................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
MENZIES CAMPBELL INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 23.3.97
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: David Grossman reporting there. For the
last three General Elections, the Liberal-Democrats' share of the vote has been
tumbling, from twenty-six per cent, to twenty-three per cent to eighteen per
cent last time. This time the polls suggest it will be even lower, so the
inevitable question arises, are they in danger of being marginalised in the
political debate? Menzies Campbell is their Foreign Affairs spokesman.
Mr Campbell, the new thing in this
election of course are these debates - the leader debates if they happen on
television. It's looking as if you're going to marginalised there too doesn't
it?
MENZIES CAMPBELL: Well if the proposal is put forward
which doesn't have Paddy Ashdown playing an equal part with John Major and Tony
Blair, if necessary we're prepared to go to law. I don't think we need to get
to that because of course the principle's already been established. Kenneth
Clarke has agreed to meet the Shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown and our Treasury
spokesman Malcolm Bruce, and in fact even as this programme's going on another
channel there's a debate on Home Affairs involving the Home Secretary, Jack
Straw the Shadow Home Secretary and Alex Carlisle the spokesman on Home Affairs
for the Liberal-Democrats. The principle of having debates involving all three
parties is well established and there's absolutely no reason why that principle
should not apply to any debates among the leaders.
HUMPHRYS: So your absolute bottom line, to use
that hateful expression, is that unless Mr Ashdown is treated in the same way
as Mr Blair and Mr Major in a televised debate you will go to court.
CAMPBELL: Yes. You wouldn't expect us to do
anything other than that. This is an issue of principle, it's an issue of
great importance to us, it's an issue obviously of importance to both Mr Major
and Mr Blair otherwise the proposal would not have been made and the challenge
if you like, would not have been accepted. We believe we are entitled to be
part of that debate - we're fighting every constituency in this General
Election, and we shall be aiming to consolidate our position as the second
party of local government in England and Wales in the council elections which
take place on the same day as the General Election. We have every electoral
and every moral right to be present in that debate.
HUMPHRYS: Right. Present in that debate, but
they're saying now things like: Well, he could be kind of off the stage a
little bit like the pantomime horse - perhaps he could be interviewed
separately. You'd have to two other leaders head to head in mortal combat, and
your man off in some cupboard somewhere or you know, pushed to one side being
interviewed separately. You wouldn't wear that?
CAMPBELL: No. Not only that, it would be
unsatisfactory for us, it would be unsatisfactory for the electorate, eighty
per cent of whom I understand in an opinion poll have said, if there is a
debate Mr Ashdown ought to be present and part of it.
INTERRUPTIONS
HUMPHRYS: But I mean they don't think Mr Ashdown's
going to be the next Prime Minister, that's the point.
CAMPBELL: Well, if you want to do all this in
opinion polls, quite a lot of people don't seem to think that Mr Major may be
the next Prime Minister. If the suggestion is ...
HUMPHRYS: More likely than Mr Ashdown.
CAMPBELL: If the suggestion is that Mr Ashdown is
to be the kind of commercial break between the two bouts of wrestling between
Blair and Major that is unacceptable. Mr Ashdown should be present and he
should take an equal part in the proceedings. That's what he's entitled to and
that's what I believe the electorate are entitled to see.
HUMPHRYS: And to be quite clear, if you can't get
it on those terms you are prepared to torpedo the whole thing?
CAMPBELL: We're prepared to go to law in order to
ensure that we get the representation to which we are entitled.
HUMPHRYS: Even if that means killing off the whole
thing?
CAMPBELL: If what is proposed is unfair and is
found to be unfair by the court, then the consequence of our going to law would
be that the debate might not take place. (INTERRUPTION) That is a consequence I
am certainly prepared to live with.
HUMPHRYS: But of course the court might say: yes
of course Mr Ashdown must be part of the debate. How he's a part of it we
leave it entirely to the broadcasters to decide. If the broadcasters then
said, "We'll have him there but we won't have him there on precisely the same
terms", would he take part?
CAMPBELL: Well, that's a long way down the track.
There are about three different hypothes in there and I'm not prepared to
answer any of them. Our bottom line to use your own expression a moment of two
ago, is if Mr Ashdown is not to be given equal prominence in any debate of that
kind we are willing to go to law to try to enforce that.
HUMPHRYS: If you are not going to be marginalised
in future elections, you need more MPs. To get more MPs you need it seems,
electoral reform. Therefore QED you need Mr Blair if he's going to be the next
Prime Minister, you need his support. You haven't got his support for the
kinds of reforms that you want at the moment. That's a problem for you isn't
it?
CAMPBELL: We haven't yet got Mr Blair's support,
but we've got the support of the Labour Party for a commission to be
established immediately after the General Election with the remit to report
within twelve months on an alternative proportional system to the existing
first past the post system which will be then be put to the people of the
United Kingdom in the form of a referendum. We may not yet have Mr Blair's
support but we are pretty confident in the referendum of getting the support of
the people of the United Kingdom.
HUMPHRYS: But if Mr Blair is Prime Minister his
support is going to be crucial isn't it. And you're not going to get his
support are you? I mean look at what he said. There are two criteria as far as
he's concerned for any kind of electoral reform. MPs must be linked to the
constituency which may or may not be solvable, but it must be able to deliver
strong government, and we know what he means by strong government. So
therefore he's saying : Sorry guys, not going to do it.
CAMPBELL: But Mr Blair and his colleagues have
already accepted the additional member system for the Scottish parliament to
which they subscribe along with us, and that maintains the link between MPs and
their constituencies and provides a top up so as to ensure that there's a
sufficient number of MPs to represent the votes that any one party has got.
HUMPHRYS: Hold on, hold on. ... criteria for a
Scottish parliament did he, in the same way that he did for a British
parliament.
CAMPBELL: No, but he's accepted them, and the
point is that that will give us strong government. And if looking for strong
government, then the msot successful economy in Europe perhaps not so quite so
much at the moment, but the most successful economy in Europe since
nineteen-forty-five has been the German economy where they've had precisely
this system because the British imposed it upon them as part of post-war German
recronstruction.
HUMPHRYS: But why should Mr Blair, given that he
gets a decent majority in the comming election - why should he - they've
waited eighteen years for this - why should he suddenly roll over and say,
"Alright we'll give the Liberal-Democrats what they want, because they're nice
guys really?"
CAMPBELL Well, I hope he thinks we're nice guys,
but I can tell him we're a bit tougher than that. The issue is not what suits
Mr Blair, or indeed what suits the Liberal-Democrats. The issue is what suits
the constitution of the United Kingdom, of what suits strong government in this
country. And the fact of the matter is that we have in recent times had
elections in which on forty odd per cent - forty-two per cent I think the best
Mrs Thatcher ever got, measures were rammed through which had no overall
popular support in this country. Proportional representation is the way by
which we ensure that government in this country enjoys the consent of the
majority of the people. That makes much more sense than what we have now.
HUMPHRYS: But if Mr Blair doesn't matter that much
- and you keep saying what the Labour Party wants and what the people want - if
Mr Blair doesn't matter then why does your leader Mr Ashdown constantly say Mr
Blair must support this, he got to, it's essential that he gives this his
support?.
CAMPBELL: Well, I'm not sure that I have heard him
say that, but if he is saying it, then all he's doing is trying to persuade Mr
Blair and if you like the other fifty-four-point nine million people of the
United Kingdom that this is the proper electoral system to have.
HUMPHRYS: But he is your nightmare isn't it, that
you get (INTERRUPTION).. I'm going to draw a little picture for you, I'm going
to present the nightmare to you. You have the referendum that you so badly
want, but you have the leader of the Conservative Party and it appears the
leader of the Labour Party who may or not be Prime Minister at the time saying:
We don't much care for this. It's then going to fall isn't it, and you're
further back from the kind of electoral reform you want than you've been.
You've lost it for a generation haven't you?
CAMPBELL: Well, I'm not sure that's...if that's a
nightmare I've woken up and I'm afraid to say I'm not screaming because, of
course, the Tories would oppose this for very obvious reasons. They have had a
lot of benefit out of the first past the post system and they hope to do so in
the future. As to Mr Blair, I hope we can still persuade him. Mr Blair's not
the only person with an interest in this matter.
Robin Cook, for example, who's one of
his most senior lieutenants - likely to be the Foreign Secretary - a very
powerful force in the Labour Party, Head of their Policy Division or their
Senior Policy Committee, a co-sponsor, along with Robert MacLennan of the joint
document between our two Parties. He favours Proportional Representation.
There are people in all Parties who favour Proportional Representation. What
our commission would do, would give us the opportunity to ask the people of the
United Kingdom what they think.
HUMPHRYS: Let's have a look at Constitutional
reform, the broader picture. Again, it would appear, wouldn't it that you've
been marginalised by Labour, taking a couple of examples: you always wanted a
Welsh Parliament, you're now, it appears, going to have to settle for a talking
shop - a glorified County Council, if you like.
CAMPBELL: Well can we deal with it because I know
Wales is dear to your heart. We argue for a Welsh Senate, a different form of
Local Government.
HUMPHRYS: With powers - legislative powers.
CAMPBELL: Yes, but perhaps, on a slightly
different model from the Scottish one. But the important thing about the Welsh
Assembly, which this document endorses is that it's to be elected by
Prorportional Representation. Now, this is an indication of the fact that in
these exchanges, in these discussions we achieved a very substantial number of
our objectives.
We didn't get everything but then that
doesn't happen in negotiation. What we certainly got was a much better
Constitutional framework potentially for the United Kingdom. Freedom of
information of information in co-operation of the European Convention of Human
Rights into British domestic law. A reform of Parliament, Home Rule for
Scotland.
HUMPHRYS: Well, take a couple there..
CAMPBELL: Aren't these important?
HUMPHRYS: Well, yeah, but look where you've had to
back down in those areas: Home Rule for Parliament? Yes, but there are going
to be referendums before it happens, which you didn't want to have; reform of
the House of Lords. You wanted the Second Chamber to be elected: you're now
going to have to settle for it being a glorified quango - at least for the
first five years. So many areas where you've had to back down and say: well,
OK.
CAMPBELL: Well, let's take the second of these
first. Abolition of the hereditary principle. That's an essential precursor
to having an elected chamber.
HUMPHRYS: Which they'd always been prepared to
settle for.
CAMPBELL: And in relation to Scotland: certainly,
I didn't want a referendum. If I may quote John Smith: It's the settled will
of the people of Scotland to have their own Parliament. If there is to be a
referendum, we shall oppose it in the House of Commons. We won't obstruct it.
There'll have to be a vote, there'll have to be a Second Reading vote - I
propose to vote against it. But, that's the will of the House of Commons and
there is then a referendum with two questions. You can bet everything you own
that the Liberal Democrats will campaign up and down the length and breadth of
the country to ensure that we have Yes answers to both both of the questions.
HUMPHRYS: Let's have a look at sleaze because that
is something else that's reared its ugly head, right at the start of this
campaign. It was one of your people, one of your MPs...
CAMPBELL: Simon Hughes.
HUMPHRYS: Simon Hughes who raised it. What would
you now be doing differently? Would you, yourself, choose to be doing
differently from what others are doing?
CAMPBELL: Well, I think, we must now look forward.
I hope this campaign - Election Campaign - is not going to be dogged by this
issue because, as Gordon Brown's just demonstrated there are some quite - and,
your questioning demonstrated - there are some quite important issues, of other
kinds, to be dealt with.
But, I, personally, believe that we've
now reached the stage where Members of Parliament should be lodging their
Income Tax returns with the Registrar, Sir Gordon Downey and if he's not
satisfied he should be entitled to ask for additional information. And, if a
Member declines to lodge his Income Tax return, or if he lodges a defective
return, then, it certainly, should be grounds for disqualification from the
House of Commons. We need to re-establish the confidence of the public in
Parliament - the events of the last week have done nothing for that.
HUMPHRYS: Gordon Downey hasn't asked for
this to happen. Nobody else has asked for this to happen. Are you saying that
our Honourable MPs are so potentially dishonourable that it's come to this?
CAMPBELL: What I say is that the importance of
re-establishing confidence in Parliament is such that we have to be willing to
consider measures of the kind I personally have just suggested. Honourable
Members? The events of the last two or three days tell us that there were
Honourable Members getting fifty pound notes in brown envelopes - is that the
kind of democracy we're prepared to tolerate? I tell you this: I don't believe
it's the kind of democracy the people of the United Kingdom are willing to
tolerate?
HUMPHRYS: You would be prepared personally, as an
MP to tell us all how much because you quite properly you're an advocate - you
do other work. You'd be perfectly happy for us to know how much money you
earn?
CAMPBELL: Yes. I do two or three weeks a year now
at the Bar. I'm perfectly happy to tell the Registrar precisely what I earn
from that and to make a full declaration.
HUMPHRYS: And ultimately the British people.
CAMPBELL: Well, I think, there's a question about
that as to how far you go.
HUMPHRYS: But, you might go that far?
CAMPBELL: Yes, there could be arguments about
invasion of privacy. But you then have to ask yourself: balance hat argument
about privacy against the overwhelming requirement to restore public confidence
in the political system. If it's necessary to restore confidence by allowing
people to know what the details of my private financial position is I'm willing
to go that far.
HUMPHRYS: Menzies Campbell, thank you very much,
indeed.
...oooOooo...
|