................................................................................ ON THE RECORD TONY BLAIR INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 16.11.97
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon from Chequers, the Prime Minister's country home. I'll be talking to Tony Blair in his first interview since the storm broke over tobacco advertising and Formula One. How will he deal with suspicions that have been aroused in this, the first real political crisis to hit his government? That's after the News read by MOIRA STUART NEWS HUMPHRYS: I'm here in Chequers with the Prime Minister for his first interview since the storm blew up over what has now become known as the Bernie Ecclestone affair. I'll be talking to him about that in a few minutes. But first..... Iraq Prime Minister, you spoke to President Clinton last night. What did you say to him, and he to you? TONY BLAIR: We agreed that we had to stand very firm on the issue of Iraq, and making sure that they comply with the UN resolutions, because it's absolutely essential that the weapons inspectors, the UN weapons inspectors including the American part of that contingent are allowed to do their work properly. HUMPHRYS: Other Security Council members don't want military intervention. Are you prepared, in the event that diplomatic efforts fail, are you prepared with the United States, to go it alone? BLAIR: We certainly don't want to do that and that's not what we're working towards. We want a diplomatic solution as well. I mean everyone wants this crisis brought to an end peacefully, but I think it is worth just explaining to people why it's so important that the UN inspectors are able to do their work. Saddam Hussein has been trying to develop biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. If he were able to do so the whole of the Middle East would be destabilised, and we could have a situation even worse than the Gulf War. The UN resolution passed back in nineteen-ninety-one made it absolutely clear that UN weapons inspectors were to go in and were to stay until all those weapons of mass destruction were eliminated and the potential for developing them eliminated. Our view is that we have to make sure that that resolution is carried through. We want to do it diplomatically, but we must reserve the option of force if diplomatic means fail. HUMPHRYS: So that even though British strategic interests are not directly affected here - I take your point about weapons of mass destruction obviously affecting the entire world, but in this particular case British strategic ... is not directly affected. You would nonetheless be prepared to put British lives at risk here? BLAIR: Well, I would say that our strategic interests are affected in the sense that if Saddam Hussein was able to develop weapons of mass destruction the strategic interests of the entire world would be affected by that, and of course you could make roughly the same point in relation to his invasion. I think the lessons that we have learnt with Saddam Hussein is that he understands only the language of diplomacy if it is backed up by the threat of the use of force, and we have to make him back down on this. If he doesn't back down then he can carry on developing these weapons, and then as I say, the whole of the situation in the Middle East would be destabilised and there would be the possibility of a really really serious conflagration there, possibly even worse than what happened in the Gulf War. HUMPHRYS: And if the UN is not prepared to make him back down as you put it, you with the United States, are? BLAIR: Well, let us wait and see how this situation ... HUMPHRYS: But, you're not ruling that out? BLAIR: We don't rule out any option at all, but we are not seeking to use military force. We're seeking to get a diplomatic solution, but it is essential that Saddam Hussein knows that if necessary it will be clear to him that the UN resolution about the weapons inspectors must be enforced. If we don't do that now then in my judgement we'll end up in a far worse situation later on. HUMPHRYS: But what he wants to do is kick out - what he has done - is kick out the American inspectors, six out of what is it - eighty or so altogether. Those inspections could carry on without the Americans, so it's beginning to look as if you're doing it just because the Americans want you to do it. It's America saving face in a sense here isn't it? BLAIR: No, it's more that that John, because this has been a whole process of him trying to obstruct, to harry, to deceive. He has been trying to deceive these weapons inspectors all the way through, and if he's allowed to do this and allowed to get away with saying: Look, I'll only have these weapons inspectors in, and then the next stage will be: but they'll only look at this, they won't look at that, and then we're back to the game that we've played with him over a very long period of time. HUMPHRYS: But if you attack him you're playing into his hands aren't you. You'll make a hero to his own people, to other Arab countries - you'll construct on his behalf a coalition behind him in effect. BLAIR: Well, I don't believe that, provided that it is clear to people why we are acting. That's why I think it's so important you go back to the original resolution. At the conclusion of the Gulf War it was decided that the UN had to make sure that all these techniques that he was developing, the infrastructure for developing weapons of mass destruction were eliminated. Now, we took that decision at the end of the Gulf War absolutely rightly. If we hadn't taken it then we would have left him in place developing these weapons, so we knew that was there. Now, what's interesting just to point out to people, is that in this previous six years these weapons inspectors have actually managed to eliminate a considerable part of the facility that Saddam Hussein has had. So they have not merely been there as it were, as a sort of token of the world's concern about what Saddam Hussein has been doing. They have been there performing a task of central importance and actually achieving results because of it. Now if they were then to be pushed out of that situation well, I think we all know what would happen. HUMPHRYS: But the idea that threatening Saddam Hussein with a few bombs, a few missiles, is going to get him to back down in a case like this is frankly nonsense isn't it? BLAIR: Well, I don't know about that at all. I think that he does .... HUMPHRYS: It hasn't worked in the past. We've been here before. BLAIR: We have been here before and we have often secured results better than we otherwise would have if we hadn't made it clear that the language of diplomacy is the language that we want to use. But he has to understand that if he doesn't comply with the resolutions then the option of force is there. HUMPHRYS: How far are you prepared to go? BLAIR: Well I don't think it would be sensible to go into that now. HUMPHRYS: But more than just a few bombs and a few missiles? BLAIR: Well let us wait and see. I mean I don't think it would be an intelligent way of proceeding if I was to start... HUMPHRYS: But did President Clinton tell you what he is prepared to do? BLAIR: Of course we have discussed with the Americans all the various options and of course we discuss with all of our colleagues in the UN Security Council what can be done. But what is essential for Saddam Hussein is to realise - get the message - get the message and get it clear and straight these UN Resolutions are there to protect the world. We're not allowing you develop weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons and we will stop you if you try to do so. HUMPHRYS: And you will go as far as President Clinton, we in Britain will go as far as President Clinton wants us to go, not withstanding other members of the United Nations Security Council? BLAIR: Well we are working with those other members but I think.. HUMPRHYS: They're making it very clear to you they don't want military action taken. BLAIR: Nobody wants military action taken but I think what is important is that we stand firm with our allies, the United States, in making it clear to Saddam Hussein that he will not be allowed to get away with it. If we don't, we'll find that we're in a far more serious situation than we are today and as I say, I do simply ask people to contemplate what would happen if Saddam Hussein was allowed to develop these weapons. We know he's used chemical warfare against his own people. He's used them against the Kurds. He is not a man that is going to listen to any language of reason or sweetness unless the person using it is also carrying a big stick. HUMPHRYS: So ultimately if it's just America and us carrying that big stick, we will carry it and we will use it. BLAIR: Well let us wait and see what develops. HUMPHRYS: You're prepared for that? BLAIR: I have no doubt at all that it is essential that Saddam Hussein is stopped developing these weapons. If he isn't stopped the consequences are extremely serious. Now we want to do this as part of a diplomatic effort, we want a diplomatic solution. All I am saying, which I think is the only thing you can say, if you're serious about getting a result, is to say that he must understand that if diplomatic means fail, we have all the other options available to us. HUMPHRYS: Let's turn to the other subject. The subject you really came on to talk about mainly this morning, and that is Formula One racing, tobacco sponsorship and the row that there is over that. I read in the newspapers this morning that you are going to apologise during this interview because you got it all wrong. Is that right? BLAIR: Well I didn't get it all wrong in relation to the original decision as I'll be very happy to explain. But it hasn't been handled well and for that I take full responsibility and I apologise for that. I suppose what I would say to you is that perhaps I didn't focus on this and the seriousness of it in the way that I should as I was focusing on other issues. And in part, which is why I feel in one sense hurt and upset by what has been written about this, that I would never ever do something wrong or improper or change a policy because someone supported or donated to the Labour Party. I didn't in this case. I couldn't understand that anyone would impugn those..my motives in taking the decisions that I did. You know I guess I should have, you know we should learn the lesson of that and when something like this happens again, you deal with it quicker and in a better way and we should have done that. HUMPHRYS: What did you get wrong? BLAIR: I think what was important was to realise how serious this was and I think the way that this was sort of dribbled out has not been satisfactory or right. But what I would like to think that we got right was the way that we behaved. If I could just explain the sequence of events to you and can I preface it by saying John, that, you know, over this past ten days, obviously I've had a long series of discussions with people about this issue. Up until the point in time when this all blew up, I suppose in the six months of government, I'd spent maybe forty-five minutes, an hour, on Formula One in the first six months of government. I know when you go back over it then and every single thing is picked apart, it looks as if you know the great issue of Mr Bernie Ecclestone, Formula One, was the thing the government was concentrating on above all else, but it wasn't. However, the sequence of events quite simply was this: before the election, Mr Ecclestone had made a donation to the Labour Party. After the election, we certainly thought, this was my understanding, that he'd made a firm commitment to further donations to the Labour Party. Then we had the situation that arose and that was back in May. The situation arose that the European Union directive and what the government position should be in relation to it, the European Union directive was about banning tobacco advertising and sponsorship. The government's position, right the way through, was that in principle we supported the directive but were concerned about the effect upon sport because everyone always realises there's a problem with sport. Various discussions went on about this. I saw Bernie Ecclestone and the Formula One people on the sixteenth of October. Now, again, I mean this hasn't much appeared anywhere, he'd already seen Chancellor Kohl of Germany a couple of weeks before, he'd seen the Prime Minister of Italy. His representatives had meetings with other senior representatives of other governments in Europe. We were all concerned that if you simply put out sponsorship, tobacco sponsorship for Formula One, because it's a global sport and all these other countries are willing to take the Grand Prix in Europe and then run them without any tobacco restrictions and then broadcast the pictures back in this country, we were concerned to make sure that we didn't end up in the situation where we lost Formula One. As of the sixteenth of October, we had the meeting, the twenty minute meeting. After that there were various discussions about the options as to what we should do in relation to tobacco sponsorship, sport, Formula One. When at the beginning of last week, it was eventually decided and the minister wrote out to a European colleague saying we actually want a specific exemption for Formula One, and this is in line with what many other countries do. At that point in time, and I want to emphasise this, I said of course we can't accept any further donations from Mr Ecclestone, before any journalist had been in touch, anything to do with donations and Mr Ecclestone, we had informed his people that we couldn't accept further donations, the question then arose which was the question which was uppermost in my mind, what about the original donation? We decided to seek the advice of Sir Patrick Neill. We did so on the Friday. HUMPHRYS: He's the chairman of the Standards Committee. BLAIR: He's the chairman of the Watchdog Committee. We got his advice back on the Monday. We published that advice and we followed it to the letter. And the reason why we took the decision on Formula One was perfectly simple, because we believed that the derogation period for sport wasn't long enough and there was a serious risk, as I say shared by many other European countries, that if we forced them to rely not at all on tobacco sponsorship then we would lose the industry and the Grand Prix altogether. HUMPHRYS: Right. Can I go back on a few of those points now? BLAIR: Yah. HUMPHRYS: Because you say you want to clear all this up - draw a line under the whole thing. That original meeting - the October the sixteenth meeting with Bernie Ecclestone. As you say, you knew that he had donated a million pounds to the Party and there was more money, perhaps, on its way? BLAIR: Well, I thought, he'd given a firm commitment to that. HUMPHRYS: Fine. Ok. He denied it subsequently. BLAIR: Sure. HUMPHRYS: There we are. When he asked, therefore, for a meeting with you, with the Prime Minister, shouldn't a little warning light have come on in your head that said: Well, now, yeah, of course, I know he's met Chancellor Kohl and all those other people. He hadn't given them a million pounds. He's given your Party a million pounds - helped you a great deal to be elected. And, there was talk of the other money coming in, as well. Shouldn't that little warning light have said: Hang on a minute, should I be seeing him under these circumstances? Should I not say: No, I won't see you. You go and see somebody else. Or, alternatively, perhaps, I'll give the money back before I see him? BLAIR: John, at the time, on the sixteenth of October, it hadn't been decided that we should exempt Formula One. HUMPHRYS: No, no, that isn't the point. BLAIR: No- HUMPHRYS: You knew that he was going to ask you to do that. BLAIR: No. He didn't ask us to do that. HUMPHRYS: Well- BLAIR: No, no. HUMPHRYS: He wanted help from you- BLAIR: Of course. HUMPHRYS: -for his industry. BLAIR: Of course. HUMPHRYS: This is the key point, isn't it? BLAIR: Yes, but- HUMPHRYS: He wanted something from you and he had given you a million pounds? BLAIR: Yes, but the point is that as at the sixteenth of October there'd been no decision to exempt Formula One. We never discussed an exemption of Formula One. What would be odd, frankly - particularly, after he'd seen other Heads of Government, including Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Padraig - is that because he'd been a donor to the Labour Party, you refused to see him and passed him onto somebody else in the Labour Party. HUMPHRYS: Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? At least, perhaps, that warning light should have gone on in your head that said: Look, how is this going to look? Here's a man who's given not just a fiver to the Party, who's given a million pounds - a very substantial sum of money. You thought that he had promised to give yet more money, since you were elected to power and you knew that he was going to ask you to do something that was hugely going to help his industry, his own fortunes. Shouldn't that warning light have gone on in your head, before you sat down at Number Ten-Number Ten with him? BLAIR: No. Because I had absolutely no intention, whatever, of changing the policy because of the interests of Bernie Ecclestone, plus the fact we had not decided that that was the route that we were going to go down and the moment that we did that was two weeks later and decided: well, the route we go down is a specific exemption for Formula One. As I say, in many other countries they do. At that point in time, I said: well, look, of course, since we have decided to do that- HUMPHRYS: But, it was-The question is whether it was too late to do it? BLAIR: Well, it wasn't too late. HUMPHRYS: You see, because what-what I'm suggesting-Should you-Alright, you've already said: No, you don't think you should have called off that meeting, or said you wanted to.......- BLAIR: No, because I think it would have been bizarre if a bloke had been in a worse position as a result of donating to the Labour Party. HUMPHRYS: Alright. Should you not-should you not, at the very least, have referred the matter to Sir Patrick Neill? BLAIR: No. Because, at that point in time, if, for example, we had gone down the routes that were being discussed, at the time. One was that the whole of the European directive, the whole series of issues in relation to this directive had been discussed at the time - points and difficulties. One of the options was, for example, that there should be subsidiarity applied. So, broad principles were set up by Europe and, then, national legislation. Another thing that was being discussed is that there should be a long derogation period for all sport- HUMPHRYS: Yes, now I- BLAIR: -for all sport. Yes, but the point that I'm making to you is this 'cos this is absolutely crucial. There was no need. Had we had a general derogation for Sport which applied equally to Formula One, there would have been no need to have returned the original gift or sought Sir Patrick Neill's advice. The issue of a conflict - appearance of a conflict of interest - only arose when we decided not to treat all sport the same but to exempt Formula One specifically, as many other countries were doing, as other countries wanted us to do, because many other countries in Europe are supporting the position- HUMPHRYS: Yeah. BLAIR: -that we're taking. So, it was at that point in time that I thought that we should seek the advice of Sir Patrick Neill. Now, you can say: well, you could have done this a couple of weeks ago but I didn't think that was necessary, given that there was no appearance of conflict of interest until Formula One- HUMPHRYS: Well, I-I- BLAIR: -specifically was signalled out. HUMPHRYS: -am-am saying that and I'm saying that because there is a question of when a business that has made a gift to a political Party comes into contact, comes into contact with the Government you ought to have second thoughts about that original gift. Now, as you will know, those aren't my words - I've taken that from a letter that you approved that was sent to Sir Patrick Neill three weeks after that meeting. BLAIR: Exactly. Yes, but John, let me explain to you the problem that you have there and it's precisely for that reason we've asked Sir Patrick Neill to look at this and to look at all the various issues that arise. I'm in the situation of the Labour Party where before the General Election I needed to raise money for the Labour Party. I didn't want the Labour Party solely to be dependent on Trade Union funds. HUMPHRYS: No, I've not raised a question about that. BLAIR: I know, I know, hang on, but it's important we understand the context of this. I wanted to make sure that the Labour Party raised at least the money to fight a decent Election campaign. Because we were getting outspent four/five to one by the Tories, back in the Nineteen-Eighties and at the previous Elections. If you, then, seek private donations from business people, now, there is a question of principle, which is the one that I've raised - as you rightly say - with Sir Patrick Neill. HUMPHRYS: Three weeks later - three weeks after that meeting. BLAIR: Well, yes but that was when the position arose of exempting Formula one specifically. HUMPHRYS: But, that was, also, after the whole thing had hit the headlines. It was causing problems for you. BLAIR: No. No, hang on. Now, that is where-No, I really resent this being said. HUMPHRYS: It was November the seventh... BLAIR: No, hang on John, let me just state the facts to people, because I've said to you I don't think we've handled this well, and we haven't, but some of the stuff that's been written in the papers and blown up out of all proportion - some of the rubbish written today about David Sainsbury and people, I mean just... HUMPHRYS: We'll come to that in a minute. BLAIR: I mean, just ridiculous nonsense. On the fifth of November we said to Mr Ecclestone: we can't accept anymore donations from you. That was done before any inquiry ... HUMPHRYS: That isn't the point I'm making. BLAIR: No, you're raising the letter on the seventh of November. The next day we start to discuss what are we going to do about the original donation. Again, before any press inquiry had begun we discuss what the options are, we then - intervening in that period is the French/British summit. I say finally: Look, I think we should consult Patrick Neill. By then at the conclusion of the French/British summit, on the Friday evening look at the letter that Tom Sawyer's going to send, agree the letter the General Secretary of the Party is going to send to Sir Patrick Neill, and we send the letter. HUMPHRYS: Now, and what that letter says is not when a decision is made, raises questions about contacts with businesses when a decision is made. It says: when a business that made a gift comes into contact with that donor. But you came into contact with that donor on October the sixteenth. BLAIR: Exactly, which is precisely why ... HUMPHRYS: .. and you didn't raise it with him then. BLAIR: No, because the point that I'm making to you is, that the very issue of principle that now arises, which is why it's important to have Sir Patrick Neill's advice on this on the long-term, is any business that's going to donate - you're telling me that over the twenty years of Conservative government with the donations that were made there was never any... HUMPHRYS: No-one is here to talk about the Conservatives, because we want to clear up this business. BLAIR: Exactly, but the point that I'm saying to you is, there is a genuine point of principle here, that if you are going to have, not state funding but private donations, I can't see myself how it's going to be possible to raise any money if whenever a business could possibly be affected by any aspect of government policy, you then say that you can't accect a donation. It's a point of principle that we.... HUMPHRYS: No, it isn't. But I think you're missing the point that I'm making here. It isn't a question of whether you accept the donation or not, it's a question of whether when a donation has been made, as you rightly say Sir Patrick Neill had no problem with the original donation. He said so - that incidentally is the only thing that he has said on this particular topic in this particular context. The question is knowing that you are in receipt of that sort of money from somebody when he then makes contact with you, and says: I want to talk to you Prime Minister about a matter... BLAIR: You give it back straight away then. HUMPHRYS: Well... BLAIR: I mean, look.... HUMPHRYS: Some people might say you do that, or you say: I'm sorry Mr Ecclestone, I don't think I should see you now. BLAIR: Yes, but John, that is why I say to you that if what had been under discussion then was the idea - that the route under discussion was that there should be an exemption for Formula One, then I think you may be right in saying that, but that wasn't what - there were a whole series of options that were being discussed. Now my judgement, and you can say whether it's right or wrong, was that it was only when it was clear there could be the appearance of a conflict of interest, because we were specifically exempting Formula One as opposed to all sport, that I then decided that we had to ....... HUMPHRYS: But you wrote a letter - you wrote a note to your Health Secretary the day after that meeting with Ecclestone, and you said: Let's look for a compromise in this matter. BLAIR: Well, what I said was: We've got to protect the position of sports in general and Formula One in particular... HUMPHRYS: That's right. BLAIR: ... because what I don't want to do is wake up one day and find that Britain, the whole of Formula One and the Grand Prix has chucked the damned lot out. HUMPHRYS So in other words you had done something that Ecclestone would have been very pleased about. Now I'm not suggesting to you what your motives for doing that.... BLAIR: Yes, but the whole of sport in those circumstances... HUMPHRYS: Yes, but I'm talking about the timing here again Prime Minister. BLAIR: Okay. HUMPHRYS: You wrote that letter the day after you had had that meeting with Ecclestone so therefore a decision had been taken. You were still in receipt of that money. At that point you hadn't given that money back. This is one of the reasons why people's suspicions have been raised. BLAIR: Yes, but John, first of all the money had been taken and spent. As Sir Patrick Neill himself said, no criticism can fairly be made of the receipt of the money... HUMPHRYS: No, we've already dealt with that, but he didn't talk about that and the meeting in combination, he talked merely about the receipt of that cheque. BLAIR: I know. but at that point in time, in my judgement - you know we can go round this for ages. My judgement was that the potential of a conflict of interest would arise when we specifically exempted Formula One. Now, you may disagree and say, well, you should have done it two weeks before rather than when you did it. The point that I'm making to you is that we did it without any ... HUMPHRYS: Alright. BLAIR ... compulsion whatever, before any press inquiry had been made whatever, before anybody could have said to us: well, Mr Ecclestone has you know, offered to give further donations or whatever. So, all I'm trying to say to you is, you know, you may disagree with the steps that we took, or say, you could have taken this step earlier or that step earlier, .. HUMPHRYS: What? BLAIR: ... but I ask you, you know in circumstances where we turned down further donations, we then write to Sir Patrick Neill, we accept Sir Patrick Neill's advice, we carry it through. Well, you know, you can disagree about various customers along they way, but I mean you know, it's hardly that the act of people that are... HUMPHRYS: Okay, but as you say, people can disagree and interpret things a different way. So let's if we may just look at the circumstances of that meeting. A terribly important meeting as you said
yourself, terribly important policy. Well, no, no, a terribly important policy matter was being discussed. As you say other people would argue but you say fifty thousand jobs in Britain potentially at stake. Now, who was at that meeting, was there apart from Jonathan Powell, your own man who has been with you in the Labour Party for a long time, was there a senior Civil Servant present at that meeting? BLAIR: Yes, of course there was. HUMPHRYS: And was he taking notes? BLAIR: Well I want to deal with this specifically, because I mean I'm just furious at this idea that people sort of say, well you know you had the meeting, there was no formal minute taken as if I'd instructed this to happen. I gave...the meeting lasted I think just under twenty minutes. There was a Private Secretary there. HUMPHRYS: A senior figure in the Civil Service? BLAIR: Exactly. He took a note of it. He did not make it into a formal minute because there was no decision taken at that meeting and nothing actually new was said really on either side. I have subsequently asked that he put his notes, which are the handwritten notes, in writing, fill it out with any other recollections he has of the meeting and I'm prefectly happy to publish that. I don't want to set a precedent, I'm not going back publishing everything, but I'm perfectly happy to publish his notes of that meeting and I never gave any instructions about whether minutes should be published or not published, notes taken or not taken. And you know, it was a meeting of less than, as I say, twenty minutes or just under twenty minutes in the midst of a whole series of other things and this suggestion that I somehow, which is the implicit suggestion, said well don't, this is a sort dodgy meeting, don't take a note or a minute of it, is rubbish and people can see them. I'm not setting a precedent of that incidently, because otherwise people will be asking me to publish everything. HUMPHRYS: It would be nice to have all the minutes of all the meetings. But why didn't you do it earlier - publish those notes? Bearing in mind... BLAIR: Because we'd done nothing wrong. HUMPHRYS: Because loads...because we're talking about appearances aren't we...Martin Bell made in the House of Commons. BLAIR: As long as we are talking about appearances. HUMPHRYS: That's what some people are looking at, other people are raising suspicions which... BLAIR: .....just spit them out. The very
suspicions people have got, they can put it to me you know bluntly rather than sort of, you know in this sort of covert way. But let me just say to you, okay you can argue for appearances sake we should have done lots of different things but I was and this is where you know I said to you right at the very beginning of this, I apologised for the way we handled this. I should have realised this and it blew up. But you know you don't normally publish the notes of these meetings and I resent the fact that people are suggesting that somehow Bernie Ecclestone came in to see me and started talking about fundraising. HUMPHRYS: But you see this is part of the problem isn't it. Let me just ask you when you are going to publish those notes before we move on. BLAIR: Well we'll do it today. I mean I'm perfectly happy, yeah. HUMPHRYS: So that will be.. BLAIR: You can see exactly what was said and you'll see that what I'm saying to Mr Ecclestone. I mean he makes the case, what I say to him is: look of course we see the case for Formula One but we also want to see a ban on tobacco advertising. Let me just say this to you, the European Union directive, the previous government blocked consistently. We agree in principle to it. If we agree it even with the exemption with Formula One, there will be the biggest reduction in advertising sponsorship, in respect of tobacco this country or Europe has ever seen. Not that you'd think that if you'd read the coverage of it but anyway. HUMPHRYS: On this question of publishing the notes. You say that you should have been more forthcoming, everybody should have been more forthcoming and more focussed on this. Part of the problem.. BLAIR: More focussed anyhow..... HUMPHRYS: Part of the reason for any suspicions that have been raised is that, the information has had to be dragged out of you at every stage. When you stood up in the House and took Prime Minister's Questions, you didn't then tell them about the second donation that you'd thought you'd had from Bernie Ecclestone. You conceded that there'd been this million of course, but you didn't then say: well by the way we're asking them and we think they agreed to give us another bunch of money. BLAIR: Yes but again, let me just deal with this. My whole focus was on the original donation for a very simple reason. That though we thought they'd been a firm commitment to a further donation to the Labour Party back in May, before the European directive had been thought of, no money had actually ever been received or paid over and I had then rescinded as it were, the offer because I'd said to the people back then, well you can't do this. So it couldn't have had any possible impact on it and my entire focus then was on the original donation because that's what I thought people would think: come on, you know there was a million pounds paid before the election, and now they're changing the policy. I mean actually I would even like to come and deal with that, but you know that we appear to be changing the policy to favour Mr Ecclestone. But the only reason anyone knows about a further offer that was made was because we disclosed it to Sir Patrick Neill. Now you can say to me again, well shouldn't you have gone through that in the House of Commons. All I can say to you is I was focused on the original donation. HUMPHRYS: But you can see why people like Iain
Duncan Smith are suggesting that you misled the House because you didn't disclose that. BLAIR: Well I certainly did not mislead the House and you know, it's just absurd to say that in circumstances where the only reason that anyone knows there was a further offer was because I disclosed it. HUMPHRYS: But you knew about it at the time, in the House, when you stood there on that Wednesday. BLAIR: I had already disclosed it to Sir Patrick Neill. The reason I didn't consider... HUMPHRYS: You disclosed it to Sir Patrick Neill, you didn't tell the House. BLAIR: Well Sir Patrick Neill and then who copied the letters to the other members of his committee. But what I am saying to you is that I did not consider that important at the time because we'd never received any money and we'd already rescinded any commitment for more money. So what I thought was the difficulty in this situation - again you can say well you should have thought this further offer would be a problem. You know, what I thought was: well here we are actually turning away further donations. So I don't think that's a problem, but surely the problem is what happens to this original gift. HUMPHRYS: So I mean, in that sense it would have been ... of you wouldn't it, to have stood up in the House and said: look, forget about the ot her million, we've actually turned away the possibility of other money even though Bernie Ecclestone as you know, subsequently said he hadn't offered you any more. BLAIR: You could have said that. But my..all I'm doing is explaining that my focus was on the original gift because that's where all the furore was. HUMPHRYS: Was that a mistake, then? BLAIR: Well, you can say you should have done.. but all I say.... HUMPHRYS: Well, what do you say? Do you regret that? BLAIR: Well, I - I - no. I explain it by saying that at the time that was not what was uppermost in my mind and I had already disclosed it to Sir Patrick Neill. And, we can argue about whether it could have been done or not, but it was there in the letter to Sir Patrick Neill and that's the reason why people know about it. Now, again, you can say: Well, that was not properly handled. But, you know, I simply say to you, John, how many times before now has any political party ever consulted the watchdog, got his advice, published it, followed it, turned away further donations? So, we've not merely exempted Formula One, we've actually lost the Labour Party a considerable sum of money because we took the right policy decision. HUMPHRYS: Right. So, what - when those newspaper headlines this morning talked about Tony Blair saying I'm sorry, I got it wrong, you're not actually in this interview saying: I got things wrong. You're saying: we presented them badly, we didn't do a very good job of handling the way it all came out. But, as far as you are concerned, everything you did was right. You'd still have another meeting with Bernie Ecclestone, the way you did over - and all the rest of it. You're not saying: sorry, anything was wrong in respect of your actions? BLAIR: No, I'm not saying - absolutely, I am not saying that it is wrong to have accepted money. HUMPHRYS: No, no. Or anything, or any of those
things that you've done. BLAIR: Hang on, let me just go for it. I'm not saying it's wrong to have accepted money from Mr Ecclestone. It's perfectly incorrect to say so. HUMPRHRYS: No, no....- BLAIR: And, nobody's made any criticism of that. I'm not saying that it was wrong to meet Bernie Ecclestone because it would be bizarre if someone was in a worse position as having donated to the Labour Party than a better one and I'm not saying it was wrong to consult Sir Patrick Neill. I believe it was right to consult Sir Patrick Neill. What was wrong was - as you say - it should not have come out in dribs and drabs and we should have focussed on this issue a lot earlier. HUMPHRYS: Two - two members of your own National Executive Committee - Ken Livingstone, Diane Abbott - say there ought to be an inquiry into this whole thing. Would that be sensible now? Clear it all up? Do you want to do that? BLAIR: No. There is absolutely no need for that. Sir Patrick Neill is looking at all these matters and let me just say another couple of things about this, too, in relation to Party funding. The Labour Party is in this position because we disclosed the names of our donors. No other political party does. And, I want to say to you: I am perfectly happy to disclose the names of donors immediately from - yes - going back from nineteen-ninety-two, that was the Election year when we started to build up to the last General Election - to now, provided that it is not just the Labour Party that has to do this but the other political Parties .... HUMPHRYS: And, will you disclose them when you get the money? Because I talked to Gordon Brown last Monday and he said: I don't know anything about any donations from Bernie Ecclestone. Will you, when you get the money in - will you say: Yeah! This is what we've got? Not wait for a year, or whatever it happens to be? BLAIR: I'm perfectly happy to disclose the names of when we receive donations. The question then arises: would we disclose the amount of the donation? The donations that have been given to the Labour Party up to now, have been donations given with the amount being kept confidential but, again, I am perfectly happy to supply Sir Patrick Neill with a list of the donations and the amount, provided the Labour Party is not singled out at this...........Conservatives do it as well. HUMPHRYS: Make everybody do it. BLAIR: Well, that's exactly what I want to do. The other thing I wanted to say to you was that when Sir Patrick Neill comes to look at party political funding, I hope very much we do look at not merely on the rules of disclosure but proper monitoring on a limit on the amount of money that is being paid over. HUMPHRYS: How much, do you think - yourself? BLAIR: Well, I mean, I think, you can argue about this. But, I think you could say if you wanted, that it was a five thousand limit and no more. I mean, I'm not committing myself. HUMPHRYS: So, that might be. You might - but you might agree to that: a five thousand limit? BLAIR: If Sir Patrick Neill was to recommend that, I think, we certainly would agree to do that. HUMPHRYS: But, what about a limit on total
spending? BLAIR: As long as it's the same for both Parties? HUMPHRYS: Well, then, that's in your power, isn't it? You can pass a law - got a big enough majority, haven't you? BLAIR: Of course, we can pass a law and if - as I say - I am perfectly happy to pass that information over to Sir Patrick Neill now, provided the other political Parties do it too, because we're- HUMPHRYS: Right. BLAIR: - you know, in a situation, today, for example. I mean, there's poor David Sainsbury getting absolute pilloried on the basis of some - because he's a supporter of the Labour Party. HUMPHRYS: He's also made a large donation to the Party. BLAIR: He has made a large donation to the Labour Party. HUMPHRYS: People were saying in some newspapers this morning that because of that he's had favourable treatment for his supermarket chain for....- BLAIR: Yeah, but let's just analyse this a minute 'cos this is where, as I say: Look, I've said we didn't handle things in the right way. I've said that to you and I've been through all the points that you've asked me and I think you would agree that I have tried to answer all those points. What is completely ridiculous is to start - David Sainsbury's name's published in the Labour Party's accounts and that's the only reason everyone knows about him. This his planning application was - as far as I can work out - was decided by a Planning Inspector. You know, the idea that because David Sainsbury gave to the Labour Party and that some Planning Inspector decided a Planning Application for Sainsbury's - I mean, it's ridiculous. HUMPHRYS: So, isn't that why you've got to - you say, you're prepared to do whatever Sir Patrick Neill recommends. Isn't that why- BLAIR: Well, yeah, it's subject to this. I may want to go further. HUMPHRYS: Right. Right. So, if he says- BLAIR: If he was to say - if he were to say- HUMPHRYS: No limit on donations - let's say. Would you say: No, there must be a limit on donations? BLAIR: Well, let's see how the argument goes. But, my own preference would be to say there should be a limit on donations. HUMPHRYS: Right, but you haven't decided on that. BLAIR: Yeah. HUMPHRYS: You say it might be five thousand pounds- BLAIR: No, I haven't decided on that because-I don't think it's very sensible to sort of make - you know to make a decision now before we've seen what he actually says. HUMPHRYS: But, we're not talking about a million pounds here, are we? When we talk about a limit, we're not talking about mega sums of money? BLAIR: I'm talking about anything, provided it applies to all Parties and I think- HUMPHRYS: So, it might be a million ? BLAIR: No, and I think - what I was going to say to you is that there is a case for making it a far smaller amount. HUMPHRYS: And what about the limit on the total amount of money that should be spent by a Party during a General Election? BLAIR: Well I think there's a case for that too. I mean again I'm not going to snap on it now but I think there's a case for that, provided it applies to them. HUMPHRYS: Well it would have to wouldn't it? BLAIR: Yeah. HUMPHRYS: I mean we're talking about-You see this is what puzzles me when you say: provided it applies to them. It is in your power to tell Parliament that you, your Party, the Government, is going to introduce legislation and then everybody's got to abide by it. So it's not a question of provided they abide by it, it would wouldn't it? BLAIR: Of course it would apply to any future questions. But what I'm saying to you, however, is that I'm prepared to disclose the previous donations. HUMPHRYS: Now? BLAIR: Yeah, and do that now provided the other Parties are prepared to so the same. What I'm not prepared to do is to labour people, literally sort of pilloring, dragged through the mud, because we disclose their names and the Tories are sitting there having turning around some deficit before the Election - vast millions of pounds deficit into a surplus and run a hugely funded Election Campaign and they're not prepared to disclose any names or tell us whatever has happened to that money. HUMPHRYS: Alright, before we leave the question of Formula One, I read this morning too that there's going to be another U-turn here, that you're actually now deciding that after all there should be some limit on a ban, after what, ten years? BLAIR: No. We have always again - let me - I said I wanted to explain this point before. There are exemptions. Formula One is in a particular position. Why? Because it's a uniquely global sport and because you have a limited number of Grand Prises. There are, I think nine or ten in Europe, there are other Grand Prix in other parts of the world. Every single country that has a Grand Prix, either has no advertising or sponsorship restriction on Formula One, or makes special arrangements for Formula One. Every single one. That's why when people say..I mean one of the mists of the past couple of weeks, has been when people have said: well it's such an extraordinary decision, so we must have taken it for a bad reason. It's not extraordinary at all. What would be extraordinary is if Britain, the home of Formula One, wasn't listening to arguments that were being listened to by Germany, by Australia, by Canada, by France, by Italy, by all these other countries with Grand Prix. Now, however. So, the Grand Prix-the Formula One is in a particular situation. It is particularly dependant on tobacco sponsorship and what would be ridiculous is if we lost the Grand Prix to Asian countries and there are ten applications from Asian countries outstanding, all of them have said they will allow Formula One to be screened without any restrictions at all. They would then be shown back in this country. HUMPHRYS: I take that point. We've got that. BLAIR: Now, we do however want to make sure that we ban tobacco advertising sponsorship. That's been our goal all the way through. The reason we went for an exemption was because a derogation of a longer period of time, say with a review clause, was never on offer. HUMPHRYS: Kind of exemption yeah. BLAIR: That was never on offer. Now, of course we're in a position where we want to see the European Union directive go through. HUMPHRY: Right, so can I? BLAIR: We will negotiate about it but my bottom line is I am not negotiating anything unless I am sure that Formula One have got the time to adjust and the ability to do that. HUMPHRYS: Alright. So can I clear this up because people might be confused by talk of derogation...? In other words if they say in Europe: Alright we will give them let us say ten years to sort things out, to find some other form of money so that they can carry on doing what they're doing. Would you then say, alright we will have the ban, we will agree to a ban after that ten year period? Is that what you're saying? BLAIR: No, I'm not going to start negotiating the thing now. HUMPHRYS: Well eight years. But I mean is that the theory that you're-the principle? BLAIR: The theory is that we will do as- go as far as we can in banning sponsorship provided it doesn't wreck the industry. That's the theory. Now, it could be done in a number of different ways. HUMPHRYS: Alright. BLAIR: And actually, the exemption, that's why I say to you there are a whole series of things that were under discussion as options. HUMPHRYS: Right. Okay. You've been in power for six months and a bit now and you've had a quite extraordinary period in Office. I mean you have been the most popular Prime Minister since ever. Now the papers are saying that the issue surrounding you is one of trust. Do you believe that as a result of what has happened in this past week or so you have lost the trust of the British people? BLAIR: No, I don't believe that. And I hope that people know me well enough and realise the type of person I am, to realise that I would never do anything either to harm the country or anything improper. I never have. I think most people who have dealt with me, think I'm a pretty straight sort of guy and I am. And I think that, what I would say to you about that and I do find it, these things difficult and upsetting, is I think there's been a desire to say - right from the word go - this can't be as good as it looks. You know, they're all the same. The Tories were sleazy, Labour's no different. I don't believe we're like that at all. Before the Election I set out what I call a sort of ten-point contract with the people and remember I know why people elected me. They didn't elect me because of Formula One or tobacco sponsorship. They elected me because they wanted their schools and hospitals improved. They wanted their society brought together, young people given a chance, the crime tackled on our streets, and the jobs and industry built for the future. And they wanted this country to feel proud of itself again. Now, I set out before the Election what I called a ten-point contract with the people. I will fulfil, John, every one of those ten points and I will be held to account if I don't. And you know some of this rubbish about sort of U-turns and all the rest of it, sort of things like foxhunting. I know why I'm elected, I know what people expect of me, I know what I can do for this country. I can-I believe and you know you can say this is arrogant but I believe that I can put this country on a path to the Twenty-first Century that makes it one of the great nations of the modern world. And I will do it by keeping the promises that I kept. Now I'm sorry about this issue. I should have realised it was going to blow up into this type of importance before, but I have honestly done what I thought was best for the country all the way through. I'll carry on doing that and in the end I have to stand at the bar of British public opinion at the next Election. And I will do so, not just with a clean conscience but I will do so if I've got anything to do with it at all, having delivered and kept every single promise I made. Because I said I would deliver something different and I can do it. I can do it. HUMPHRYS: But you've been tarnished. BLAIR: I don't believe I've been tarnished - no. I think that mistakes have been made but I think in the end the country's got to look at me. It's got to in a sense, got to decide whether the person that they believed in is the same person they've got now and it is. HUMPHRYS: Prime Minister, thank you very much indeed. BLAIR: Thank you. ...oooOooo...