|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Tony Blair might have
hoped that the Mandelson resignation and all its ramifications would have
been fading away by this weekend. Quite the opposite. And if he wants to
find the reason he need talk only to his own Press Secretary Alastair Campbell.
Mr Campbell gave a briefing to journalists that's been interpreted as an
extraordinary attack on Peter Mandelson. Mr Mandelson himself has written
a piece for the Sunday Times in which he says he was "forced" from the
Cabinet and had never done anything wrong. The Conservatives must be hugging
themselves with glee. The Shadow Home Secretary is Ann Widdecombe.
Miss Widdecombe, Peter
Mandelson says he was forced from government, hadn't done anything to deserve
it - do you accept that?
ANN WIDDECOMBE MP: I just feel completely baffled
by the whole business. No senior minister, particularly that senior a minister,
has to resign because he had a memory lapse about an entirely innocuous
conversation. If that is what has happened, then we would all say, what
is this about, what is going on in government, what is Blair doing, what
is Alastair Campbell, who is afterall a Civil Servant, what is he doing.
What is going on? And that I think we need to know. But above all, from
my point of view, as Shadow Home Secretary, where my responsibilities in
all of this are concentrated, I want to know what happened after that telephone
conversation had taken place.
HUMPHRYS: The telephone conversation
with Mike O'Brien, the Home Office Minister.
WIDDECOMBE: Indeed, so when Mike O'Brien,
Home Office Minister, put down his telephone after that conversation with
Peter Mandelson, what happened next and was there any link between either
that conversation or the million pounds, or anything else and the final
very speeded up granting of citizenship. Now we are entitled to ask those
questions. I think we must all keep our heads, we can't get to a stage
where we paralyse representation and say you must never mention to anybody
anything at all. We can't get to that stage. But we do need to ask if
there is a serious link between the final decision and the speed at which
it took place and the dealings between the Hindujas and Mandelson.
HUMPHRYS: Do you accept at least
the possibility that he didn't do anything wrong?
WIDDECOMBE: Well he insists that he did
not. Now as I say, if he didn't, if this was really, a totally harmless
conversation, there is a way to establish that straightaway. The record
of that conversation, because a civil servant will have made a note, a
record of that conversation can be placed in the public domain. That can
be established right away.
HUMPHRYS: He says he's happy to
appear before the enquiry, indeed he wants to appear before the enquiry.
WIDDECOMBE: Mr Mandelson will probably
have no choice but to appear before the enquiry. But as I say, I think
most people will be feeling baffled today. Either he did something seriously
wrong or he did not. If he did something seriously wrong then clearly he
should have resigned but now we need all the facts out in the open. If
he did not do something seriously wrong, then what is going on in the Blair
government. I mean what exactly is taking place and why all these briefings.
HUMPHRYS: Well what the briefers,
including Mr Campbell, are saying is that he was sort of temporarily unfocused,
he lost it for the moment and you know these things happen, that's the
sort of implication isn't it.
WIDDECOMBE: Well the fact that you have
a temporary memory lapse. If every time a minister had a memory lapse he
had to resign there wouldn't be anybody on the government benches. I mean
that is clearly a nonsense but also I think this enquiry now needs to broaden
its terms. We've had a lot of allegations today about another minister,
in the papers.
HUMPHRYS: Keith Vaz.
WIDDECOMBE: I don't presume to take a view
as to the truth or otherwise of those allegations, I wouldn't dream of
doing so, I don't think we must now get wild about this. But what I do
know is that also has got to be cleared up and therefore we haven't had
so far published the terms of reference of this enquiry and I think whatever
happens they must be broadened to look at all the circumstances surrounding
the Hindujas and government. I think that is the only way we are going
to get the complete truth, which may vindicate the people concerned or
it may indict them but it has to be one or the other. We have to know what
the truth is.
HUMPHRYS: You say the Hindujas
and government. The fact is the Hindujas have met an awful lot of people,
including a party thrown by the Hindujas for your own leader, William Hague.
WIDDECOMBE: I don't have any problem with
people meeting others. I've been into prisons in this country and met some
pretty people rum people I can assure you.
HUMPHRYS: Well that's slightly
different...
WIDDECOMBE: ..well I don't have a problem
with meeting - I mean in public life you meet pretty well anybody who's
playing a major part, that happens. I never condemn anybody just for having
a meeting. But the question is what happens next and that is the question
in the Mandelson/O'Brien chain - what happened next? Now for example, one
extraordinary thing is that they appear to be claiming that they were just
talking to Mandelson about a change in policy and yet - that change in
policy hadn't been announced. It wasn't announced for another month. There
are extraordinary things like that that I think we do actually need to
know what was going on. And any government that has nothing to hide would
welcome us knowing what was going on.
HUMPHRYS: You say, quite rightly,
that politicians meet all sorts of people all the time. But, it is a fact
that rich and powerful people have an access to politicians, whether they
be leaders of the opposition or whether they be members of the Cabinet
that most of us don't have.
WIDDECOMBE: Well I think that we have to
be grown up about this. I mean it's quite obvious that where you've got
major players, very big captains of industry, people who are playing a
major part, it could even be in a charity, it could be anything at all,
but where you've got very major players, they are going to want to make
representations on behalf of their organisation or whatever it may be,
from time to time. That's...
HUMPHRYS: And they are going to
be listened to because they are rich.
WIDDECOMBE: Well no, not necessarily, that's
why I'm saying you mustn't paralyse representation, but what you must always
do and what we have always sought to do in British politics, whether it
be the Civil Service or politicians, we have always sought to keep a very
clear line between listening and acting with strings attached. I mean the
reason that the Prime Minister had so many questions to answer about the
Ecclestone affair, was not that there was an exemption for Formula One,
but that there was an exemption for Formula One following a large donation.
Now, those are the sorts of questions we have to address ourselves to.
We have to keep clear heads, this is not about the ability of people to
make representations on their or somebody else's behalf. This is about
corruption, it is about a favour in return for a particular decision. That's
got to be wrong.
HUMPHRYS: You mean it may be about
corruption, because...
WIDDECOMBE: ...the questions are about
that. The questions are about that...
HUMPHRYS: ...because...
WIDDECOMBE: ...no indeed, I mean I've been
very careful to say throughout that the enquiry might vindicate everybody
in sight - we don't know. But on the other hand, it may not. But the
question is about, was there a favour given in return for, in this case,
money? But, those are the sorts of questions we have to ask and they're
different.
HUMPHRYS: You say, yeah, of course,
rich and powerful people are going to want access to politicians for all
sorts of entirely obvious reasons, but would it not be sensible for politicians
of all stripes to say, look, let's insulate ourselves from these from these
suspicions. I mean, you in the Conservative Party for instance, if you've
got a thousand pounds plus, I realise, I read this morning in the newspapers,
you can join this thing called The Treasurer's Club, and you're guaranteed,
it seems, a meeting with a Shadow Minister, well a Shadow Cabinet Member.
Well, I mean, that isn't right, surely? It means if you haven't got a
thousand pounds, you can't meet the Shadow Cabinet Minister, well that's
no right is it?
WIDDECOMBE: ...well no, it doesn't follow
at all because...
HUMPHRYS: ...well, you probably
won't be able to...
WIDDECOMBE; ...a cat can look at a King
in this country and anybody can approach those Shadow Cabinet Ministers
and they do...
HUMPHRYS: A cat can look at a King,
he can't necessarily
sit down and have a meeting with a King.
WIDDECOMBE: ...ah well, no, again, that
is completely untrue. I mean, anybody can approach me, I can't see all...
HUMPHRYS: ...so why charge them
a thousand quid for the privilege then?
WIDDECOMBE: ...no, this is straight-forwardly
a fund-raising exercise, all parties have fund-raising exercises...
HUMPHRYS: ...doesn't it worry you
a bit though?
WIDDECOMBE: No. No, what would worry me,
it doesn't worry me that people who have made huge successes of things
and who are very influential players should meet Ministers from time to
time, because the fact is you cannot insulate yourself, or, you get accused
of not listening. No wonder politicians have got this policy wrong. They
wouldn't meet me, they don't listen. Now how often do we hear that. So
you've got to have a balance and the preservers of that balance are the
Civil Service. And if meetings are always transparent, are always done
in the proper fashion with a note being taken, that is a politician's protection
and it is the protection of standards in this country and that's what this
enquiry is about, were those standards breached? Let's keep clear heads,
that is what the question is.
HUMPHRYS: Ann Widdecombe, many
thanks.
|