................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
MICHAEL ANCRAM INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 22.2.98
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Well, Michael Ancram, the Shadow
Minister for Constitutional Affairs is in our Edinburgh Studio. Good afternoon
Mr Ancram.
MICHAEL ANCRAM MP: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: Some fairly radical thoughts being
voiced there. Is that the way your Party is heading now?
ANCRAM: Well I think it's part of a very
necessary debate which is taking place at the moment, because one of the
realities we have to face is that although we've always been the Party of
incremental and evolutionary Constitutional change, that luxury isn't going to
be available to us when we get back to power. We're going to find that this
cascade of Constitutional reform which the Labour Government is producing at
the moment will fundamentally alter the landscape. And being realistic in
politics we've got to start from the position we're going to find ourselves in.
So, we have to think forward in terms of the sort of ideas which have been put
forward by my colleagues in your film. But we've got to debate them
carefully. I have to say we need to exercise a little caution because when
you begin to examine some of the proposals that are being made they don't
necessarily work as simply as they might seem to at first sight.
HUMPHRYS: Well let's try and break them down a
little bit. Let's look at the Scottish problem, if that's how you see it
first. And that's the old problem, that you've always believed it wrong that
if Scottish MPs have their own Parliament, they shouldn't be able to vote on
English affairs. Now you do still think that that is unacceptable, I take it?
ANCRAM: It is unacceptable and I think that most
people would accept that where you have a Constitutional arrangement where one
set of MPs can vote on matters which really are not part of their electoral
mandate because they weren't elected to deal with them, but can't even vote on
those similar matters in their own constituencies because they're not to be
part of a Scottish Parliament, that is an anomaly which is going to create
resentment and unhappiness in the years ahead. It's going to - if I could use
this expression - it's going to fan the flames of English Nationalism and it's
going to endanger the United Kingdom. And I've always said that I regard this
not as a Scottish question but as an English question - 'unfinished business',
to use John Smith's phrase - which we need to resolve in one way or another if
we are going to hold the United Kingdom together in this new devolutionary age.
HUMPHRYS: So, the solution to that might be then
for England to have it? If it isn't to have its fan-flames fanned, to have
its own Parliament?
ANCRAM: Well, I think that-that there are a
number of options, none of them really are without their flaws. You can talk
about an English Parliament and a federal system, you've still got the
unresolved question of how you deal with a federal structure where one of the
four elements represents eighty-three per cent of the whole. It's a very
unbalanced structure and I think that is a considerable difficulty. You can
look at designating Bills in Parliament as English or English and Welsh Bills
and excluding Scottish MPs from voting on them, as Malcolm Rifkind was
suggesting in his comments. But again, there you then create two categories of
MPs within the same Parliament and that has Constitutional implications as
well. But what we have got to face up to is we're going to have Scottish MPs in
Parliament, who are going to be essentially part-time MPs, in the sense that
they will not be carrying out all the Constituency duties that their English
colleagues will and we have to have-find some way of resolving that without
creating tensions within the United Kingdom which could tear it apart.
HUMPHRYS: So you wouldn't rule out an English
Parliament?
ANCRAM: I wouldn't rule in or rule out anything
at this stage because I think we have to have a debate. I mean there is the
other suggestion of turning the English-the Westminster Parliament into an
English Grand Committee for the purposes of looking at English legislation on
certain days of the week. There may be other suggestions to come forward. I'm
trying to generate a debate and I think that William Hague on Tuesday will be
further trying to generate this debate, really asking people to think about
these problems, to see that there are dangers inherent in what is being done in
this unco-ordinated way by the Labour Government at the moment. We really have
to look for answers to these problems when we're back in power.
HUMPHRYS: And they are all possibilities are they,
as far as you're concerned?
ANCRAM: They're all possibilities but as I say
the more you look at them, the more you see that there are flaws within them
and I'm not claiming to have complete knowledge of the whole Constitutional
range of possibilities. I hope that through this debate we may get some other
ideas coming forward and that these can be looked at. The one thing which is
certain, is that the Labour Government's answer to the West Lothian question,
or the English dimension - which is to regionalise England - is really a
non-starter in solving the problem because-
HUMPHRYS: So, you rule that out?
ANCRAM: We'd certainly rule that out because we
don't believe that England can be so easily fragmented but quite apart from
that unless you actually gave each of these regional assemblies legislative
powers you don't actually answer that particular question. And, if you were to
do that, you'd be going even further than the Labour Government's gone in
Wales. So, I think that's really a sort of fanciful suggestion and one that
really has to be put to bed very quickly.
HUMPHRYS: Right, well that limits the options a
bit doesn't it? So, let's have another look, then, at the- a proper look
perhaps at the notion of an English Parliament. You say when we are returned to
power. Well if that happens you could - could you not? - find yourself in a
position where you had a Tory Prime Minister of the Westminster Parliament?
You might - unlikely I accept this under this particular scenario, but you
could conceivably - have a Labour Prime Minister for England, possibly a Labour
Prime Minister of Wales, and so-? You know, you'd-you'd have this odd
position, wouldn't you? Where you'd have Prime Ministers of different bits of
Britain, of different political Parties and possibly a different Prime Minister
for the United Kingdom as a whole. Very odd, innit?
ANCRAM: I think it's fraught with difficulties.
You don't need to persuade me of that, or how odd it would be. One of the
things which worries me about the legislation we're taking through at the
moment, is whenever we come across these problems, and we talk about how we are
going to resolve the arguments and the conflicts which could arise from this,
we're told: oh, don't worry, it'll all be done by informal agreement. And this
word 'concordat' has suddenly appeared on the scenes-on the scene - rather like
executive agreements in America which bypass the need to get Congresssional
approval. I'm very worried by that development because, you know, if you are
going to base Constitutional reform on temporary and unenforceable agreements,
then it's a very unsound basis for taking Constitutional reform forward. I want
to see these type of safeguards built into the legislation itself. But I have
to say, with the majority I've got in Parliament against me, I'm not having
very much success in that.
HUMPHRYS: Well, and you certainly have a large
majority against you. If we look at the other option, or one of the other
options and that is saying to Scottish MPs: you may not vote. You talk about a
Grand Committee for instance: you may not vote on English matters. You might
then have the spectacle of the House of Commons, the floor of the House of
Commons, onto which Scottish and Welsh MPs might not be allowed during certain
days of the week. That'd be an unusual spectacle wouldn't it?
ANCRAM: Again, I mean-
HUMPHRYS: Unique, not unusual.
ANCRAM: Yeah. I mean, as somebody pointed out
to me, if that's the Grand Committee route, if you went down that route and you
had say Monday, Tuesday, for an English Parliament, what happens if something
international happens on the Monday or Tuesday? Do you suddenly reconvene the
Westminster Parliament or what? I mean there are enormous difficulties in that.
The easiest one is to go down the route of what's called designation where the
Speaker designates certain legislation as English only, or English and Welsh
only and Scottish MPs are excluded from voting on it. But when you do that you
begin to accept that there are two categories of Member of Parliament in the
Westminster Parliament and if you're a Constitutionalist, that is something
which a lot of people would find offensive and undermining of the whole concept
of the United Kingdom. So, as you can see, I mean, there is an enormous debate
to be had on this, but there are no easy solutions.
HUMPHRYS: No. But, in spite of that, your mind is
still open on either of those routes.
ANCRAM: Absolutely. In fact, I mean, I think,
within the next week or two we have amendments down to the Scottish Bill to
really examine and explore some of these options. But in dealing with them,
I'm going to make it absolutely clear that there are no simple solutions. I'm
- My excuse for that is I wouldn't have started from here. I wouldn't have
created this problem, in the first place.
HUMPHRYS: No, but-but-
ANCRAM: But, because the Labour Government is
not prepared to do something to resolve what is going to be a very considerable
running sore in the future, as a Conservative Opposition, we have got to start
doing that work for them.
HUMPHRYS: And, yes, I mean, the important point
here is that you cannot leave things as they are going to be. That's the
point, isn't it?
ANCRAM: That's - that's absolutely the point. I
think, what is being created is so unstable that, at the end of the day, it
flies in the face of all the Labour Government's protestations of what they're
doing is to strengthen the United Kingdom. It seriously endangers it. It
unbundles it even further and that is something, which as Conservatives, we
can't accept.
HUMPHRYS: Something that must happen, presumably,
though, is that the number of Scottish MPs must be cut?
ANCRAM: Absolutely and, in fact, in the Bill
there is already a - a provision in order to do that - to bring them to parity
with England.
HUMPHRYS: In other words, so that you have the
same number of Scottish MPs per constituent, or other - constituents per MP -
as you have in England?
ANCRAM: Yes. But, very noticeably this isn't
going to happen for another ten years. So, it's rather far down the road. I
think, you're going to be pressing for it to happen rather sooner.
HUMPHRYS: How much sooner?
ANCRAM: I'd like to see it happen before the
next Election. There's another very good reason. The size of the Scottish
Parliament, ultimately, is going to depend on the number of Scottish MPs around
Westminster, according to the Bill. So, to set up a Parliament of one size
and then change it four years later does seem to me to be rather a strange
way of proceeding.
HUMPHRYS: But, of course, you would say that,
wouldn't you? On account of every - You don't have a single MP in Scotland!
So, you'd want to cut the number, wouldn't you?
ANCRAM: No. Not at all. I'm hoping to see a
large number of Conservative MPs elected at the next General Election and much
more importantly in the shorter term to see a large number of Scottish
Parliament MPs elected for the Conservative cause as well. And, I think, we
have a very good chance of doing that.
HUMPHRYS: What about cutting it beyond or below
parity - to use the word that you used - to reflect the fact that the Scots
would have their own Parliament.
ANCRAM: I think, that this is something that has
to be part of the debate. I heard what Malcolm Rifkind had to say but you know
when we look at the Ulster experience after Stormont was set up, the number of
MPs at Westminster was below parity, to reflect the fact that there was a
separate Parliament in Northern Ireland. Now, I'm not saying that that is
necessarily the route that we should go, or should end up on. But, I think, we
need to look at all that as part of the overall debate. The numbers are really
the symptom and not the cause of what's become known as the West Lothian
question. But, in looking at the whole of this question and the English
dimension within it, I think we need to look at all these possibilities and to
debate them openly, and eventually, to come to conclusions.
HUMPHRYS: So, apart from regionalism, as it were,
nothing is going to be ruled out by you?
ANCRAM: That's right. I mean, regionalism, I
think, for a very good reason. I represent a seat which is on the very edge of
the southwestern region, as it would become, stretching right down to Penzance
in Cornwall and having its centre somewhere round either Bristol or Plymouth.
And, I think, you've only got to go to a region like that and travel round it
and talk to various people in various parts of it, to know that it isn't a
region at all.
HUMPHRYS: Right. Let's move on to the House of
Lords, then. Now, Labour is going to dump the hereditary peers. Do you want
to talk to them? Do you want to have discussions, at this stage, about what
ought to replace them?
ANCRAM: I think, in terms of all their
Constitutional reform, I think it's very wrong that they haven't tried to seek
consensus, 'cos, I think, if you are making dramatic and fundamental reforms to
the Constitution the more agreement you can get the more likely it is to last.
And, dealing with it on a partisan basis is - is not, in my view, a secure way
of proceeding on Constitutional reform. But, so far as the House of Lords is
concerned, I think, what we're seeing, at the moment, is not really a
Constitutional reform on their part, it's a piece of politics. They want to
throw some red meat to their Left Wingers, therefore, they want to get rid of
the hereditary peerage within the House of Lords. They've said they're going
to do that. We, actually, think the House of Lords works quite well, despite
the fact it defeated us on a very large number of occasions when we were in
Government.
But, we have to accept, again, that if
Tony Blair is true to his word, we are going to find a very different House of
Lords. Probably, the biggest politically - appointed quango that's ever been
seen in this country. And, we have to move on from there.
HUMPHRYS: So, what's the alternative, then, to
that quango, as you describe it? What would you do?
ANCRAM: I think that I would avoid the trap of
saying I see a House of Lords which is going to be constituted in a certain
particular way, at this stage, for this reason.
HUMPHRYS: But, how can you have a debate? Sorry,
bu I mean how can you have a debate if you're not prepared to suggest what you
think ought to happen?
ANCRAM: Well, I think, it's looking at it from
the wrong end of the telescope because I think what you've got to say is what
is the Constitutional position we're going to find in four years' time and,
therefore, what sort of House of Lords do we need to be able to deal with that?
And, that depends, to a large extent, on how far, if you like, the breakup of -
the regionalisation of the United Kingdom's gone. We want to see what's
happened to the powers of the House of Commons in relation to devolution and so
on.
We need, then, to have a House of Lords
which, actually fits into that, which actually carries out a role which is
going to be of benefit to the Constitution and there are certain principles
which we can annunciate at this time. It's got to be - have an independent
element, it's got to be able to hold the Government to account, it's got to be
able to ask the House of Commons to think about things again. And, at the end
of the day, it's got to represent all parts of the United Kingdom. So, there
are certain elements which we are clear on but it would be very strange to
design a House of Lords now, not knowing what the - if you like - the
Constitutional landscape was going to be, within which it's got to work.
HUMPHRYS: Well, could some of those independent
elements be elected?
ANCRAM: I don't think you can rule out anything
again, and I know that William Hague's made it quite clear he isn't going to
rule out anything. We, as I say wouldn't again, have started from here, but
given that we are going to see this dramatic change we have to look at all
possibilities. But what we've got to do is to achieve a House of Lords which
is going to work constructively within the constitution as part of what is
going to be a very new type of constitution for this country. Another
little example of this is the Human Rights Bill, going through parliament,
which is going to for the first time, politicise judges within our country.
Now, we have to take all of that into account in looking at the overall shape
of what we're going be dealing with.
HUMPHRYS: If they were to be elected, might they
be elected by proportional representation?
ANCRAM: I'm not going to rule in or rule out
anything, because you can't actually make these judgements until you, as I say,
you know what you want your House of Lords to do, and you can't know that until
you see the problems with which it's going to have to wrestle -
HUMPHRYS: But I mean ...
ANCRAM: .. constitution into which it's going to
have to fit.
HUMPHRYS: But you do know what it's going to be
like, what the House of Lords is going to look like if the Government goes
along the road it is now embarked upon, and that is you will have, to use your
own expression - a quango. So on the basis of that you can surely say: Well
this is how we're going to avoid that regrettable state of affairs coming
about.
ANCRAM: I don't think we can avoid it coming
about, because if they want to do it, they...
HUMPHRYS: Well, they stop it, you know, change it,
so that it doesn't stay like that.
ANCRAM: But we will - again starting from the
position which we wouldn't have wished to start from, we then have to say, how
do you take account of what is happening in terms of the rest of the United
Kingdom, in terms of devolution, in terms of as I say, of what is happening
within the judiciary, what is happening within the House of Commons itself,
because all these constitutional reforms are going to change the nature of the
House of Commons. Now, we want a House of Lords which is going to fit in to
that scenario, and it really - it may be an interesting and theoretical
exercise to say we'd like a House of Lords to look like X or Y, but it's not a
very pragmatic one when you don'tknow what that House of Lords is going to have
to do at the end of the day. So I'm not bucking your question, I'm being
realistic and saying I want to see the landscape into which this particular
tree is going to have to fit, and fit comfortably.
HUMPHRYS: And it might well be, as you say, since
you acknowledge that some may have to be elected, that they would be elected by
proportional representation.
ANCRAM: Again, I ruled nothing in and nothing
out. As you know we don't like proportional representation, and we think the
first past the post system has served this country well. We're having to
accept that we're giing to fight elections to a Scottish parliament and a Welsh
assembly and to a European parliament on the basis of different forms of
proportional representation. We are having to be pragmatic. We no longer have
the luxury to move forward in incremental steps. We are going to have to
accept that the landscape is changing and we're going to have to deal with what
we find.
HUMPHYRS: So therefore when you - if you make
perhaps I should say, a submission to the Commission led by Lord Jenkins that's
looking at electoral reform at the moment, you're not going to say to Lord
Jenkins: Do not even consider proportional representation for the House of
Commons. Are you going to say: Well, we're not ruling anything out there
either?
ANCRAM: No, we've made it absolutely clear that
so far as the House of Commons is concerned, we believe that the first past the
post system is the right way of electing members of Parliament, and we will be
arguing that very strongly in the country, because I think that this is going
to be a major public debate, and the people are easily led by soundbites
talking about fair votes, and I think we need to actually point out to people
in this country the very real dangers that exist within the systems that create
unstable governments, that create permanent coalitions, that create politics in
smoke-filled rooms. All of these are things which we are going to be arguing
very strongly and very publicly over these next months.
HUMPHYRS But the question is, whether over these
next months you're going to be leading this debate or following it. .... I mean
everything, almost everything you've said today, some of which is very radical,
but it does rather suggest that you're kind of reacting rather than saying: Now
this the road down which we want to go.
ANCRAM: Well, I think we've - as I say when
you're in the middle of an enormous constitutional reform of the sort we're
seeing at the moment, particularly an unco-ordinated one, where one bit
isn't actually matched to the others, then we have to be very clear as to the
situation we're going to find when we being to look at the constitution
ourselves. That means we can at the moment have a debate in which we look at
all the options. That's not following, that is actually looking - opening
people's minds to the possibilities, and it's only when we see what the
problems with which we're going to have to deal that we need to come to
resolutions of those questions.
HUMPHRYS: But a very different approach than we
would have expected a year ago.
ANCRAM: Well, politics changes people's minds.
I'm always reminded that we opposed the eighteen-thirty-two Reform Act, but we
after that became some of the greatest reformers on the back of it, because we
had to accept that the landscape had changed, and we're going to have to accept
that again.
HUMPHRYS: Michael Ancram, thank you very much
indeed.
ANCRAM: Thank you.
HUMPHRYS: And that's it for this week. The full
hour, the Full Monty next week. Until then Good Afternoon.
....oooOooo....
|