................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
WILLIAM HAGUE INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 1.6.97
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The bookies favourite for the leadership
of the Conservative Party is the youngest, the least experienced and probably
the least well-known: William Hague. He was in the last Cabinet - but for less
than two years and in one of the more junior jobs, Secretary of State for
Wales. So what is it about Mr Hague that has put him at the top of this
particular ladder - for the moment at any rate - who knows?
Mr Hague, good afternoon.
WILLIAM HAGUE: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: Might it be that you are the least
objectionable of the six candidates. In the sense that you are a sort of John
Major when he ran in 1990. Nobody really had anything against him and he kind
of come up through the middle.
HAGUE: I'm not trying to be the least
objectionable. I am saying to MPs: don't vote for me unless you want to work
hard and don't vote for me unless you want to take some tough decisions. We've
got to take tough decisions about the organisation of the Conservative Party,
tough decisions about our policies in the next few years, tough decisions about
making sure we've got discipline in our Party. So if anybody votes for me
thinking they're never going to find me objectionable, they're going to find
they've made a big mistake.
HUMPHRYS: But there are parallels aren't there. I
mean Mr Major was relatively inexperienced and all the rest of it, nobody
disliked him in particular, there are parallels.
HAGUE: Well I admire John Major hugely. His
achievements and the achievements of Margaret Thatcher are colossal. They have
transformed this country. So I'm not going to run away from comparisons with
him but I'm not going to define myself as being like someone else or unlike
somebody else. I'm not going to be John Major mark two, or Margaret Thatcher
mark two. I'm going to be William Hague mark one. That is how you have to
approach a job. Is John Humphrys Jonathan Dimbleby mark two?
HUMPHRYS: One wouldn't presume to have that
elevated status.
HAGUE: You have your own style and you do your
job in your own way and that is how I would do it.
HUMPHRYS: If people did see you as a sort of John
Major compromise candidate, let could be a bit difficult for you couldn't it.
When one looks at what happened ultimately under the leadership of Mr Major?
HAGUE: I'm not a compromise candidate. I'm not
a compromise for anybody. Voting for me would be a vote for the Tory Party to
have as much ambition as it can to be ambitious about its organisation, to be
ambitious about its future. I don't see myself as a compromise in any form and
I don't think anybody who has discussed the future of the party with me, would
see me as a compromise.
HUMPHRYS: But for those who might, the worry is
that you would lead them into, how was it you described Mr Major's years: a
constantly shifting fudge. They might say: once bitten, twice shy.
HAGUE: Well let's get this clear. I didn't
describe Mr Major - I wasn't attacking Mr Major when I used the words
"fudge". I was describing how..the problems of the whole Conservative Party.
HUMPHRYS: Lead by Mr Major.
HAGUE: Well, in which we all had
responsibility. In which I had responsibility and all of my colleagues in the
last Cabinet. Our problem was not our leader, our problem was that people in
the party did not stick to the policies that we had determined. That they gave
off the record briefings and treated the policy with different nuances from day
to day and so our policy looked to the country as if it had been fudged. I
wasn't criticising John Major. I was saying we've got to learn together, from
the problems that we've had together, we have to recognise where things went
wrong, as well as be proud of everything that we achieved in our last term of
office.
HUMPHRYS: So your cabinet colleagues were at
fault, rather than Mr Major then?
HAGUE: All of us must bear some share of fault
for things that went wrong.
HUMPHRYS: But Mr Major was the leader of the
party.
HAGUE: All of us must share some blame. All of
us must take credit for a Government that did more for this country than any
Government in living memory. I would argue any Government in this century. But
I don't want to lead the Conservative Party on the basis that we never made a
mistake. That everything was prefect, that we can't learn from things that went
on before.
HUMPHRYS: We're not taking about mistakes here,
are we. We're taking about this "constantly shifting fudge" and you say -
everybody, all of us were responsible for that. So you too were doing things
like briefing off the record and all the rest of it.
HAGUE: I'm saying the way that we behaved
collectively ended up creating a big problem for the electorate when they said
on the doorstep: we don't understand exactly, clearly, what your position is on
Europe. We thought we had a clear position, John Major worked very hard to
make sure we had a clear position. But because there was all this backchat,
because there were all these people trying to change the line in either
direction within the Government and outside the Government, we ended up looking
unclear.
HUMPHRYS: Were you one of those you was trying to
change the line within the Government.
HAGUE: I'm not going to go over who was doing
what, or what individual...
HUMPHRYS: You can hardly sit there this morning
and say everybody else did it but me, my hands are clean, or can you?
HAGUE: No, I'm saying we all take
responsibility for what happened. But now, we all take responsibility, we have
to all take responsibility for making sure that our party in the future is
fresh and clear and open. That we put those problems behind us. I'm certainly
not going to get into blaming individuals.
HUMPHRYS: Oh no, but clearly what you are saying:
we all take responsibility. You are suggesting quite clearly, if it wasn't Mr
Major at fault, specifically, people like Mr Clarke, Mr Howard, all of them
were doing it, they were all at it.
HAGUE: I'm not going to single out individuals.
We know we have a problem.
HUMPHRYS: But you are saying they all do it.
HAGUE: No, all I want us to recognise, and I
want everybody in the Conservative Party to recognise, that we had some
problems together. We had fantastic achievements but we also had some
problems. What we've got to do in the future is make sure we build on our
achievements but get rid of those problems as well.
HUMPHRYS: Right, well let's look at your position
now then, because one of the problems, the big problem as you acknowledge was
the Single Currency. That was the big fudge if you like. Let's be clear though
whether it was the policy that was the fudge - wait and see, negoitate and
decide, whatever we want to call it - or the way in which it was pushed
through, or failed to push it through.
HAGUE: Well I think it was the way, it was part
of the way we presented it and it was partly the way we changed it several
times. It was exactly, it was the situation I have just been describing that
collectively we failed to determine a policy which everybody stuck to and
everybody felt happy with. Now I think what we have to do in the future and
we're now in a different situation, we are in opposition now and we are looking
years ahead to the next election, we are not the Government of the day, having
to deal with these problems on a day to day basis. We should say very clearly
that we have principled objections to a European Single Currency. We should say
when you look at developments in France and Germany at the moment, that in any
case what people have been arguing about may just be a distracting mirage. And
what we should emphasise is that we want to be in Europe but not run by Europe.
That is a position that the whole Conservative Party can agree on.
HUMPHRYS: Right. I note you use the word
'principled' objections. In other words, loss of sovereignty - that's what you
refer to when you talk about principles. So you then, would have to say,
wouldn't you - if you don't want any fudge - you would have to say: we will not
have any part of that today, tomorrow, or ever?
HAGUE: I would say no politician should use the
word 'never' about any...
HUMPHRYS: No, no, that's nonsense isn't it. If I
were to say to you: are you opposed, for instance - I don't know - to Capital
Punishment or to bringing back the gas chambers in Germany, or something, you
would say: of course not - never. So, really, you can't say no politican
should ever..
HAGUE: If you take the most extreme examples in
the world, we can quote examples against each other....
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but to many people sovereignty..
HAGUE: ... but let me explain to you what I am
talking about.
-explain to you what I am talking about.
HUMPHRYS: To many people sovereignty is absolutely
key.
HAGUE: When I say we have principled
objections, I mean, we don't just think it would be a huge economic risk -
although, it would be a huge economic risk in the foreseeable future to join a
Single Currency - but we also fear that it would lead to a centralisation of
tax and spending decisions in Europe. That Europe is not currently a
vehicle, a political unit, which is subject to democratic control. It would,
therefore, be hard to reconcile it with democracy.
Now, if in some future decade that is no
longer the case, or if there is a quite different plan for a Single Currency -
a Single Currency in a different guise from the one that is proposed at the
moment - of course, we would have to look at it anew. But, I am saying: unless
we are dealing with a radically different situation, I am opposed to a European
Single Currency.
HUMPHRYS: Well, for the time being. Long term
wait and see, then?
HAGUE: But very clear principled objections.
HUMPHRYS: Well not really.
HAGUE: I don't think you could get clearer than
saying there are principled reasons...
HUMPHRYS: Yes you could. Some of your colleagues
are quite happy to say: We will never, ever take part in a Single European
Currency because of what it would do to British sovereignty.
HAGUE: I think, if you ask my colleagues - you
and other interviewers have been asking my colleagues - in this Election, none
of us use the word 'never'. The majority of us never use the word 'never'.
HUMPHRYS: I can never see myself signing up for
this on behalf of this country.
HAGUE: But we say that in any shape or form
that it is proposed today in the Europe that we have today, we are not going to
agree to it.
HUMPHRYS: In any shape or form?
HAGUE: In the shape or form that is proposed
today, in the Europe that we have today. We should not agree to it and I think
that is very clear.
HUMPHRYS: So they might be able to find a way
around this that would it satisfy Prime Minister Hague?
HAGUE: I think, what I've said is very clear
about the principles on which my objection rests. Now, unless-
HUMPHRYS: It's not that clear, it's fudging a bit
around the edge, isn't it?
HAGUE: It's not a - unless those principles
change, unless someone could show, sometime in the future, that tax and
spending decisions would not be transferred to Europe, or that they would be
subject democratic control.
HUMPHRYS: What? Literally, they're not being
transferred to Europe under the existing arrangements.
HAGUE: Then, we would be dealing with a totally
different situation. But, we're not likely to be dealing with that different
situation for many years to come. And, so, I think, the Conservative Party can
say, very clearly: we are not going to be signing up to a Single Currency.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's look at another area
that you've talked about in the past few days: sleaze. You have said that in
two years from now, you want people when they look at the Conservative Party to
see a Party that is not associated any longer with sleaze and greed and I quote
you here: "We've got to be ruthlessly intolerant of sleaze".
Now, you seem to be making a distinction
because you talk about sleaze and greed, between sexual sleaze and financial
'fananglings'.
HAGUE: Well, I think it's the-I think, it's
financial problems that people object to most and that create the greatest
problem in the minds of the voters, the ethics of politicians. I don't think
voters want to moralise towards politicians. I think, they recognise that
politicians have some human failings along with the rest of the population but
what voters react very strongly against is the suggestion that MPs abuse their
positions as Members of Parliament.
So, we have to be very fair. We have to
say that if people are accused of misconduct, they must have the chance to
prove their innocence - which, by the way, they've not always been given a
chance to do by media write-ups over the last few months, in many cases. But,
if they are guilty of, let us say, financial misconduct, then, our Party must
take an intolerant attitude towards them, just as Parliament and the voters
should take an intolerant attitude.
HUMPHRYS: But, on the question of moral behaviour,
sexual behaviour, you're not going to preach to them, then, about family
values? Preach to the public, that is moralise the public about family values?
HAGUE: I'm not going to preach to the public
about moral values. I do think that family values are important. I think that
it's important to have a functioning civilised society, that we attribute some
importance to the family. I think, there's a sort of policy that we were
proposing in the Election for Married Couples Tax Allowances was a very good
idea and would have helped to buttress the family but I'm not going to say that
everybody has to live in a family unit of a given description. And, I'm not
going to say that we expect everybody in the country to be absolutely perfect
in every aspect of their behaviour.
HUMPHRYS: So, this is a sort of-rather more
liberal William Hague than one might, perhaps, have expected, then? You're not
taking a desperately severe view of those who depart from the family values -
to use that expression - you're taking a rather more liberal view?
HAGUE: I would take a severe view of people who
are hypocritical about family values but what I, particularly, want to take a
severe view about is people who would abuse their position in Parliament, abuse
their position in Parliament. Or, inded, abuse their position in any role in
public life. I think, the Conservative Party has to be absolutely clear about
that. We've got nothing to hide, we've got nothing to be defensive about.
Politics, by and large, is full of people of great integrity and British
politics is one of the least corruptive political systems in the world. Let's
make a virtue of that but say where there are problems we will stamp them out.
HUMPHRYS: Right. So not ruthlessly intolerant in
that area but ruthlessly intolerant as far as greed is concerned. So,
therefore, what does that mean? What do you do when you talk about being
ruthlessly intolerant of greed? How does that change the way we've seen past
leaders behave?
HAGUE: Well, I think, we have to have a new
sense of discipline in our Party and that is created in two ways. First of
all, we have to make sure everybody can feel part of the team. I want to have
the hundred and sixty-four most experienced Parliamentarians, part of the most
effective team, that we've ever seen in British politics over the next few
years. But, I, also, want people to know that if they don't want to be part of
the team, then, there are penalties.
HUMPHRYS: Now, that's not what we're talking
about. We're talking about people who stray in one way or another because what
you're saying is-
HAGUE: But, it's a broader subject than that.
HUMPHRYS: But let's deal with this question of
greed - ruthless intolerance of greed that you've touched on. What you're
saying is then for instance, any more brown paper envelopes stuffed with fifty
pound bills - and I make no reference to any particular individual here - well,
any of that, anybody that gets involved in that, they're dead meat.
HAGUE: If such things were true, but I stress,
(INTERRUPTION) I stress that people have to have the opportunity to demostrate
that they're not true, but if such things were true, then we don't want people
who do that in our parliamentary Party.
HUMPHRYS: Two of the leading members of your own
campaign team have created unwelcome headlines for the Conservative Party in
the past and they've had to-and, they've had to resign as a result of that. So
the standards that you've just talked about would apply to those wouldn't they?
HAGUE: Well, I think we could debate some of
those cases. I don't know which particular cases you are talking about, but
they may fall into the category where people didn't have the chance to prove
their innocence, they may fall into some of the other categories-
HUMPHRYS: Well, they resigned as a result of it.
HAGUE: -that we're talking about. Again-
we're not going-I think it isn't fair to those individuals-
HUMPHRYS: I'm not suggesting that we should
revisit those cases.
HAGUE: -to talk about them on a programme, but
I think I've made my attitude towards people's behaviour extremely clear. I
think it's one that the vast majority of the Conservative Party would agree
with, one that the vast majority of voters would agree with and if we're going
to make the Conservative Party fresh, clear, open and united - which I believe
we can - then it's the sort of attitude we have to take.
HUMPHRYS: But it's-it's the general principle
that-that I'm looking at here. When you talk about being ruthlessly
intolerant, you would say in future then that a candidate who was tainted by
sleaze - as you say given the chance that he or she has the chance to make his
case - you would come down very hard on them, you would want to be able to
overrule a local Constituency, for instance, who said: we want to hold onto him
- you as leader of the Party would say:No...
HAGUE: In an extreme case I would want to be
able to overrule them. I think there is a new contract to be had in the
Conservative Party between its members and its leadership. The members
understandably say they want a greater control, a greater role to play in the
Party, and a greater role over their leadership - their control over the
leadership of the Party. The quid pro quo of that is that the leadership must
have greater authority to intervene in particularly difficult or embarrassing
situations for the Party. And again, I found in my tour of the country - that
I've just completed, and I've spoken to nearly two-and-a-half thousand
Conservative activists, and heard their views and questions - I think there is
a great deal of support for that kind of concept in the Conservative Party. So
when I say we start with a clean sheet of paper in the Conservative Party
organisation I mean it. I mean we would have a radical restructuring of our
Party in which the door would be open to a new kind of relationship between the
leader and the members of the kind I've just been speaking of.
HUMPHRYS: They might say to you now in principle
that's - especially bruised as they are after this last defeat - they might say
to you: Yeah, that all sounds alright. In practice, when push comes to shove,
Constituency Chairmen tend to guard their patches pretty jealously, and the
idea that the leader up there or down there in London, says you can't have
him. Well, when push comes to shove, are you prepared to stand up to them?
HAGUE: Yes. I don't want to destroy the day to
day autonomy of Constituency associations. The local identities, the local
input into a political Party is absolutely essential, but I find a very wide
recognition across the Conservative Party that we do have to change some of our
rules. Certainly that we need a new basis for our organisation. I think
people are ready to accept that. We now have a once in a generation
opportunity to change some of these things and I'm going to take them very
quickly.
HUMPHRYS: Does this principle of being intolerant
of greed apply to the sort of thing we've seen happening? That has upset many
people because they associate this with greed; with Camelot, the Directors
taking enormous increases - ninety per cent in the case of one person;forty per
cent overall. Would it apply in a case like that?
HAGUE: Yes. I don't think we should be afraid
to say that some people have abused the position which we and they have put
themselves in. It has been extremely irritating to Conservative politicians as
well as the politicians in other Parties-
HUMPHRYS: 'Irritated'? Funny word?
HAGUE: -to-to see people sometimes, in some
industries, take huge rises when those rises are not available to the people
who work for them. We don't believe governments should set people's salaries
for them, but we do believe that shareholders in a company should exercise
proper control over people's rewards and we shouldn't shrink from encouraging
them to do that, and from voicing our opinion when things happen which we
disapprove of.
HUMPHRYS: So what would you do in this particular
case? Tell them: cut those increases, don't take those fat rises?
HAGUE: I would say that was my opinion. I
don't think the Conservative Party should hold back or be defensive about these
things. We believe in a society in which people can be rewarded for hard work
and initiative, in which people should be able to get on in life. But we also
believe in a society in which people should not abuse their position and in
which the treatment of individuals should be seen to be fair. Let's not hold
back from giving our opinion. Let's make-Let's be ambitious about how we're
going to present our Party and how clearly we're going to state our opinions.
HUMPHRYS: And that would apply across the
utilities, wherever any chairman or cheif executive took a big fat rise,
you'd...
HAGUE: Oh, there may be cases when it is-
HUMPHRYS: Sure, but we've been....
HAGUE: Sometimes an industry says the way, the
only way we can bring somebody in of the necessary talent is to pay somebody a
new much higher going rate for the job. That's fine, but sometimes when they
say: this guy did the job for this amount before, and now he's going to do the
same job for two or three times as much we're all entitled to object. We
shouldn't shrink from it.
HUMPHRYS: New leader, new toughness. William
Hague, thank you very much indeed.
HAGUE: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: And that's it for this week. Next week
the Shadow Chancellor Ken Clarke, the last of our leadership interviews. Until
then, Good Afternoon.
...oooOooo...
|