|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Two big events for the
government this week: there was the Budget, generally welcomed and seen
as a suitable launching pad for the coming election. And there was the
Hammond Report published into the Hinduja brothers' passport affair. Not
welcomed at all. On the contrary, most papers and observers seemed to
think it raised more questions than it answered. Instead of drawing a
line under it all, it invited accusations of "whitewash" and "cover-up".
So has the government been damaged and what lessons might politicians
learn from the whole sorry saga? The Social Security minister is Alistair
Darling and he's in our studio in Inverness, where the Labour Party is
holding its Scottish conference.
Good afternoon Mr Darling.
ALISTAIR DARLING: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: We'll come on to the
Budget in a minute if we may but let's look at the Hammond Report. You
can see why people get cynical about politics and politicians and governments
can't you, reports come out that say absolutely nobody was to blame, things
happened that were regrettable but absolutely nobody is to blame for it.
In this particular case they will look at the fact that the Hinduja Brothers
not only got their passports faster than almost everybody else, there were
serious questions raised about their own characters, they hadn't even met
the basic requirements. All of these things happened yet nobody was to
blame, nothing wrong was done. It's all cynicism inducing isn't it?
DARLING: No, if you remember the
inquiry was set up to establish whether or not Peter Mandelson had improperly
influenced the application made by the Hinduja Brothers in relation to
their passport. That was the allegation that was made against him by some
people at the time of his resignation. The Prime Minister expressed confidence
in him and said that he hadn't done that but felt it right to ask for there
to be an independent inquiry to find out whether or not there had been
any improper interventions. Now, the inquiry has concluded that there
is no evidence to suggest that there were...there was anything improper.
That's the conclusion it's come to, we should accept that and let's move
on and let's deal with the other issues that I think frankly are of greater
importance to the public which we are about to discuss on the Budget and
so on.
HUMPHRYS: Well indeed we are going
to discuss that though, neither you nor I knows what precisely the public
makes of all this and I think it is entirely reasonable to raise a few
more questions about it because they are being raised in the newspapers
and by many other people as we speak. So let me just try to pursue one
or two areas here. Mr Mandelson was clearly in no doubt that help had been
given to the Hinduja Brothers and I say that quoting the report. The report,
Hammond tells us that Mandelson wrote a memo in November '98 saying they
couldn't expect - and I quote - "any further involvement or commendation
from me" now note the language there "any further involvement or commendation
from me." So clearly there had been involvement.
DARLING: As I said to you the central
question that Hammond was asked to investigate was whether or not there
had been any improper intervention on the part of Peter Mandelson in relation
to these passport applications. Now, his conclusion was that there hadn't
been anything improper. Now, I appreciate that other people may be raising
all sorts of other questions but the central question put here was: was
there anything done improperly? - the answer was there is no evidence to
suggest that it was. That means that Peter Mandelson is free to resume
the rest of his life, to get on with whatever he wants to do and you know
that is how matters stand.
HUMPHRYS: But there had been involvement
on Mr Mandelson's part quite clearly. Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, himself
said - and again I get this information from the report as you will know,
he wanted another brother's case, another of the Hinduja Brothers, Prakash,
to be dealt with and I quote "helpfully". Now, that again raises doubts
about their treatment doesn't it. He didn't say let's deal with it in
the normal way, without any preferential treatment, he said "helpfully".
There's only one interpretation of that word helpfully isn't there.
DARLING: I don't want to over labour
the point but remember the inquiry was set up at the time that Peter Mandelson
resigned in order to ascertain whether or not Peter Mandelson had done
anything wrong in relation to these passport applications. Now, that was
the allegation being made against him. It was an extremely serious allegation,
that's why the Prime Minister asked for there to be an independent inquiry
to examine whether or not anything improper had been done. Now the conclusion
was that Peter Mandelson did not do anything improper. So having had the
inquiry and having got the conclusions of the independent inquiry, surely
the best thing to do is to accept those conclusions, had they been different
then all sorts of other things might have arisen. But, the fact is that
Hammond looked at what Peter Mandelson had done and came to the conclusion
that he'd done nothing improper. That was the question he was asked to
investigate, that was the allegation being made against him at the time
he resigned and you know the conclusion is that there was not evidence
to support any suggestion that Peter Mandelson had done anything improper.
HUMPHRYS: Well there were a whole
series of allegations and concerns being raised at that time and the fact
that Mr Blair chose to base the inquiry on such a narrow question raises
questions in itself. I mean let us move, you're obviously reluctant to
go into any more detail about the report, you want to draw a line under
it, fair enough but let's move beyond the remit of the report itself because
there are broader issues of principle involved here - how ministers deal
with rich and powerful people and in this case people whose character had
been very seriously questioned. We now know that there was a Home Office
memo and again we are grateful to Hammond for this, dated March 1991, that
advised and I quote again "Ministers against accepting invitations from
the brothers" The brothers Hinduja that is. That was back in 1991 before
you even came into power. It remained in force, obviously you don't withdraw
memos like that and yet ministers did indeed accept invitations from the
brothers, became quite closely involved with them.
DARLING: Well, look, I haven't
seen that memorandum. I know it's referred to - but let me come back to
the point that you started off with, it's a perfectly fair one and that
is the..you know about people's image of politics and politicians and let's
go back to the time when Peter Mandelson resigned. The allegation being
made against him then was that he improperly intervened and did something
he shouldn't have done in relation to these passport allegations. Now the
Prime Minister announced in the House of Commons that he was going to ask
Sir Anthony Hammond to hold an independent inquiry to ask whether or not
Peter Mandelson had done anything improper because clearly it is crucially
important that ministers do behave properly and there is no question as
to their conduct. Now, Hammond conducted that inquiry, he has come to
the conclusion there is no evidence to suggest that Peter Mandelson behaved
improperly. So the question was asked, Hammond looked at it and it was
answered. Now I do appreciate that there are some people who then say,
ah well there should have been lots of other things and other questions
asked and so on. But the point is, that the Prime Minister told the House
of Commons what it was that he wanted Hammond to look at because the issue,
the allegation against Peter Mandelson was extremely serious. It struck
at the heart of ministerial standards, that's why he wanted it looked at
independently. He did have it looked at independently and the conclusion
- I repeat - is there was no evidence to suggest that Peter Mandelson behaved
improperly.
HUMPHRYS: But..
DARLING: I think that is actually
critically important because I do think it's important that all of us,
all ministers act entirely properly and...
HUMPHRYS: Ah, well that's what
I want to come onto..
DARLING: ..well, you see Hammond
was asked to look at whether or not Peter Mandelson had done anything that
was improper, he looked at it and came to the conclusion that he didn't.
Now that's the conclusion, you know I appreciate why you are asking me
these things but I do think that having asked the question. The question
having been answered and there being no evidence against to suggest that
Peter Mandelson behaved improperly, he can get on to lead the rest of his
life and I think the government can get on with delivering on the central
promises that we made in the last election and which people will judge
us.
HUMPHRYS: And I'm going to come
onto that in a moment but I'm trying to broaden this out a little bit you
see because you keep returning to the very specific allegation against
Peter Mandelson which is...
DARLING: ..which Hammond was asked
to look at...
HUMPHRYS: ..which is indeed and
some people said that it should have been broader, some people said, alright,
you know, and you're saying that was fine. What I'm trying to do and you
talk about ministers behaving properly or otherwise, what I'm trying to
get from you in a sense I suppose, is your definition, this government's
definition of what is proper behaviour. Now can it ever be right, can
it ever be right? Put aside this particular affair. Can it ever be right
for ministers to make special representations, on behalf of very rich and
sometimes powerful people who have the kind of access that normal people
do not have. Can that be right?
DARLING: Well, all passport applications,
or whatever other business before government or its agencies has to be
dealt with properly. But you know, I didn't apologise for coming back
to the central question that Hammond was asked because that's what he was
asked.
HUMPHRYS: Well I'm trying very
hard to get away from that.
DARLING: I know you are...
HUMPHRYS: ...and I'm puzzled that
you don't want to address the broader question.
DARLING: I know you are but remember
at the time, on the day, or the days surrounding Peter's resignation, the
allegation being made against him was an extremely serious one...
HUMPHRYS: ...I'm aware of that,
you've made that point several times...
DARLING: ...I know and it was extremely
serious and it was very specific. Now it's been looked at. Now what you're
finding is people said, ah well, there isn't evidence on that one, how
about some other issues. Now, all I'm saying to you is that is an allegation
is made against Peter or against any minister, it does need to be looked
into, if anything is...that has been done improperly then that has to be
dealt with, but in this case, you know, the allegation, the central allegation,
the serious allegation made against Peter Mandelson was made, it was investigated
by an independent Queen's Counsel. He has come
to the view that there is no evidence to support that allegation and you
know, for that reason, the allegation having been unfounded, Peter is free
to get on with the rest of his life.
HUMPHRYS: You make that point.
But let me try and approach it from a slightly different way then. Let
us assume that I have a very rich Indian friend if you like, who happens
to be living in this country, desperately wants a passport, British Passport,
doesn't have one. I come along to you, I have access to you, I see you
occasionally, or one of your colleagues and I say look, can you help out
here? Can you, you know, make representations on his behalf. What would
you say to me?
DARLING: What I would say to you
is that all applications for whatever it is have to be dealt with properly
and you know I have no hesitation in telling you that.
HUMPHRYS: Would you pass that request
of mine on. I mean would you say to somebody in you know, the passport
office or somewhere else, would you say, oh you know, Humphrys has asked
me...you know, would you do that?
DARLING: Well, so far as passports
are concerned, you know, what I would say to you, whatever the procedures
are, they have to be followed properly. You'll understand that I don't
have ministerial responsibility for the passport office but whatever the
procedures are, if you came to me and you asked about your benefits....
HUMPHRYS: ..yes but neither did
Peter Mandelson...
DARLING: ....I would then tell
you what you ought to do and the procedures would have to be followed properly.
But you know, let me come back to the point, I mean there was an allegation
made against Peter Mandelson, it was serious one, it was dealt with. Now,
you know, you can raise all sorts of other issues, but surely, you know,
I think what the public wanted to see is that allegations having been made,
were they right, were they wrong? An independent inquiry was held and
it was found there was no evidence...
HUMPHRYS: ...well I may be wrong
about this...
DARLING: ...whether your like it
or not, that is the conclusion that Sir Anthony Hammond reached. That's
why you know, frankly, you know, we have to draw a line under that and
we have to move on, you know, as I say...
HUMPHRYS: ...you have drawn a line
under it and I have accepted the line that you've drawn. I have tried
to move on and I have tried to raise this issue, which, I'm quite sure
and I'm sure you're sure as well, concerns a lot of people and that is
the fairness, not favours, that this government is supposed to represent
because Tony Blair used that expression himself and what I'm trying to
get at is this, to what extent should rich and powerful people be able
to have the kind of access to have representations made on their behalf
that the others of us cannot do, many people cannot do. Now you say that
in Peter Mandelson's case, that if I were to ask YOU for help with a passport
application, you'd say, nothing to do with me whatsoever. Well, it was
nothing to do with Peter Mandelson whatsoever.
DARLING: That wasn't what I said
John. No, no, you were asking me quite separately that you, on behalf
of a friend or whatever, you gave as an example and you asked me about
procedures in the passport agency. I just made the point, that you know,
I couldn't tell you off-hand what the procedures are. What I do say though
is, all procedures, doesn't matter whether it's passports, benefits, whatever
it is, they have to be done properly. Now, you know, I don't want to labour
the point but I will do because I think it is actually important. The
allegation was made, the allegation was investigated, and it turned out,
there were no grounds to substantiate it. Now whether you like it or not,
that's how the matter was dealt with, Peter has been cleared of any impropriety,
he can then get on with the rest of his life, that is it.
HUMPHRYS: Well, of course he can't
entirely get on with the rest of his life because he can't come back into
government even though he's done absolutely nothing wrong, but there we
are. I suppose we'll have to draw a line under that as well and puzzle
about that for some time. But you seem to be saying this morning Mr Darling
that nothing's been learned about this because, by all of this, because
there was nothing to learn. A line has been drawn, Peter Mandelson's been
cleared, and that is the end of it. Yet this morning we now see more allegations
in the papers, Tories now calling for an inquiry into the way that the
Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, behaved over a leaked report from the Foreign
Affairs Select Committee. You are still presumably then, whiter than white,
as you said you would be when you came into power, nothing at all to worry
about.
DARLING: You know, as I said to
you, ministers have to appear to have to behave properly at all times.
If allegations are made, as they were in Mandelson's case, then let then
be investigated.
HUMPHRYS: ...and as they have now
been in Robin Cook's case - should there be an inquiry?
...
DARLING: ...having investigated
them and a conclusion having been reached, then you really have to accept
that conclusion.
HUMPHRYS: Right.
DARLING: Now, I haven't seen these
other things and I am not going to comment on them.
HUMPHRYS: Well you could say, let's
have an inquiry into Robin Cook, couldn't you...
DARLING: ...what I would say to
you is, you know, coming back to this Peter Mandelson affair. An allegation
was made, it was investigated, it was found there was no evidence to justify
that allegation. Now that seems to me the right way to deal with any serious
allegation made against ministers or anybody else but having got the conclusions,
you then have to accept those conclusions.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, no comment on
Robin Cook whatsoever?
DARLING: I haven't seen the story
- sorry.
HUMPHRYS: Okay, we'll leave it
there for the moment then, because I want to get onto the Budget which
some people might say is another reason for cynicism, a different sort
of cynicism, but nonetheless the government says one thing about the level
of taxation and they discover that something else is actually the case.
The government says that taxes haven't gone up and then they look at the
figures and discover from independent sources, discover that taxes have
gone up. It would be much better to be straightforward and honest about
this wouldn't it, but that's cynicism then?
DARLING: Well, all the figures
are published in the publications that the government issues on Budget
day. We make no apology for the fact that in the first two years of this
government it was necessary to take action to repay, to get rid of the
debts that the Conservatives had run up. We were paying more on debt interest
than we were on schools. As a result of what we've done following last
Wednesday's Budget, we're now spending ten billion pounds more on schools
than we are on debt. So, I make no apology for the fact and everybody
knows that not only did we clear up the mess the Tories left, but we've
naturally been able to reduce debt. Now, as far as taxes are concerned,
as you know the tax burden next year is projected to be less than the Tories
predicted in the year before they left office. We have, over the last
three to four years we have made it our business to make sure there are
targeted tax cuts for example to families, the new Child Tax Credit which
is coming in from next month, worth ten pounds a week, the Working Families
Tax Credit, the new ten pence rate which we introduced, and which Gordon
Brown widened, all those things have contributed to the direct tax burden
being the lowest it's been since nineteen-seventy-two. But on top of that,
we have got done more and more each year to make sure that families, to
make sure that pensioners and others all benefit as we're able to do more
because of the improvement in the economic situation, all built I may say
from a stable economic background without which you're not able to do anything
at all.
HUMPHRYS: Nobody listening to that
answer would make the assumption, which is indeed the case, that we now
have the highest tax burden, if you exclude oil, since nineteen-seventy.
DARLING: Well, look John as I said
to you, at the beginning of this parliament, in the first two years we
had to take steps to clear up the deficit, the mess that the Tories left.
We've done that. Since then we have reduced the taxes paid by families,
we've introduced the...
HUMPHRYS: By some families, by
some families.
DARLING: the starting rate of tax,
we've introduced the Working Families Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit
which will benefit families starting in a few weeks' time from the beginning
of April. So yes, we've done that and I've said to you....
HUMPHRYS: But you haven't, ...
DARLING: ..with the tax burden,
with the tax burden, from next year, you know is actually lower than the
Tories projected. But what we're doing here, sorry - you ask your question
and I'll certainly.....
HUMPHRYS: Well, I just wanted to
pick up that point you see, because you said we have reduced taxes. The
fact is - and you said for families - but let's be a little bit more specific.
The average tax bill, the tax bill for the average family has gone up
by one-hundred and seventy pounds per annum, and that is according to Grant
Thornton, a very distinguished firm of accountants as reported in the
Sunday Times this morning.
DARLING: Yes, but John, as I said
to you, in the first two years, yes, we had to clear up the debts that
the Tories left us because if we hadn't got the economic stability that
we now had then we would not be able to improve public services, we'd
not be able to reduce taxes to help hard working families, to help families
with children. Now what we have done since we were elected, in the course
of the Budgets are I think three things, firstly we've put in place the
new economic stability on which you can increase money for public services,
which you can actually afford tax cuts for families and for others as
well. Second thing we've done is that we are investing in public services
in this country, there's more money for schools and hospitals, there's
more money going into transport and then thirdly as last Wednesday's Budget
has shown, building on the stability we've a balanced Budget, not only
did we help improve public services but also on top of that we've been
able to cut taxes for everyone through extending the ten pence band, and
also more targeted tax as cuts on families with children through the Child
Tax Credit as well as for other people as well. Now all of that is a balanced
approach and it stands in complete contradiction to what the Tories are
about promising unfunded unbelievable tax reductions before the election.
They know they can't afford them, they haven't identified a single penny
of savings, credible savings to pay for them. If they did all that you'd
be back to increased inflation, increased interest rates, back to boom
and bust. So the choice actually is between targeted tax cuts, stability,
better public services, than back to the Tory boom and bust. My guess
is that public actually want that stability with better public services.
With targeted tax cuts, extending the ten pence band, that is a far, far
better approach.
HUMPHRYS: My guess is that the
public would like absolutely straightforward explanations of what's gone
on, and you could have summarised all of that by saying "Yeah, of course
we've taxed people more, we have", because there's no doubt about that,
the figures quite clearly show that you have taxed people more, "and we've
used it for a bit of extra public spending and we've used it to give a
targeted few people a bit of extra cash in their pockets, but an awful
lot of people are worse off and not better off" That's the simple, straightforward
non-cynical explanation of what's happened isn't it. Why can't you just
say yes to that?
DARLING: No, it isn't John. This
year's Budget has seen a reduction and gains for just about everybody.
Now, what we wanted to do, was to make sure as I said to you, was that
we maintained the stability, the economic stability without which you're
not able to do anything at all, as the Tories found out. We wanted to
improve public services and heaven knows, there are people up and down
this country who say yes, our schools and hospitals need more money. People
know the transport system cannot continue without more investment, and
we're putting that investment in. But what they also want to see the government
do is to make sure that it reduces taxes especially for people who need
that help most, for example with families with young children, and you
know within the first year of a baby's life the Child Credit will give
families nearly a thousand pounds more. Now, all that I think people accept,
and what they want to see is a balanced approach. They want to see stability,
they want to see better public services, they want to see targeted tax
cuts, they do not want to return to unaffordable, unbelievable tax cuts
which the Tories are promising, cuts in public services which the Tories
are bound to implement because Portillo has said it over and over again,
back to the old boom and bust which was so damaging for jobs, so damaging
for people's houses. People don't want to go back to that.
HUMPHRYS: A final invitation then,
to you to be entirely straightforward about this, and that is that after
the election you're going to have to put taxes up again aren't you because
this is what's going to happen if we want to join the Euro. The European
Commission as made this perfectly clear, they're going to have to go back
up again aren't they in the next couple of years?
DARLING: What we have done in the
first four years of this government is to make sure that we have a new
economic stability. Gordon Brown has time and time again made it clear
that everything he does will be prudent, it will be affordable. We're
reducing the debts that the Tories left us with. Because of that we're
able to improve public services, we're able to do more to give targeted
tax cuts to families, to other people in this country, widening the ten
pence band of Income Tax which benefits everyone, and at the same time
make sure that the economic situation in this country remains stable, it
remains run in a prudent way. Now people want that stability, they want
better public services, they want targeted tax cuts, they do not want to
go back to the Tory boom and bust, the sixteen billion pounds and more
of spending cuts that the Conservatives are now signed up to. They want
stability and in that way they'll have jobs and they'll have the optimism
to which I think most people want to look forward to.
HUMPHRYS: Alistair Darling, thanks
very much indeed for joining us.
DARLING: Thank you.
|