yourself that Clause Four has to be changed, has to be dumped in its present form? EDMONDS: Well, it's a rather stange clause isn't it. It was written in 1917 and it was a terrible fudge there, it was an attempt to avoid the phrase "workers control", it was an attempt to bring together the party. We don't even know what the debate really consisted of because it was during the war, the paper wasn't available, so there was no print up of the debate. So, I mean using this as a momument is a bit curious, but what members of the party in both the trade unions and in the constituencies
will want to know is, well how are we going to develop this new statement, and I think within that new statement public ownership has to have a place, there's no doubt about that. HUMPHRYS: But there's no doubt either that your union is not going to say, let's hold onto Clause Four because that is the kind of totem, that is the kind of symbol which represents what would the Labour Party is all about (sic). EDMONDS: Well, it would be daft to make a choice between two things when you only know what one of the things is. HUMPHRYS: Well, so you might vote against. EDMONDS: We'll have to see what the two stand for. Now we'll obviously be a major part of the debate. We're consulting our members at the moment and we will be saying in this consultation process, these are the things that we believe the new Labour Party should stand for and should state quite clearly, one of which is frankly the regulation of important national industries - it's not just between public ownership and private
ownership, there can be public ownership with regulation and private ownership.... HUMPHRYS: I would like to come onto that in a minute if I may, but just to stay with the question of Clause Four itself, the existing Clause Four itself, you were quite clear when Tony Blair made his speech in the first place at the party conference, you said "I don't think too many people are going to worry about a change in the language of the constitution", and the next day you voted for Tony Blair, so are you now sort of back-tracking a little bit, are you saying, "I'm not sure that we will..."? EDMONDS: No, no, not at all. What I said actually at the time, and I believe I can remember it quite clearly is that if the new Clause Four is written and reflects what Tony said in his speech, and it was a magnificent speech to the conference, then there's no problem about it at all. What's happened in the meantime of course.... HUMPHRYS: So, the new one's got to be like the old one? EDMONDS: Well, the new one has got to reflect those values. We are not a party that believes in the market, the market solving everything. We believe the market has an important place in a modern society, but of course we have to intervene, to correct market failures, and we also have to ensure that some industries are in public ownership because if they're not they are going to betray the needs of the British people, and we'e seen a bit of that in the gas industry and in the water industry and electricity and so on, so we need regulation and public ownership. HUMPHRYS: But if all you do is tinker with the wording of Clause Four but leave its essence unchanged, then how's that a victory of Tony Blair and the modernisers? EDMONDS: But what is the essence of Clause Four. It talks about the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. No-one knows what it means. It's now regarded as meaning the sort of nationalisation programme that was introduced in the forties and the early fifties, but of course how could people in 1917 have contemplated that, so we're in a most strange position. So of course if Tony wants, and I can well understand the reasons, to express in modern words what the party stands for then I think he should be given more than the benefit of the doubt, he should be given support in that. Fifty-seven per cent of GMB members voted for Tony Blair, so I think he's entitled to support at least up until the point where we see the two statements. HUMPHRYS: So, was he wise to have picked this fight at this particular time? EDMONDS: I think he wanted to show the leadership, but he wanted to move away from some of the rather staid old statements of the past. I mean one of the things he said was, we ought to say what we mean, and it is a bit eccentric when most people in the Labour Party had agreed that we couldn't afford any more to re-nationalise all of these industries - it would cost seventy billion pounds - to keep pretending in our constitution that this was the only way we could focus on market failure. HUMPHRYS: What the cynics might say of course, is that here is a very powerful trade union leader hedging his bets a bit when it comes to whether to offer full support or not because you're going to want something in return for your support. EDMONDS: Well, it's hardly hedging the bets. As I say at the moment we have a strange debate between Clause Four and what might be the replacement for Clause Four, and that hasn't been developed, so I think any sensible person would say, well, we'd better see both of them. HUMPHRYS: Well, no, you could actually say, it's unlikely admittedly, but you could actually say, "We trust Tony Blair, he's done alright so far, we know that he's ..... EDMONDS: He has done alright so far, I mean he's a bit of an opinion poll lead so they tell me. HUMPHRYS: So they say that, yes. "His heart is in the right place. We trust him to deliver the goods and if they come up with something replacing Clause Four we'll go with that" You could actually say that. EDMONDS: Yes, but I mean in practical politics
you'll want to see what the statements are, and we want to consult our members what the statements are. What I am worried about is that some constituency parties, and we saw a bit of that in the film, are rushing to make a decision when they only know one half of the argument. I mean it's a bit silly to say we're going to choose Clause Four against something else that hasn't even been written yet, and I hope those parties will actually delay their decision until they see the two elements and then make a choice. HUMPHRYS: But you're absolutely clear there is no doubt about this in your mind and the mind of your union, that the old Clause Four as it is written has to go, disappear from the back of your membership cards. EDMONDS: Well the alternative now is quite awful, isn't it. I mean, who is going to say that a choice between a form of words written in 1917 and a new clause written in 1995 after full consultation, who is going to say that the old one must stand regardless? I mean, this would be a nonsensical circular argument. I don't think anybody's got the... the important thing is 'what is going to be in the new statement?' HUMPHRYS: But we are in an interesting position here aren't we, in a sense. Because what we are about to see it seems - given that you can accept the wording, clearly - is old Labour represented by the trade unions saving the skin of new Labour. EDMONDS: I think every part of the party is going to be consulted about this. The constituencies and I hope they delay their discussion until they see the two elements, and of course the trade unions. HUMPHRYS: Ah but if you don't support it it's dead, isn't it? EDMONDS: I mean I hope this is going to be a unifying event. This is what Tony Blair certainly wants. HUMPHRYS: It won't be if only the unions vote for it and the constituencies vote against. EDMONDS: But the only way the constituencies will vote against is if they make the decision prematurely. If they make the decision now, before they know the alternative. That I think is a bad decision and it will be very silly if constituencies take that position. HUMPHRYS: To what extent are people going to be swayed by what we have heard today - this policy group being set up to look at ways of renationalising most of the railways if they are sold off? EDMONDS: Well I think this is a very popular move and it reflects absolutely precisely what Tony Blair said last autumn. He said the post office and the railways should be in public ownership and he was cheered to the echo and frankly most people in the country would cheer that sentiment. HUMPHRYS: It should be in public ownership is very different to saying we will bring it back into public ownership if it goes into private ownership. EDMONDS: Well I don't know that that is so different actually. I mean, a statement that this is what you want... HUMPHRYS: Hmm? One is a commitment, the other isn't! EDMONDS: Well one is a statement of what you want to achieve. Then any practical politician says well how much it's going to cost, how long will it take? And bringing back the railways into public ownership, which is I believe a unifying force throughout the Labour movement, will be hideously difficult. There's no point in saying it's going to be easy. They've already spent seven hundred million - wasted seven hundred million - in preparing for this privatisation. The industry is going to be fragmented, it's got to be stitched together again before it's brought back into public ownership. It's going to be difficult, you don't want to be silly about these and say we are going to do it, if you don't know the means. HUMPHRYS: But do you see what's been...and what we've learned today and was confirmed this morning as a commitment on the part of the leadership to renationalise the railways. Is that how you interpret it? EDMONDS: I think with a bit of small print, providing it is technically possible and providing the money can be found. I mean the money has to be there at every stage, doesn't it. My own union is very keen that we bring water back into public ownership. It's a very popular move, it's already in public ownership in Scotland - it's never been privatised there because of the campaign of the Scottish people. It should be brought back into public ownership. And we want that commitment. All of us want that commitment. The British people want that commitment. But you've got to count the cost. It's not practical politics to give these commitments unless you know how to do it and unless you know where you can find the money to do it. HUMPHRYS: Well Mr Blair's being very, very careful not to give that commitment - specifically in the case of water, not to give that commitment. There is no way he intends to bring it back into public ownership, is there? EDMONDS: I don't think that's the case at all. I think there is always the sub-clause 'providing the money can be found'. HUMPHRYS: Well we're talking what? About eighteen billion pounds in the case of water? EDMONDS: I don't think it's as much as that. HUMPHRYS: That's the market value, the stock exchange value on it. EDMONDS: Yes, I wonder whether it will be at the time of the next election. HUMPHRYS: Well if you threaten to bring it back in of course it won't be. EDMONDS: But...well, the markets react to all sorts of things, don't they? But I mean the water industry has an enormous environmental impact. I mean the idea that the water industry should be in private ownership is frankly daft. The only thing that will prevent an early return is the failure to find the money and a practical politician has to recognise that point. HUMPHRYS: But isn't it extraordinary that a Labour party can countenance the possibility of something like water staying in private ownership? I take your point about the practical difficulties of course, they exist, but governments exist to overcome difficulties, don't they? EDMONDS: And oppositions exist in order to persuade the British people that those obstacles can be overcome and the work on the railways is intent on doing exactly that - to say it might be difficult but we are intent on doing it. That is, I think, something that everyone wants to see the Labour Party getting on with - saying this is our policy, this will be our policy preference, our programme, now we are going to work out the details. And I think people will be very encouraged today that the revelation that this work is already taking place will be enormously encouraging. It will probably help Tony Blair in the debate about Clause Four as well but it will be uplifting for the British people. HUMPHRYS: But it's vey different to what's being said about water. EDMONDS: I'm not sure. The debate about water, of course, isn't current in the same way as the railways because the railways is in the process of the privatisation argument. HUMPHRYS: But would you like to see a similar sort of thing? Some sort of policy group being set up to look at how to bring water back in due course. EDMONDS: In due course I think that would be a very sensible thing to do. But the first priority is the railways. And the first priority frankly is to stop the problem arising - to stop the privatisation of the railways - it is a silly, stupid idea. It's wasteful; we wasted money already; we should stop it. And the government should be made to stop it if there's a parliamentary way of doing that. HUMPHRYS: But we still don't have - and I return to this because a lot of people will say, yes, all right we've got a policy group, it's encouraging - as you say - what we've heard today is encouraging. It is not an absolute commitment to bring the railways back into public ownership if they are ... it's not an absolute commitment, you said that yourself. EDMONDS: I mean, I don't know what people can possibly ask from a party in opposition or for a party leader beyond what is now being said. Tony Blair says in his speech to the conference: Railways should be in public ownership. He then says: We have a working group to find out the way of doing it. He then says: But of course we've got to concern ourselves with the costs. Now, if he hadn't said those things he would have been regarded as either ... well, I mean, frankly ... an idealist without any connection with reality or he would have been regarded simply as having no principles. So those things have got to be connected together. The principle and the practicalities. HUMPHRYS: What concern do you have for the shareholders in any transaction, whether we are talking about a privatised railway system or water? EDMONDS: I think the shareholders need to be protected to this extent: that they put money in an industry and there is no question that it should be brought back into public ownership without them receiving some return. HUMPHRYS: Some return. But not the full market value of their shares, necessarily. EDMONDS: We'll see what...well, I mean, that of course opens up a whole series of other questions which you mentioned earlier because the market will react, of course, to what is going on in the political field and it may be that if the commitment, for instance on railways, is given very strongly maybe the railways will not have shareholders who are looking to a very large return and I think they would be very wise to be cautious in that respect. HUMPHRYS: But whatever happens you would regulate these industries in a way that they are not regulated at the moment. EDMONDS: Oh yes. Because I think the regulation has been a ghastly failure. I mean you only have to look at what's happening in the gas industry. They are cutting the money on safety, a vast amount more to their chief executive - and putting up prices - and appearing in the price increase to be discriminating against some good payers. Only direct debit customers get the advantage. Now, that's absolutely unacceptable and we've ... the union, my union GMB, has put forward some ideas. We ought to have, if we are going to have regulation - and I think we should have - we ought to have a regulation unit with specialist services but it ought to work on behalf of the consumer. The present one is too personal and it's working on the most idiosyncratic rules. HUMPHRYS: John Edmonds, thank you very much indeed.