................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
CLIVE SOLEY INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 25.5.97
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Clive Soley, you've just been elected
chairman of the biggest Parliamentary Labour Party in history: three hundred
backbenchers with no role in Government. All raring to make a name for
themselves. It's going to be a bit of a job keeping them happy isn't it?
CLIVE SOLEY: I'm sorry that last line was lost, can
you say that again.
HUMPHRYS: It's going to be a bit of a job keeping
all those backbenchers....all right I'll ask the whole question all the way
from the top. We'll be chopping the question off but anyway.
You've just been elected chairman of the
biggest Parliamentary Labour Party in history: three hundred backbenchers, no
role in the Government. All raring to make a name for themselves. Isn't it
going to be a bit of a job keeping them all happy?
SOLEY: Well I hope not. I think it's a very
real opportunity. We can't go round looking at our majority as though it's a
problem. The majority is actually an opportunity. What we've got to do is to
reform the Parliamentary process to make sure backbenchers really do play an
active part in what we think will be one of the most radical and reforming
governments for a very long time.
HUMPHRYS: Well you say an active part but Mr Blair
has told us how he expects the backbenchers to behave. They are there to do
what they are told by the leaders, it seems. As chairman of the whole Party,
are you quite happy with that?
SOLEY: Well what he's actually said is he wants
to be an inclusive leader. Now let me just give you examples of what I mean
and I know the leadership will be sympathetic to this sort of thing. We want
backbenchers to be able to assist in the process of getting the government's
legislation through but not as just rubber stamping without bringing their own
ideas to it. So for example, our backbench committees will have the
opportunity of asking ministers questions, seeing the ministers regularly. And
what I would hope and this is what our advantage is in having a large majority,
going out into the country, asking questions and getting information, in other
words being the eyes and the ears of the ministers, on things like education,
the health service, the environment, whatever. Coming back to Parliament,
seeing the ministers, reporting that and trying to adjust and rephrase the
legislation that we're putting through in order to use that extra information.
There are other things we can do too.
I am hopeful that we're do many more standing committees. The committees where
we legislate on by taking evidence first. Now we've been able to do that for
some years but there are only about seven committees done in that way in the
whole of the last eighteen years. So if we start taking evidence on Bills
again, you actually give backbenchers more involvement. Previously, what was
happening, is that they just sat on the committees, often signing their
correspondence because the Government of the day, the Conservative Government
didn't want them to participate. We have to avoid that trap. We really do
want to reform Parliament in that way.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. So in two areas, you're going
to be listening to what people have to say, ordinary people out there in the
country as it were and experts you'll be hearing from..on these standing
committees. And you'll be going to the Government and saying in effect: we the
backbenchers think you ought to be doing this that and the other. And then
putting a bit of pressure on them?
SOLEY: Well, I would hope that it will be a
two-way process and I would also hope, and this is the thing that I think
people have got to begin to recognise, there needs to be a change in the
culture of Parliament itself. It does need to be more inclusive and that
means, yes, ministers have got to listen and be more flexible than perhaps they
were under the last administration. But it also means that backbenchers have
got to have their voice. We can't reform Parliament in such a way that it
simply gags backbenchers. And I have to say I don't think the leadership does
want that. I really don't believe that.
HUMPHRYS: And will you..
SOLEY: I'm sorry..
HUMPHRYS: Will you have the right, will you be
looking for the right to bring ministers, for instance, before these committees
that you talk about so that they...
SOLEY: It's already agreed in the standing
orders of the Parliamentary Labour Party that ministers can come to these
committees and answer questions. That is a normal expectation and I anticipate
that that will happen. I know ministers want to make this work too. It's not
as though we're looking at this one sided and we really do have to get away
from this idea that the job of the backbenchers is to stop the Government at
getting legislation through. It is true that the job of the backbenchers is to
check the legislature of the Government but it doesn't mean to say they don't
allow it to get its legislation through. We have to have this balance where
backbenchers do put their views forward. They are listened to, the Government
does modify its behaviour or adjust its Bills in some way, but the other side
of that deal is that the backbenchers have to accept that the Government should
be able to get its legislation through.
HUMPHRYS: Indeed.
SOLEY: And that's the normal process of
Parliament but refined in a way which brings in much more involvement by the
backbenchers?
HUMPHRYS: Ah right. More involvement by the
backbenchers. So they'll have a bit more power, a bit more influence than
they've had in the past. And the reason why I ask that question is because Mr
Blair talks about them being ambassadors for the Government, there to extole
the Government's achievements. It sounds as if you and he may have slightly
different ideas of what the role of the backbenchers is going to be.
SOLEY: Well, you know, nobody pretends that
everything will run perfectly, but let me give you an example of what I mean.
Let's take education. Let's take a group of backbenchers who go out to a
particular area and look at the schools and the problems in that particular
area. They come out with the acknowledgement that they are going to report back
to the minister so that people in the area - the local press, the media - know
it's an important visit. Problems are aired in that area and then those people
come back to the House of Commons, they see the minister, they say "we think
the legislation might be of benefit if it had this type of amendment," or "we
did things differently in this way," a number of other arrangements, and that
can be considered in the normal to and fro of Parliamentary discussion both in
our backbench committees and indeed on the floor of the House and in
committee. Now if we do that and if we also start taking evidence on
Bills,then we take a big step forward.
Let me just give you an example of what
goes wrong if you don't do this. You will remember the Child Support Agency
was one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation by the last Government.
The Poll Tax was another. I take the view that if they had been taking
evidence from people outside the House of Commons and if their own backbenchers
had been able to hear that evidence in the way that we anticipate will happen
rather more often, then frankly we won't make those sort of mistakes. And
that's very important. It leads to better legislation, it's a bigger role for
the backbencher and it means the Government does get the benefit of eyes and
ears, if you like, of people outside in other areas of the country coming back
in with these ideas and discussing points.
HUMPHRYS: So what the Conservatives have - as
everybody well knows - is this 1922 Committee for backbenchers. No Ministers
on that Committee, no frontbenchers, just backbenchers. A lot of your people
think now you should have the same. I think it was Austin Mitchell who said:
"Seize the moment to get a better deal for the backbenchers. Let's have a 1997
Committee." Do you agree with him?
SOLEY: I don't think we need that but what I do
think is, I face a challenge in terms of delivering for the Parliamentary
Labour Party - this new very large Party that we've got, with the Government in
power on a radical programme - this delicate balance of being able to help the
Government get its legislation through but at the same time giving a much
fuller role to Parliamentarians. But let me stress this, John, because I do
feel this issue about Parliamentary Reform is in danger of being missed as
...both as an opportunity and as an issue today. If, for example, I'll give
just one more example, if I may, the Peter North Committee set up to look at
the marches in Northern Ireland did a great job - a very good man - but he's an
academic. Now, why didn't we set up a Parliamentary Committee of
Parliamentarians to look at that contentious issue, to debate it within the
Committee and take evidence on it in the same way that we used to in the House
of Commons in the last century - but haven't done so much in this century - and
then get your legislation right; you inform your Parliamentarians about it, you
give a sensible, meaningful role for your backbenchers and you enable the
Ministers to have eyes and ears around the country, feeding back problems on
the presence situation and you generally improve the quality of legislation as
well as giving your backbenchers a role. So you need to not go back to the old
rubber stamping role of backbenchers signing their correspondence on Government
Committees, which is what was happening before.
HUMPHRYS: All right. Let's move on, briefly, if I
may, to another area, and that is Mohammed Sarwar the Labour MP who has been
accused of bribing one of his opponents in the last election. There has been
another development, as you may know, this morning. Gordon Guthrie who ran his
campaign has said: "Mr Sarwar got into a car with a political opponent and a
bag of money," and apparently there is an eyewitness now for that. "That spells
the end of any MPs' career. He must go now." Do you believe that his actions
as we know them already - and we are not pre-judging, obviously, any inquiry
that may be held or any criminal investigation - but do you believe that he has
already brought the Party into disrepute, which, as you know, is an expellable
offence.
SOLEY: If the facts are as they are stated to
be, and I have to say I haven't seen that immediate report, but if the facts
are as stated then I think this is extremely serious and what we want to do is
to be judged by how we handle it. We put it in the hands of the police, the
NEC is continuing an inquiry and I would anticipate that any MP - and I am not
just talking about this particular case of which I don't have the latest
development - but any case where they either bring it into disrepute or they
have behaved dishonestly, will feel the full strength of the Parliamentary
Labour Party's anger on that. There is no doubt in my mind, it will be very
tough disciplinary procedure.
HUMPHRYS: Should the whip be withdrawn now?
SOLEY: I would think that that would happen in
a situation where somebody had been dishonest or the evidence was convincing,
and if that is the case with any MP whoever they are, then I would be very
surprised if we didn't take that sort of action very quickly, but I have to say
I have not seen the latest information on this case. I'm therefore saying that
any individual MP who is found guilty of dishonesty or has brought the Party
into disrepute by actions of the type you're describing would in fact, face
very tough disciplinary action, which might well involve the whip being
withdrawn and possibly more than that.
HUMPHRYS: Clive, Soley, thank you very much indeed.
SOLEY: Thank you.
...oooOooo...
|