NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT
COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING AND
THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC
CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY
................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
LORD NOLAN INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 14.5.95
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: It's become clear in the past
twenty-four hours or so, that the Nolan Committee's Report into standards in
public life is just the beginning of what may be a very long and controversial
process. Nolan made a series of recommendations about MPs' outside interests
and how ministers should behave and they were broadly welcomed by all political
parties. But Lord Nolan himself has made it clear he wants to go further.
When I spoke to him a little earlier this morning I asked him what areas he
wants to look into next.
Lord Nolan, where do you go from here?
LORD NOLAN: We have now done what we were asked to
do first time around, which is to produce a report within six months. The
Prime Minister's original plan was that we should then sit back and have
questions referred to us of a specific kind, that we would become in other
words a standing committee for the rest of the three years of our appointment.
Now, as you know, we concentrated on three particular subjects in our first
report and that left a lot still to be done, which I think we must cover before
we can, so to speak, sit back and simply stand to receive references.
HUMPHRYS: And what are those things you think you
must cover?
NOLAN: First the House of Lords, at first I was
not entirely clear that the House of Lords fell within our terms of reference
because we were after all set up by the party leaders in the Commons, but the
House of Lords itself accepted that they would be looking to us for help over
their review of their arrangements which is now taking place and when the Lord
Griffiths Committee has reported to the House, it's envisaged I think
that our views would be sought if we have anything useful to offer.
HUMPHRYS: What else?
NOLAN: The question of local government is
present in many people's minds and certainly in our terms of reference, so
that's a possibility, a number of other subjects have been put on a list of
things that people have written to us about, those are the things we are going
to start discussing at our committee meeting next week. They'll be two items
on the agenda next week, first to consider the reactions to our report and
secondly, to consider what you are asking - where do we go next and how do we
do it.
HUMPHRYS: The question of how political parties
are funded is one of great concern to many people, are you prepared to look at
that?
NOLAN: I was surprised to read in this
morning's papers that I am about to have a confrontation with the Prime
Minister about it, I have no plans for a confrontation with the Prime Minister.
HUMPHRYS: Perhaps he has plans for it himself.
NOLAN: He may, I don't know. Our terms of
reference as at present drawn, wouldn't cover party political funding as
a subject in its own right and so if we were going to tackle it the first thing
that would have to happen would be for our terms of reference to be changed.
Secondly, I think this is a very important question we'll have to consider as a
committee, we have operated so far as an all party or if you like, no party
committee, well able to take on controversial subjects but not ones that divide
the party and all the parties were anti-sleaze. Whether they are all united on
the approach to party political funding, I don't know, if they are not that's
clearly a danger for an all party committee.
HUMPHRYS: I'll come back to that in a moment if I
may, but do you think your terms of reference ought to be extended to take in
political...party political funding?
NOLAN: I don't want to duck a question, it's
clearly a matter of lively debate and controversy, clearly one which I imagine
the media suspect and probably..would trust has a lot of good stories in it
and about which would interest the public generally, it's a serious matter.
Whether we're the right committee to look into it I'm not sure.
HUMPHRYS: Your mind is open on that?
NOLAN: Yes. But let me just complete the
difficulty as I see it, we have absolutely no powers, we have no real status
except as an answering body for questions, a sort of think tank where ten
unelected individuals, and I think we want to be cafeful of appearing to be too
big for our boots, some people may say we have already been too big....
and we...having no power, we have so far operated on the basis of openly on the
record, which was plenty and on further information given to us voluntarily by
a large number of people and that's been all we've needed for the work we have
done so far, if we were to turn into a detective agency, we'd have to become a
very different body.
HUMPHRYS: It's unlikely isn't it that the public
sees you as being too big for your boots, don't they see you as a sort of
safeguard, working on their behalf and isn't that what you ought to be doing,
listening to what the public is concerned about and then saying, therefore if
they are concerned about this, we ought to seek a change in our terms of
reference, a broadening of our terms of reference?
NOLAN: Well that would be one reaction, to take
the first part of your question, yes, I think we are cast in the traditional
role of the auditor, a watchdog not a blood hound, and if the watchdog sees
something which is troubling the public, which needs looking into, then he
should bark...
HUMPHRYS: But there's no question that the public
is concerned about this.
NOLAN: Yes, indeed, but whether he then tries
to turn himself into a bloodhound is another question or whether he says this
is a question which should be looked into, but it's going to need a different
kind of inquiry, not one we can do ourselves - that would be a possible
approach.
HUMPHRYS: But I'm interested in this distinction
between the watchdog and the bloodhound. In your role as watchdog which is how
you see yourself at the moment, what would the watchdog's view of this terribly
important issue of funding political parties be?
NOLAN: This one tenth part of the watchdog
committee before expressing a view, would read the fairly recent report of the
select committee on the subject which I haven't done, and study what's
happening in other countries and say, have we got things we can learn from
them, and would also of course as a first step, find out how far the parties
and those who subscribe to them are willing to open the books.
HUMPHRYS: But if one of the parties, Tory, Labour,
Liberal Democrat, it doesn't matter, if one of the parties, said, "Look, we
don't think you ought to be looking into this issue", but you yourself, one
tenth of the committee or even nine tenths of the committee thought you ought,
would you then be prepared for a confrontation to use the word you used
earlier?
NOLAN: Well, we would then become a divided
committee wouldn't we?
HUMPHRYS: Well, let's assume it was a hundred per
cent, let's assume that you were unanimous on this. Would you be prepared to
seek, but to face the possibility of a confrontation with whichever party it
was. If for instance the Prime Minister said, "I don't think you should be
looking", because we understand that that's his view, that he doesn't think you
ought to be looking into this question, but if you were persuaded that there
was enough concern on the part of the public that you ought to be doing so,
then what would your view be?
NOLAN: I think that the terms in which you put
the question may not be quite specific enough. Are you not really envisaging
the government saying no and the other parties saying yes?
HUMPHRYS That's entirely possible isn't it?
NOLAN: Yes, and that would create a real
problem for a committee whose membership has been nominated in part by each of
the main parties, which might then cease to be a united committee of the kind
that we've been so far. This would gravely weaken us. It would take away a
great deal of our authority and it would land us into two things we've so far
avoided, that is party political dog.... fighting and investigation of specific
facts which as we all know is a lengthy, time consuming and very difficult
business, it probably needs police powers and all sorts of things we haven't
got.
HUMPHRYS But are you suggesting that it's
possible that the committee could be split over this issue, perhaps over others
as well, but over this particular issue if one of the parties sought to create
a division, and wouldn't that in a sense be selling the public short, if indeed
the public does see you as being the watchdog, as it appears they do?
NOLAN: Um, well, I'm not quite sure that I'm
following your question, if saying, and let's be specific about it, if the
Conservative Party, government said, "No, this is wrong", and let's say nine
tenths of the committee disagreed with the government, that would leave Tom
King who has put on as a Conservative Party member with a difficulty. I've no
idea what he thinks about it, as I say none of us have considered this,
but it would create an entirely new situation, it would take this committee
which has got plenty of work to do on its original agenda, and with its
original ways of working into a new confrontational area, and I would want to
think very carefully before I answered any more questions about how we might
approach it.
HUMPHRYS: But you're not saying at this stage, and
it is to an extent hypothetical, but only to an extent, you're not saying at
this stage you would back away from such a confrontation, from such a
possibility, the possibility the committee might be split, because after all on
that basis it would be terribly easy for Mr Major if he so chose to say to Tom
King, "Look, you know, be the minority, therefore split the committee and
therefore that neuters the committee. That wouldn't be very acceptable to you
would it?
NOLAN: Well, we've...to answer your question,
the first thing that would have to happen though would be to alter our terms of
reference...agreed by all the parties.
HUMPHRYS: Right, but you are prepared on the basis
of - I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I'm assuming this is
what you're telling me, that on the basis of concern that has already been
expressed, you would be prepared to seek an extension of those terms of
reference if you thought there was the public demand for it, let's put it like
that?
NOLAN: If I thought there was the public demand
for it, if I thought we could do the job, and if I thought we had the necessary
powers, and those are three big ifs in my mind at the moment, and I don't think
I can carry them further until I've done some more research on what the subject
would require and what my committee members feel about it.
HUMPHRYS: Can we move on then to look at what was
in the report, consultancies, cause for concern I think was the expression
used, but in a sense didn't you rather pass the buck by handing it back to
parliament and saying, "Look if you want them banned altogether that's for you
to decide" Shouldn't you have decided it yourself?
NOLAN: Well, we considered that, and in
particular whether we, as we say in the report, we considered whether we should
call for an immediate ban on consultancies which allow or enjoin advocacy,
putting the client's case in parliament, and the reason why we drew back from
it was two-fold, first that it would have meant calling on members of
parliament in mid-parliament to break or give up engagements which they'd
entered into perfectly lawfully, and apparently in accordance with the rules
governing the register.
HUMPHRYS: Though you could have set the balance
some time in the future clearly, say within six months or whatever, a suitable
period.
NOLAN: That's actually near enough what we've
done, but the other - the two difficulties were these, that the law of
parliament is obscure. The 1947 resolution looks on the face of it quite
clear that you mustn't bind yourself to do something for a client in
parliament, but then you get the committee of the rules on the register of
members' interests....specifically envisage doing such things as lobbying
civil servants, arranging functions in the House for clients, and there's a
conflict there, and we don't think that we should try and make parliament's
laws for it beyond making recommendations in matters where the facts are clear.
Now I'm a lawyer and I like to get facts clear before I make a recommendation,
and the area of fact, and this is the other area in which we felt we weren't in
a position to make a recommendation was just what all of these agreements do
require the members to do and what they get paid for them.
HUMPHRYS: But you're saying quite clearly that if
parliament doesn't look at this properly, and doesn't come up with some sort of
recommendation within a specific period of time, then you yourselves will make
a firm recommendation?
NOLAN: Yes, that's our plan.
HUMPHRYS: And how long is that period of time?
NOLAN: We envisage about a year from now.
We've recommended that consultancies and sponsorship agreements with trade
unions - this is the other side of the coin - should all be reduced to writing
where they're not in writing, and deposited with the Registrar of the Register
of Members' Interests and that will enable the public to see what members have
taken on in the way of outside loyalties and obligations to unions or companies
or trade associations or charities. Some members, as you know, are already
completely open about this. For example, Mike O'Brien, who is a consultant for
the Police Federation, actually publishes accounts of every penny he spends;
he doesn't draw a salary. A number of MPs to whom we put the question at
our public hearings, said that they could see nothing wrong with declaring your
contract because it was a contract made as a result of your electors voting you
into parliament and they should know how you're using the authority given to
you.
HUMPHRYS: That's the kind of transparency you want
to see across the board?
NOLAN: That's the kind of transparency we want
to see, and then with all that information we'd like parliament, we've
deliberately tossed this ball back into parliament's court and say now what do
you think is the answer and if they don't come up with an answer, we'll...we
would like to see if we can offer any further help.
HUMPHRYS: Lord Nolan, thank you very much indeed.
NOLAN: Thank you.
...oooOooo...
|