...............................................................................
ON THE RECORD
DAVID HUNT INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC-1 DATE: 23.10.94
...............................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: And so to sleaze .... not the
Government's favourite word these days. They've lost another Minister this past
week, and productivity at the rumour mill would make any manufacturer beam with
joy. So what are they going to do? David Hunt, the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster, has been fielding the awkward questions all week...and Mr. Hunt,
they're not going to go away are they. They're still with us this morning, a
lot of pressure on Neil Hamilton to resign. He's going to have to go isn't he?
DAVID HUNT: Well I don't accept that things have to
happen in that way. The Prime Minister's always made it clear that we in the
Government, indeed I believe across all political parties, are strongly
supportive of the highest possible standards in public life. What we have to
do and constantly be mindful of is to make sure everyone not only is aware of
that but we can prove that. Now that represents a challenge. That's why I
very much hope Parliament will proceed with the Committee of Privileges, will
find a way of looking into some of the wider issues involved so that if
necessary if there is a need for new guidelines, they'll be drawn up.
HUMPHRYS: But before you deal with the wider
issues perhaps you've got a deal with the specifics though at the moment Mr
Hamilton is one of those specifics and there's a lot of pressure as I say for
him to resign. Just this morning we heard two former ministers saying he
should go.
HUNT: Yes, I've nothing to add to what the
Prime Minister and Mr Hamilton have already said. Mr Hamilton's made it quite
clear he denies the allegations that have been made against him. There are now
libel proceedings in the courts. I don't think we add very much to the sum of
human knowledge by commenting any further.
HUMPHRYS: Because there are those libel
proceedings, he's going to have to spend a good deal of time dealing with them,
huddled with his lawyers, as somebody put it this morning, for hour after hour,
day after day. How can he carry on as Minister for Business Ethics while all
that's going on?
HUNT: Now that's of course essentially a
matter for Neil Hamilton himself ...
HUMPHRYS: ... and the Prime Minister.
HUNT: Yes but he has made it absolutely clear
he vehemently denies all the allegations that have been made. Now in
those circumstances I don't think I can add very much to what already has been
said.
HUMPHRYS: But you're the Minister for Open
Government you can see the kind of impression that it's creating. It must
be worrying, it's sending all the wrong sorts of signals isn't it.
HUNT: Now let me just make clear one thing
about being Minister for Open Government. This Government has done a great
deal to open up the processes. One of the things it's done, and the Prime
Minister was the first Prime Minister ever to do this was to publish the rules
of guidance for Ministers. Now that had been a secret document for all time.
John Major decided to publish it. Now you can see when you read through that
guidance, which is available to everybody now. All the public can read it.
You can see in that guidance that we are wedded to the highest possible
standards.
HUMPHRYS: Well, since we're talking about
standards, is it right for any politician to accept thousands of pounds worth
of hospitality at a time when he holds a position of some responsibility?
HUNT: Well again that is all set out in the
rules of guidance. It's up to every Minister and indeed Backbenchers to
conform to the principles laid down so far as Members of Parliament are
concerned ...
HUMPRHYS: ... Ministers who haven't read that what
is your answer to your question?
HUNT: Well it clearly lays down for Ministers
that they must never allow themselves to get into any position where there is a
conflict of interest.
HUMPHRYS: And Backbenchers who are chairing or
Deputy Chairmen of important committees, the same thing.
HUMPHRYS: Well so far as Parliament is concerned
there's a long standing series of reports which have been published from time
to time making it clear, for instance the establishment of the register of
members interests, making it clear what members are required to do. Now those
matters are being examined these wider issues by the House of Commons at the
moment.
HUMPHRYS: So it's wrong. It's wrong for any
politician to accept large sums of free hospitality.
HUNT: Well ...
HUMPHRYS: In your view, your own personal opinion.
You're a Cabinet Minister. You've been a Backbencher for many years. What's
your view?
HUNT: My view is that Ministers and Members of
Parliament must never allow themselves to get into any position where anyone
outside could level an accusation against them that they weren't adhering to
the highest possible standards in public life.
HUMPHRYS: And you put yourself in that position if
you accept huge amounts of hospitality from an individual don't you?
HUNT: Well every Member of Parliament must
have an opportunity of explaining exactly what the position is. Now over time
the register of members interests, the Select Committee concerned has laid down
further rules, further regulations, further tightening up here but at the end
of the day it is up to each individual to make sure that they conform to the
highest possible standard.
HUMPHRYS: But there is a very clear principle here
isn't there? Very clear principle.
HUNT: Yes, I accept that.
HUMPHRYS: And you wouldn't accept free hospitality
of that sort.
HUNT: I don't believe that anyone should allow
any acceptance of any gift or hospitality to be allowed to colour in the
public's mind their ability to stand up to the highest possible standards.
HUMPHRYS: Well therefore on that basis alone, and
let's forget about the central question of cash for questions, which as you say
there is a court case about, on that pending court case about. On that
question alone Mr Hamilton was wrong.
HUNT: Well now going back to the case of Mr
Hamilton, I've already made it clear John, I don't think there's anything I can
add.
HUMPHRYS: But he hasn't denied accepting that
hospitality.
HUNT: He has explained it. It is up to him to
continue to explain it.
HUMPHRYS: You believe he's explained it
satisfactorily.
HUNT: Well at the end of the day it is up to
each individual to explain the circumstances in which they came to accept any
show of hospitality of any sort. We have a register of members interests that
allows members to detail that whether it's sponsorship by trade unions or
consultancies with companies, we have established a code of conduct, a register
which is now there evident for people to scrutinise and a Select Committee that
is constantly making sure that people live up to those standards.
HUMPHRYS: So there are clearly questions in your
own mind, though you don't want to comment specifically but there are clearly
questions in your own mind about Mr Hamilton's position as we speak.
HUNT: No I haven't said that. I've in fact
been very careful not to say that John, and I'll make that absolutely clear. I
don't ...
HUMPHRYS: ... about accepting large sums ...
HUNT: I don't want to add anything to what has
already been said about the position of Neil Hamilton but there are some very
important wider issues here which is why I very much welcome the fact that the
Speaker made it clear that she would like wider issues to be examined and the
Government put down the motion which Members of Parliament then voted on to set
up an enquiry by the Committee of Privileges and I just want to say, 'get on
with that work as quickly as possible'.
HUMPHRYS: You clearly from what you're saying
wouldn't say that whatever Ministers may or may not have done in past doesn't
affect what they're doing as a Minister now.
HUNT: Explain that question, I don't quite
understand what you mean.
HUMPHRYS: Well what I'm suggesting to you is that
some people say that it doesn't matter what Ministers may or may not have done
in that past so long as their present behaviour as a Minister is fine, so long
as they're performing their duties as a Minister perfectly adequately. Would
you take that view?
HUNT: No because I stand by the guidance from
Ministers which includes all facts known to an individual when they become a
Minister. That guidance is very clearly set out and thanks to the Prime
Minister publishing it everyone can now read it. There are also in addition
guidance for Members of Parliament, in addition to the guidance for Ministers,
but the guidance to Ministers over-rides everything else so far as Ministers
are concerned.
HUMPHRYS: I put it to you because that's what
Jeremy Hanley, the Chairman of the Conservative Party said last night.
HUNT: Yes and I agree with what Jeremy said.
HUMPHRYS: But, no, he said and let me quote 'As
for the activities of a Government Minister, as far as they are concerned,
whatever Mr Hamilton may or may not have done in past, that has not affected
what he is doing as a Minister.
HUNT: No I don't believe it has. In that
specific instance I agree with Jeremy Hanley.
HUMPHRYS: But that's being a bit narrow isn't it.
That's inviting ...
HUNT: ... I've been very careful, John not to
comment specifically any further on the case of Neil Hamilton. I've nothing to
add to what's been said already and I agree with Jeremy Hanley in what he said.
last night. I'm much more concerned about the wider issues involved.
HUMPHRYS: And those wider issues many of your
colleagues say that there ought to be an independent investigation of those
wider issues, do you agree with that?
HUNT: Well at the moment we have the Committee
of Privileges has been charged with looking at the wider issues.
HUMPHRYS: But it's ... because the Labour members
are refusing to take part in it because they want it to be held in public.
What I'm suggesting to you is what Sir Norman Fowler and others have suggested
in the past twenty four hours or so, that there should be an outside
investigation. Do you go along with that?
HUNT: Well it's very difficult to say yes or
no to that when you have a Committee of Privileges sitting. Parliament's
decided to set up this committee. It is a matter for the committee to decide
whether it's in public or in private.
HUMPHRYS: But you'd have a very ...
HUNT: It's always in the past decided to sit
in private but it is a matter for that committee to decide and it is very
difficult to start talking about setting up any other body until the Committee
of Privileges, which I understand is going to meet during the course of this
coming week.
HUMPHRYS: I'm not talking about ...
HUNT: ... has decided exactly how it should
proceed in debating the wider issues involved so far as Members of Parliament
are concerned.
HUMPHRYS: But that is the fox looking after the
chicken coop in one sense, in many people's views isn't it, and what I'm
suggesting to you which is what Sir Norman Fowler and John Biffen, both very
senior Members of your party, former Chairman, Sir Norman Fowler, says is there
ought to be an independent enquiry looking into this whole issue. Now you can
imagine people in their homes in Britain today saying well why not for heaven's
sake. Then they can be seen to be above board and we can have clear rules set
down. What's wrong with that?
HUNT: Well we have tried that in the past. In
the seventies there was a very deep look at what interests should be involved,
how interests should be recorded. We had an outside body ...
HUMPHRYS: Well let's have another look
HUNT: ... looking at that. Now it's always an
option and indeed I'm sure that we're going to look at anything that is
possible to prove to people that we have the highest possible standards. It is
very difficult, very difficult at the moment to argue in precise terms about
what sort of enquiry that would be when Parliament has already decided to set
up a Committee of Privileges investigation. That's a matter for Parliament,
it's a matter for the committee but in the meantime, John you will know that I
was asked by the Prime Minister on appointment, indeed my predecessor was asked
to look at some of the wider issues involved because the Prime Minister's
determined, not only to have but to prove to have the highest possible
standards in public life.
HUMPHRYS: And with that remit, having been given
to you by the Prime Minister, you would not rule out the possibility of an open
enquiry conducted - or involving - outsiders?
HUNT: Well, let's just see whether I should
rule it out at a time when parliament has decided, sofar as MPs are concerned,
to have a Committee of Privileges investigation.
HUMPHRYS: Of course you don't mean Parliament do
you, you mean the Tories in Parliament, not the Labour Party, not the Liberal
Democrats, because they don't want any part of this because it's being held in
private...
HUNT: The setting up of the Committee of
Privileges was a matter for Parliament..
HUMPHRYS: It was originally, but now they're
saying...(interruption)...because of public unease, let's have another look at
that.
HUNT: No, when a Labour Member of Parliament
raised with the Speaker whether or not this Committee should sit in private or
in public, it was made clear that that was a matter for the Committee and still
against that background, on an all-party basis, Members of Parliament voted to
set up that Committee. And I would just like to see it get on with its work.
In the meantime, I don't resile from the fact I have to answer specifically
your question about the wider issues involved. I have a remit from the Prime
Minister to look at those wider issues and I will be making recommendations to
him. As you know, that remit was..originated in May, sofar as non-departmental
public bodies are concerned and the whole appointments process, so I'll be
coming forward with recommendations to the Prime Minister.
HUMPHRYS: Are you the right person to be
conducting that investigation. Because afterall you were responsible yourself
for many, many, many of the appointments to those public bodies that you talk
about?
HUNT: Yes, but as a minister I would contend
that appointments that I've been responsible for have always been of the best
possible people. Now, when I was Secretary of State for Wales, I was
responsible for a lot of appointments and indeed I appointed a lot of people
from other political parties. Perhaps one of the most important
non-departmental public bodies, I appointed a former leader of the Welsh
Nationalists to. I appointed Jim Callagham's former agent, but not because of
any political affiliation but because they were the best people for those
particular jobs. Now, I want to open up even more the public appointments
process and I'll be looking at ways that we can do just that.
HUMPHRYS: But the Chairman of the two most
important quangos in Wales - since you've mentioned Wales specifically -David
Roebedow (phon) lives in Monte Carlo, he was the head of the Conservatives
Abroad Association, not a Welshman. To many people's mind that's a rather odd
appointment....say there's a bit of patronage surely involved in that.
HUNT: You and I have discussed the Welsh
Development Agency before. The previous Chairman, Dr Gwyn Jones and now Dr
Roebedow are responsible for what I believe you would acknowledge John, knowing
all the reputation for the WDA to be one of the best development agencies of
the world.
HUMPHRYS: That isn't the issue though. That isn't
the issue it is. It's the appearance of these things. I mean here is a man who
was doing a very important job for the Conservative Party, doesn't live in
Britain, lives in Monte Carlo, seventy thousand pounds for these two jobs - not
a Welshman - people look at these sorts of appointments and say "well is that
right". It's the appearance of the thing isn't it?
HUNT: No, what you need are the best possible
people and there is no doubt if you go anywhere in the world they will tell you
how impressed they've been with successive chairmen of the Welsh Development
Agency...
HUMPHRYS: Now there was nobody in Wales who could
have done either of these two jobs?
HUNT: Don't forget that David Rowbedow has
some impeccable Welsh credentials, but forget all that, he is undoubtedly an
exceedingly successfully chairman of the Welsh Development Agency. So was his
predecessor. Of course we must have the highest possible standards, but you
must also pick the best people and I would contend that that has been a feature
of appointments. But there's always a need to extend the scope of
appointments. I know many Members of Parliament from all political..
HUMPHRYS: What are you going to do about that?
HUNT: Well many Members of Parliament from all
political parties, nominate and suggest people. I would like to find ways in
which we could ensure, not only that people can nominate themselves to sit on
public bodies, but that other people can nominate those that they consider to
be the best possible individuals.
HUMPHRYS: And do you agree they should be more
openness?
HUNT: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: In the whole system?
HUNT: Yes.
HUMPHRYS: Tony Blair...
HUNT: Yes I have been trying to secure more
openness to make people aware that they can nominate individuals for
non-departmental public bodies. Now, although the number has diminished by
some thirty-six per cent, we have got a lot of local bodies, like training and
enterprise councils, private companies, housing association bodies, local
housing associations, local school boards and I would like to see a much
greater opportunity for local people...
HUMPHRYS: So you'll advertise those will you -
will you advertise those appointments?
HUNT: Yes, I'm considering. I don't think, I
don't think it would be possible to nominate everything, but there is a way of
...
HUMPHRYS: I'm talking about advertising them,
saying that these are the jobs on offer, if you want to apply for them, fine,
and we'll look at them and we'll publish all the details. Tony Blair says
publish the list of all members of quangos, in many cases we don't know who
they are, their pay, their perks and any position with any political party;
absolute openness. Isn't that sensible?
HUNT: Well if Tony Blair and others who have
criticised would look at public bodies 1993 and we'll be publishing another
edition this year...at the end of this year. They would see a great deal...a
great deal of the information is already published. What I was talking about..
HUMPHRYS: Not, the sort of thing I've just been
talking about..
HUNT: No, not the political affiliations.
HUMPHRYS: A man's CV, curriculum vitae, is a
secret in many cases, not able to be published, that's outrageous, we have a
right to know, don't we, who is governing us, at whatever level it may be.
HUNT: What I was agreeing with you about is
that there is a place for advertising. Generic advertising, the sort of
individual you know of that you believe would have a part to play on a
non-departmental public body, or indeed on any of these other local bodies. The
specific cases, so very few of these jobs are full time, but on specific cases
there is a need for advertising and that has come, Virginia Bottomley on Health
Trusts has made it clear, they have published a Code of Practice, the Treasury
have published a Code of Conduct for those who serve on these ...
HUMPHRYS: And what about publishing the list as
well, publishing a list of all members, what's wrong with that, a sensible
thing to do isn't it?
HUNT: All those on the central list, who might
be utilised...
HUMPHRYS: All those who are appointed to any
public body at all, there should be...
HUNT: That list is available, Public Bodies
1993, if you go to a public library you can look at it. What the Prime
Minister has asked me to do, is to look at that publication to see if we can
extend its scope to include other provisions on openness, accountability and
that's exactly what I'm doing at the present time. Because the Prime Minister
is determined that we should have the highest possible standards and that
people should see those highest possible standards working.
HUMPHRYS: And it's very important too, isn't it,
that you should get rid of this idea that if you're a Tory you have a much
better chance of being appointed to one of these quangos, than if you're not?
HUNT: Well John, there's been so much mud
thrown around, I have to tell you some of it is trash. If you look through,
just let me give you one example: the Imperial War Museum. We have a national
hero, General Sir Peter de la Billiere, who's been made a trustee of the
Imperial War Museum, Tony Blair and his party published a great document last
week saying that it wasn't because General Sir Peter de la Billiere was a
leading national hero, was a General, knew something about war that he'd been
appointed trustee of the Imperial War Museum, they said it was because he
happened to be a non-executive director of somebody that had at some stage had
given money to the Conservative Party. I've got lots more. There is a senior
member of the royal family, who sits on the board of the Overseas Trade Board
and has done for a long time, according to this list that's solely because he
happens to be a non-executive director of some company that gave some money.
I do think there's an awful lot of
nonsense being flung around.
HUMPHRYS: You wouldn't think that you see if you
lived in Wales, would you, where they're deeply concerned that there are four
times as many, some say six times as many people who are Tories on public
bodies, as there are members of other parties, and yet only a tiny fraction of
the seats in Wales are held by Conservatives. It looks wrong, doesn't it?
HUNT: I have to tell you, John, that we have
greatly reduced the number of so-called quangos, there are eight hundred..
HUMPHRYS: Well it depends how you define a quango
doesn't it.
HUNT: All right, there are eight hundred fewer
now according to any definition.
HUMPHRYS: Not if you count all the other bodies
that are out there.
HUNT: If you count the over two thousand five
hundred housing association bodies, if you count the school boards. But, let's
just have a proper debate, let's make it clear that we are wedded to the
highest possible standards and I challenge everybody to help us make it clear
to every individual in this country, that we are prepared to have the widest
and most open debate about these issues, in Parliament with the Committee of
Privileges, elsewhere, because the Prime Minister wants to see the highest
possible standards in public life.
HUMPHRYS: David, thank you very much indeed.
|