................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 5.11.95
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Mr Dewar, do you expect every Labour MP
to vote the same way, to vote with you tomorrow?
DONALD DEWAR MP: I don't expect them to vote the same way
in terms of being under duress to do so, it's a free vote but I think on the
particular issue where there is a division between the Select Committee and
Lord Nolan and that is not, for example, what Tony Banks was talking about,
about advocacy. But on the issue of declaration of earnings from consultancies
or agreements related directly to an MP's work, on that I think every Labour MP
will be in the same lobby but of course we'll have to wait and see.
HUMPHRYS: Well you say you think they'll be in the
same lobby. Are you saying to them: "I jolly well hope you'll be in the same
lobby" in the way that chief whips tend to do.
DEWAR: ...that makes us sound a very unpleasant
race of men. No, we're not trying to put pressure on in that sense. We've
certainly indicated to people that we hope they'll be a good turnout and I've
been very impressed by the efforts people are making to be there, cancelling
very long term arrangements and coming back from all sorts of places where they
thought they could safely be, but there will be a debate. But on a very large
number of the propositions, there is I think a large measure of unanimity in
the House. As I say, it's on that particular point, of declaration of earnings
where most of the clashes have been taking place.
HUMPHRYS: But you've made this a party political
issue haven't you.
DEWAR: No, I didn't make it a party political
issue. I think in a sense the Prime Minister did, that's a matter for him but
when he decided to reject in fact the argument that Nolan should be implemented
and when there was a split on the Select Committee....I think it's a matter of
a genuine difference of opinion. The Conservatives appear to be arguing that
it is important that we should not invade privacy. I think that's a tax
matter, and earnings affair, I think that's a general proposition to which I
would exceed but I think where it is a matter of earnings that relate
particularly to the work of the parliamentarian, then I think that general
presumption is overruled. And I rather liked your opening statement if I may
say so...
HUMPHRYS: That's very rare...
DEWAR: No, let me give it to you, you said that
it may be that parliament will decide to stop taking money for arguing someone
else's case and I think that's the reason why I believe on this occasion
declaration of earnings is entirely justified.
HUMPHRYS: If you're concerned about what MPs
disclose though, why don't you make them disclose absolutely everything,
effectively open up their tax returns to the public gaze.
DEWAR: Well I don't think personally that's
necessary and it's not of course a proposition that has been put either by
Nolan or by the Select Committee.
HUMPHRYS: There's no reason why you shouldn't put
it though?
DEWAR: There's no reason why I shouldn't but
I'll tell you why I don't and that is simply that if, for example, you have
earnings which are nothing to do per se with your job, as a Member of
Parliament, or your work as a Member of Parliament which have not come to you
because you are a Member of Parliament, then I don't think that it is fair to
rebuke the presumption of privacy which I referred a minute or two ago. But if
I'm getting money, if I'm getting money because I am an MP, because I can offer
a service which I couldn't offer if I was not an MP then I think there is a
public interest in that being transparent, open and above board, I think the
public has a right to know.
HUMPHRYS: I take that point but it does rather
weaken your position in a sense, doesn't it. I mean there you are with that
very dramatic poster saying "What have the Tories got to hide?". Well what
have you got to hide from the kind of disclosure that I've just talked about?
DEWAR: Well I have nothing to hide..
HUMPHRYS: Not personally but....
DEWAR: I hold to the distinction that I made, I
think it's a self-evidently valid one. I mean I believe that as a Member of
Parliament, if someone comes along to me and say I want advisory services about
a role in the House of Commons, which are built on my role in the House of
Commons the passing of information which I could only get as an MP then it
seems to me that I have to declare that as an interest and no-one would argue
about that. But it is very relevant in judging what impact that has upon me as
my judgement and my time to know whether it is really a thousand pounds a year
to deal with necessary expenses or whether I am getting the kind of sum that
might make my bank manager purr. Now it does seem to me that that is an
important distinction and one which....
HUMPHRYS: I take that point but there's nothing
way of looking at it. We see lots of MPs writing for the newspapers, it may be
that they write like Jane Austen, on the other hand it may be that they've been
invited to write because of their political connections and their political
nous and what they've learned while they've been in parliament so there is a
link there. There's a link with lawyers as well isn't there.
DEWAR: I think it certainly is possible to say
that a journalist - I mean Donald Dewar writing an article may never find a
publisher, Donald Dewar MP telling the secrets of the Labour whips office just
might, might be of some interest to someone. This again is somewhere where
there's unanimity I think on the Select Committee, I believe largely about
....but if someone is writing regularly and has a contract to so do then that
is certainly something that should be declared. If it is something that has to
be yet declared and registered in the number of interests then if we win the
vote and I say we - people of my mind - win the vote on Monday night then those
earnings would have to be revealed as they would of any other advisory
contractor that existed.
HUMPHRYS: You are in favour of disclosure?
DEWAR: I'm certainly in favour of disclosure
but the disclosure within the limits I've described to you.
HUMPHRYS: Are you also perfectly happy that MPs
and it suggests...what you said earlier suggests this is the case, that you're
happy that being an MP is a kind of part-time job.
DEWAR: No. I don't think it's a part-time job
and I think a great deal of what happens in Parliament is related to the
outside world. It's related to outside organisations. I'm unashamed in saying
that when I had specialist interests, I relied very often on briefing from
outside organisations and that's part of...I've got to be well-informed.
They've got to have an entry into the
debate. That's all part of the proper Parliamentary process. But, as soon as
I take money for services, in relation to that, then I think I have a duty to
reveal them. And, of course, I think, that if MPs have other jobs which take
up a large part of their time, that's a matter which they may well have to
wrestle with their conscience and their constituents.
HUMPHRYS: But, why are you making such a fuss
about disclosing earnings related to activities as an MP? If they can't do it
and they can't under the Select Committee's recommendations, then they can't be
paid for doing it.
DEWAR: Well, if it is advocacy then that is
banned. That has actually been banned, in theory, since 1695.
HUMPHRYS: Technically, yeah. But, now it's been
refined. The whole thing has been sorted out.
DEWAR: Since 1695/1947... It has always been
the rules of the House of Commons that you can't take payments for a return for
an agreement which inhibits your freedom of action, your freedom of judgment
and ties you to a specific point of view. What the Select Committee is doing
and what Nolan tried to do...and the Select Committee has toughened it to some
extent, is that they have tried to make that ban practical and they made a
distinction between advocacy and advisory services.
I support that. There's no doubt about
that. The two overlap, of course, because if you're an advocate you're also
almost certainly an advisor and even if you're banned from advocacy services,
you may want to register your advisory agreement. But, once you have
registered that, it seems to me highly relevant. And really I didn't see any
argument in the Select Committee Report that persuaded me that there's a
substantial argument against saying that you ought to declare earnings in that
area.
HUMPHRYS: Let me offer you the argument against
the advocacy thing then. There is downside for you, isn't there because the
net now has such a fine mesh that it's catching the kind of fish that, perhaps,
you didn't intend to? The point that Anna Neagle has made - and, has been made
very clearly now, in the last twenty-four hours, that you get a huge amount of
help from some organisations. I'm thinking of UNISON, who pays for the
provision of the Research Assistant for the Front Bench Health Team. Now,
you're going to lose that under these rules.
DEWAR: I'm not necessarily going to lose it.
That's a matter for the individuals. That's a matter for ....
HUMPHRYS: But, that's the implication, isn't it
with these new rules?
DEWAR: I mean, it is quite clear, at the
moment, if you have that sort of arrangement, you have to declare it on the
Register of Members' Interests. What we are now saying that not only what we
are arguing and what the Government - sorry - what the Select Committee has
resisted, with the support of the Cabinet is that the proposition. Not only
should you declare that interest and register it but that you should also
declare the scale of the financial support. Now, if we win on Monday, that
financial support will have to be transparent, above board and open to the
public, I think that is right.
HUMPHRYS: But, you can't have a Front Bench team
that can't initiate things and that's the effect of these recommendations,
isn't it? The declared intent of these recommendations. But, if they're
taking money from an organisation, like UNISON; and UNISON says: Look, we want
you to put down whatever it is, and early day motion, or whatever it may be,
you can't do that.
DEWAR: Well, I, certainly, accept that we will
have to be very careful to make sure that we don't transgress those particular
rules, which are-
HUMPHRYS: But, that's a very prescriptive-
DEWAR: I mean, what we can certainly do is
take part - as you well know - in debates. That has always been the situation.
HUMPHRYS: Fine. You can't initiate it.
DEWAR: You've got to declare any interest that
you have and there is no reason why you shouldn't, for example, ask general
Parliamentary questions in the area of Health.
HUMPHRYS: You can't put down a question.
DEWAR: What you can't do - yes, you can -
HUMPHRYS: Not under these new rules. It says you
can't initiate....
DEWAR: I don't think that is a very interesting
interpretation and it may very well be...
HUMPHRYS: So, Tony Banks got it wrong there?
DEWAR: There may well be rulings on that. What
clearly you can't do is put down Parliamentary questions, or early day motions,
or initiate listeners which give a particular and specific individual advantage
to that sponsoring organisation. But, if you are going to have a general
campaign about health standards, if you're going to have a general campaign
about how you organise the Health Service that is a matter of general, public
interest. What you can't do is put something forward which is tailormade...
HUMPHRYS: Yeah!
DEWAR: ...to the particular...that are
sponsoring....
HUMPHRYS: So, therefore, this is going to
disadvantage some Labour MPs. It's going to disadvantage those Front Bench
Labour people, those Front Bench Health people. For instance...
DEWAR: Well, I don't think it will disadvantage
them because almost all of our campaigning is not related to a narrow, specific
advantage for one particular union or organisation.
HUMPHRYS: No. But here's a specific case. UNISON
paying fifteen thousand....
DEWAR: It is a matter of the Health Service,
the way it is run, the way it is organised, what health policy should be and
the stuff - you know the very foundation - of the argument about the Health
Service will continue to rage I've no doubt and properly should rage. I think
that you are asking us to build upon a very proper wish to stop people tying
themselves to arguing a particular case and taking money for it.
You're trying to expand at that very
proper ban to a ban on just general particular debate and the argument about
how we should in fact run our affairs. Now, that, of course, is not what is
intended.
HUMPHRYS: What about this amendment? How can you
justify arguing against a delay in the implementation of this?
DEWAR: Well, I believe, that we should strike
at what everybody agrees is undesirable - not undesirable, it's too harsh. But
a looseness of the system which has led to some very unfortunate results. You
know, as well as I do, that the reason why this has come up is because there
have been a sad trail of incidents that have come to the public knowledge - I
don't want to go into them individually but have come to public knowledge -
which have, in fact, badly damaged I think people's perception of how
Parliament runs its business. And I think there is an overwhelming public wish
to see the House of Commons put its own house in order. And, to do that, I
think, it is right that we strike at advocacy. The idea that you tie yourself,
that you become a paid spokesman for an interest group. But, on the other
hand, having banned that, I think, there's the wider issue of when I get money
specifically out of my role as a Member of Parliament, I think, there is a
public interest that it should be declared and transparent.
HUMPHRYS: Donald Dewar, thank you very much.
|