................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
PETER LILLEY INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 4.5.97
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Peter Lilley, you said that..you and
others, creating unity is what matters. What makes you think that you can do
that?
PETER LILLEY: For the last five years I've led a team
which spans the whole spectrum of opinion within the Conservative Party
successfully, drawing on the strengths of all the different strands of the
Party. We've taken twelve bills through Parliament, not a single person has
dissented. I think that's an all time record in an area which is very
contentious and in the past has divided the Party. So I've shown in practice
that if you're prepared to give a lead, but draw on the strengths of different
strands of opinion in the Party you can unite it, and it's very important that
we do that across the whole spectrum of policy.
HUMPHRYS: And where the great divide is, clearly
is Europe. So let's have a look at that. Single European Currency first,
that's the big one. Are you saying, as far as a Single European Currency is
concerned, will this be your position: we are against it on principle and
that's that or are you going to continue effectively, continue Mr Major's
approach which is..has been purely pragmatic.
LILLEY: Our approach has been to negotiate until
we have to decide and the point of decision is approaching fast. I actually
believe it would be easier to get unity on that decision, which will be
opposition to any Labour proposals to take us into the Single Currency in this
Parliament, than might have appeared before this Election, because whatever
approach you take, whether it is of constitutional principle or of business
pragmatism it's tending to lead in the same direction. People have found on
the doorsteps that though they may not have been interested themselves in the
constitutional arguments they've had to answer the questions put by the
electorate: can Britain remain a self-governing country if it doesn't have a
currency? - will it still have control of other aspects of economic policy? -
can there be a Single Currency in Europe without a Single European wide
government to run it? And I think most of them have come to the conclusion
which I've always had that it's very difficult to imagine that it would be
possible for that to go ahead without further moves towards a federal state
with which we are all opposed, all of us across the whole spectrum of opinion.
Likewise, there are those who approach
it from a pragmatic stance who are interested in the business pros and cons and
whether or not this is a sensible step at this stage and so on. I think that
the very evidence that our economy is at a different stage of an economic
cycle, its cycle moves differently from the Continent makes a lot of people
very weary for us going into an experiment which hasn't even been shown to work
where countries move in unison and clearly we would be very much the most
difficult to accommodate within that. So I suspect, it would be easier to get
a broad measure agreement that we should oppose a Labour attempt to take us in.
And of course there's every sign from these stories that Tony Blair was going
to appoint David Simon - a good friend of mine by the way - but a total
Euro-enthusiast...(interruption)...indeed he came and spoke in my constituency
to my association but he's a Euro-enthusiast. He was to be made European
Minister days after Tony Blair had been telling the Electorate that he was a
Euro-sceptic, he'd been wrapping himself in the Union Jack, he'd been telling
the Sun readers that he was on their side. That inconsistency is going to be
exposed and the British people will find WE are the spokesmen for their true
instincts.
HUMPHRYS: So let's try and pin you down a bit more
on that, then. You're saying quite clearly: we would be opposed to going into
a Single European Currency during the lifetime of this next Parliament or
forever?
LILLEY: Politicians can only ever deal in the
foreseeable future and all politicians constitutionally can legislate for is a
Parliament. We cannot bind a future Parliament, but that is the clear position
I think we should take during this Parliament.
HUMPHRYS: So you will therefore be in outright
opposition, not just to Mr Blair but to Kenneth Clarke?
LILLEY: No, I think Kenneth Clarke has said that
he can well envisage practical grounds when he would think it was not in
Britain's interest-
HUMPHRYS: Oh, indeed but that's very different
from what you've just said.
LILLEY: Oh, well, I've said that I think there
will be a convergence between those who approach this on practical grounds and
those who approach it on Constitutional grounds which will lead us to oppose a
Labour proposal that we go in.
HUMPHRYS: Will what you have said though be enough
to satisfy those supporters of Mr Clarke's view, which is different from yours?
LILLEY: I think they will welcome the fact that
we recognise that both the strands - the pragmatic and the Constitutional -
have to be brought together and as it so happens events and factors are pushing
them together. It would be very hard for a lot of people even if they were keen
on the abstract idea of a Single Currency, or even of a federal Europe to argue
that it is definitely in Britain's interest to join it when our whole economy
is out of phrase with the European-the Continental countries.
HUMPHRYS: There's a danger isn't there though,
that that approach that you've just spelt out won't please either side? It
won't be enthusiastic enough nor sufficiently sceptic.
LILLEY: I think people have an instinct for
unity. They want a sensible policy, they want a clear lead, they know that the
point of decision is approaching and that clearly must be given. That they
don't want just a balance of opinions but a clear lead and they will welcome
that as long as it is in a way that draws on the strengths of the different -
the pragmatic and the Constitutional tradition within our Party.
HUMPHRYS: Aren't you looking for unity here where
there can't be any? It's wishful thinking in effect, because there are those
Europhiles who believe we've got to stay in Europe wherever it goes; there are
those who are opposed, who think we've gone too far already and we've actually
got to start re-claiming the powers that we have handed over.
LILLEY: I don't think so. We had to formulate a
clear position for the Amsterdam Inter Governmental Conference. We spelt it out
in a White Paper. It was very clear, it commanded support across the whole
Party; it was anti-Federal if you like. I prefer to think of it as being
simple pro-British. It said Britain wishes to retain its powers to govern
itself while co-operating closely with our partners on the Continent. And
there is the evidence, that when actually you do have to reach the point of
decision making, the party can unite as long as it's given a clear lead as we
were there.
HUMPHRYS: Mr Clarke this morning described this
problem over Europe as 'the cancer at the heart of the Party' and his solution
is to cut it out in effect by offering a free vote on all European matters.
Would go you along with that?
LILLEY: Well we've had free votes in 1972 on the
principle of joining the Common Market for example, and there could be similar
occasions when that would be essential but I can't really envisage an
Opposition not having a collected view on important legislation going through
Parliament, for example, to take us into a Single Currency. And such
legislation, if Tony Blair - as all the indications are - has ambitions to do
that, such legislation would have to be brought in before the end of this year.
The idea that we could all just say it's a free vote and Her Majesty's
Opposition had no view on it isn't really realistic and in practice, as I say,
I think the Party would be far more united in Opposition to that. Not least
because it would be such a betrayal of the Electorate for Tony Blair to move in
that direction when he'd given assurances otherwise.
HUMPHRYS: Well, it may be but there would be those
who weren't united - the history of the Party tells you that - and you heard
people on this programme this morning.
LILLEY: Well-
HUMPHRYS: But, let me just-let me just pursue this
sort of - if I may - for a moment. Given that there will be those - there may
be those - who don't stand behind you in that position, and you're the leader,
would you, then, say: right, stern measures against those people. Would you be
a tough leader, in that respect?
LILLEY: I would certainly expect people to give
their loyalty to the Leadership. I believe, too, the aftermath of this defeat
- an element of which was definitely the disunity in the past - we can expect a
greater willingness for people to coalesce around the Leadership and to respond
to strong leadership.
HUMPHRYS: Could you serve under a Clarke
leadership in a Shadow Cabinet led by Mr Clarke?
He's already said this morning
that-effectively said that he couldn't serve under for instance a Redwood
leadership. If he maintains his unsatisfactory position, as you put
it.
LILLEY: If the 'phone calls that I've received
since my candidature was announced last night - the avalanche of calls I've
received - is anything to go by that is a hypothetical question.
HUMPHRYS: There's been an avalanche?
LILLEY: Of 'phone calls to me - yes! Ah, I'm
not saying there's an avalanche of everybody 'phoning up and saying: yes, we
will join your campaign. But given that I have meticulously refused to
organise any Leadership campaign, or even - and, I'd actively discourage all
those who had urged me to lead to put forward my name, or float my name, over
the last year or two - the fact that so many people have been ringing up
continuously - if you've been trying to get through to me you'd have found it
virtually impossible over the last twenty-four hours - has been very
encouraging and the breadth of support and width of support has been very
encouraging, too.
HUMPHRYS: Here's another reason. You talked about
Europe being one of the reasons why you lost because it divided the Party.
Here's another reason, isn't it? You said in the Mail on Sunday this morning
that the Tories have got to get away from the caricature of themselves as
hardfaced men without a social conscience or a social dimension, interested
only in the pocket book. What did you mean by that?
LILLEY: I think, we've allowed ourselves -
partly, through failing to respond to a remorseless line of criticism over
eighteen years that we are simply a Party that believes in self-interest and
the pocket book. To obscure another very strong element of the Conservative
tradition which is generous, it believes that we will have an obligation to
help those in need and that's a matter of pride - not regrettable necessity.
That - and, when I first became Social
Security Secretary I chose as my text the remark by Samuel Johnson that the
test of a civilised society is generous provision for the poor. We have to
recognise that we have that element and we have to fight back against those
who've tried to paint us as just sort-of the Party of yuppiedom.
HUMPHRYS: So, you're gonna look again at the
balance struck again between public spending on public services and spending
our tax money?
LILLEY: We don't necessarily fulfill our
obligations to others simply by spending their money for them. We have
committed ourselves to tough control of public expenditure but it still means
that something like forty per cent of the nation's income will be controlled by
the Government - that means for two days out of five, you're working for the
Government and three days you're left with the money you earn to look after
your own family. I think that is quite enough.
What is quite clear is that Tony Blair
in his - what was essentially a false prospectus - has raised expectations that
much more can be achieved, much more can be given, whilst still remaining
within that limit - that's not on.
HUMPHRYS: But, as far as you are concerned - your
Party is concerned - you give the impression - rightly or wrongly - of not
liking public spending. Is that an impression you have to change?
LILLEY: We have to recognise that there is a
strong role for public services within that limit that we set - forty per cent
- it ought to be possible to provide decent public services. If we have a
growing economy, then, forty per cent of a growing economy is much better than
a larger proportion of a stagnant ecnonomy and that has always been what
Socialism has provided us ....
HUMPHRYS: Right, but, if you don't you might have
to spend more to maintain those public services that people are concerned
about?
LILLEY: We, sadly found - and, that's one of the
things for which we've drawn the penalty - that in the depths of recession we
had to increase taxation to ensure that we did meet our obligations to those
hit by the recession.
HUMPHRYS: And, no regret about that? You take
pride in that fact.
LILLEY: Well, it was a necessity - it was a sad
necessity. I, certainly, don't welcome the recession, or the fact that it was
deeper, longer and had more dramatic effect on our tax revenues than we
expected and that we hadn't prepared people for that.
HUMPHRYS: But, again, that makes you sound like a
reluctant spender?
LILLEY: Well, I think, all politicians-
HUMPHRYS: Or reluctant helper, if your prefer?
Perhaps, that's a better word.
LILLEY: Spending and helping are two different
things. There is an absolute necessity to help those in need and I don't feel
reluctant about that. I've always put the focus within my Department on
helping particularly the disabled people. That seems to me that should be a
matter of pride, that we now spend four times as much as the last Labour
Government. We ought to be emphasising that and getting more credit for it and
that was the point that I was making - that we've allowed ourselves to be
caricatured as people who aren't interested in those in genuine need, which is
untrue.
HUMPHRYS: But-But the Party as an oversight (phon)
isn't your problem. That you, yourself, might be seen as one of those
hardfaced men, in part because you're so associated now - partly because of the
things you announced just before the Election - that with the private sector
you see a dominant role, perhaps, for the private sector in Welfare.
LILLEY: No, I want to see people given the
opportunity to provide for themselves and to work for themselves so that they
don't need Social Security and gosh, most of them would want that, too. In the
sphere of Pensions, I said that we were the Party - and, indeed, the only Party
- pledged to guarantee the basic State Pension for this and future generations
and to make it affordable by backing it with investments which would be built
up over people's lifetime. And, that received a wide measure of support across
the whole political spectrum, including newspapers that are normally hostile to
us. And, it's going to be fascinating to see how someone like Frank Field,
who has obvious sympathy with these ideas, copes in a Government which, rather
disreputedly, in the opinion even of the BBC, which pointed out that what Tony
Blair was saying was, simply, wrong-
HUMPHRYS: I don't think the BBC ......
LILLEY: -tried to raise fears on it, anyway, to
analyse the facts (phon).
HUMPHRYS: But, who are these-But, but, who-who?
you talked about the hardfaced men this morning, I mean, who are they? Because
you sound now - you're delivering much the same message as before?
LILLEY: We've allowed those criticisms to go on
without countering and refuting them and rebutting them enough and putting over
positively the broader spectrum of Conservative philosphy, which isn't-it
certainly relies on the free market but it, also, has other aspects which we've
understated and not got credit for apparently.
HUMPHRYS: Right. Let's talk about Constitutional
changes that the Labour Government is going to introduce. The first year is
going to be dominated, indeed, by discussions and change in the Constitution.
Your position on devolution now, as a Party, is untenable now, isn't it because
you've been saying you're the Party of the Union - no, no, no to devolution -
and, now, the people of Wales, the people of Scotland have said: no, no, no to
you - you're an English Party. You have to change your view, don't you?
LILLEY: There are still, I think, a majority of
people in Scotland and Wales who want to remain part of the United Kingdom.
They - many of them may think that it's possible to do so with devolved
Parliaments. We have to ask remorselessly and relentlessly the West Lothian
question: how is that to be achieved without answers which are unacceptable in
Scotland, as well as the rest of the United Kingdom.
HUMPHRYS: Right, but you've asked that question
throughout the campaign and the people of Wales and Scotland have said: We've
also - Scotland in this particular case - we've also considered that and we've
told you what we think. We've not a single MP in Scotland, so you can't carry
on saying we've got to ask this question can you?
LILLEY: Well, remember what happened last time
Labour introduced devolution proposals. They began very popular in Scotland,
they end up with a referendum after the process in parliament had shown what it
really meant and how it potentially undermined the union and damaged Scotland,
not least with higher taxes, that ended up with fewer than forty per cent of
the Scottish people supporting it. So that if we put these arguments in a
principle fashion we will be doing a service to all those Scots and Welsh who
want to remain part of the kingdom and whom have a ...
HUMPHRYS: So your views haven't changed. If you're
leading your view stays what it's been?
LILLEY: Oh, it's absolutely - a key part of
this parliament we'll be dealing with those arguments.
HUMPHRYS: Can we just talk about you as a
personality now, because the personality of a leader matters clearly.
Everybody knows, we heard it on that film from Kim Catcheside a few minutes ago
that you're very clever, you're very competent. Do you have a powerful enough
personality?
LILLEY: I don't think we need to worry about the
sort of glitz and glamour of politics. I have exerted my personality towards
selling my policies.
HUMPHRYS: Different when you're leader though.
LILLEY: If you're leader you have to deploy some
of those talents to selling yourself, and I will with effect.
HUMPHRYS: You're regarded though aren't you, as
one of the invisible men, I think the expression was a while back, of British
politics - a bit colourless?
LILLEY: I used to joke about my low recognition
when I was first appointed in the Cabinet. All people first appointed in the
Cabinet lack recognition. Alas I'm no longer able to trade upon such jokes
because I am, it seems when I walk about the streets, universally recognised,
and actually I have to say the response of people is rather kind, and they come
up and say nice things. That perhaps just tells us about the politeness and
courtesy of the British people, but they do recognise me.
HUMPHRYS: The comparison with Ken Clarke
inevitably is going to be made, the ebullient Ken Clarke, very colourful
figure.
LILLEY: Well, he's a great character, and I have
great respect for him. We each have our own personalities. I've been in the
business of selling policies of marketing and presenting the government rather
than marketing and presenting myself. As leader one has to do the latter as
well, and I will.
HUMPHRYS: Some say that - maybe this is wishful
thinking on their part, who knows - but some say that you're making a pitch for
this job in the hope that it will raise your profile, you'll become a more
significant figure and you'll get a better job in the Shadow Cabinet then -
Chancellor of the Exchequer or something like that. Is that the underlying
motive?
LILLEY: No. After a devastating defeat I want
to win. I want to win this election and then I want to win the next General
Election, and I think I am actually best placed in the Party to unite it, the
Party, and to rebuild the Party and to renew the Party which has got to be done
at great speed and with absolute thoroughness in time to win back that majority
in Westminster which we need at the next election. I don't hold with this idea
that we have to expect it to take ten years. It didn't take ten years to get
back after the Labour landslide in nineteen-forty-five. Rab Butler began the
process of renewal of the Party. I shall start that process of renewal as
leader and we will ensure that the Conservatives restore themselves to a
position where they can gain a majority, and restore their rapport with the
British people.
HUMPHRYS: Peter Lilley, thank you very much indeed.
LILLEY: Thank you.
....oooOOooo....
|