................................................................................ ON THE RECORD WILLIAM HAGUE INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 1.6.97
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: The bookies favourite for the leadership of the Conservative Party is the youngest, the least experienced and probably the least well-known: William Hague. He was in the last Cabinet - but for less than two years and in one of the more junior jobs, Secretary of State for Wales. So what is it about Mr Hague that has put him at the top of this particular ladder - for the moment at any rate - who knows? Mr Hague, good afternoon. WILLIAM HAGUE: Good afternoon. HUMPHRYS: Might it be that you are the least objectionable of the six candidates. In the sense that you are a sort of John Major when he ran in 1990. Nobody really had anything against him and he kind of come up through the middle. HAGUE: I'm not trying to be the least objectionable. I am saying to MPs: don't vote for me unless you want to work hard and don't vote for me unless you want to take some tough decisions. We've got to take tough decisions about the organisation of the Conservative Party, tough decisions about our policies in the next few years, tough decisions about making sure we've got discipline in our Party. So if anybody votes for me thinking they're never going to find me objectionable, they're going to find they've made a big mistake. HUMPHRYS: But there are parallels aren't there. I mean Mr Major was relatively inexperienced and all the rest of it, nobody disliked him in particular, there are parallels. HAGUE: Well I admire John Major hugely. His achievements and the achievements of Margaret Thatcher are colossal. They have transformed this country. So I'm not going to run away from comparisons with him but I'm not going to define myself as being like someone else or unlike somebody else. I'm not going to be John Major mark two, or Margaret Thatcher mark two. I'm going to be William Hague mark one. That is how you have to approach a job. Is John Humphrys Jonathan Dimbleby mark two? HUMPHRYS: One wouldn't presume to have that elevated status. HAGUE: You have your own style and you do your job in your own way and that is how I would do it. HUMPHRYS: If people did see you as a sort of John Major compromise candidate, let could be a bit difficult for you couldn't it. When one looks at what happened ultimately under the leadership of Mr Major? HAGUE: I'm not a compromise candidate. I'm not a compromise for anybody. Voting for me would be a vote for the Tory Party to have as much ambition as it can to be ambitious about its organisation, to be ambitious about its future. I don't see myself as a compromise in any form and I don't think anybody who has discussed the future of the party with me, would see me as a compromise. HUMPHRYS: But for those who might, the worry is that you would lead them into, how was it you described Mr Major's years: a constantly shifting fudge. They might say: once bitten, twice shy. HAGUE: Well let's get this clear. I didn't describe Mr Major - I wasn't attacking Mr Major when I used the words "fudge". I was describing how..the problems of the whole Conservative Party. HUMPHRYS: Lead by Mr Major. HAGUE: Well, in which we all had responsibility. In which I had responsibility and all of my colleagues in the last Cabinet. Our problem was not our leader, our problem was that people in the party did not stick to the policies that we had determined. That they gave off the record briefings and treated the policy with different nuances from day to day and so our policy looked to the country as if it had been fudged. I wasn't criticising John Major. I was saying we've got to learn together, from the problems that we've had together, we have to recognise where things went wrong, as well as be proud of everything that we achieved in our last term of office. HUMPHRYS: So your cabinet colleagues were at fault, rather than Mr Major then? HAGUE: All of us must bear some share of fault for things that went wrong. HUMPHRYS: But Mr Major was the leader of the party. HAGUE: All of us must share some blame. All of us must take credit for a Government that did more for this country than any Government in living memory. I would argue any Government in this century. But I don't want to lead the Conservative Party on the basis that we never made a mistake. That everything was prefect, that we can't learn from things that went on before. HUMPHRYS: We're not taking about mistakes here, are we. We're taking about this "constantly shifting fudge" and you say - everybody, all of us were responsible for that. So you too were doing things like briefing off the record and all the rest of it. HAGUE: I'm saying the way that we behaved collectively ended up creating a big problem for the electorate when they said on the doorstep: we don't understand exactly, clearly, what your position is on Europe. We thought we had a clear position, John Major worked very hard to make sure we had a clear position. But because there was all this backchat, because there were all these people trying to change the line in either direction within the Government and outside the Government, we ended up looking unclear. HUMPHRYS: Were you one of those you was trying to change the line within the Government. HAGUE: I'm not going to go over who was doing what, or what individual... HUMPHRYS: You can hardly sit there this morning and say everybody else did it but me, my hands are clean, or can you? HAGUE: No, I'm saying we all take responsibility for what happened. But now, we all take responsibility, we have to all take responsibility for making sure that our party in the future is fresh and clear and open. That we put those problems behind us. I'm certainly not going to get into blaming individuals. HUMPHRYS: Oh no, but clearly what you are saying: we all take responsibility. You are suggesting quite clearly, if it wasn't Mr Major at fault, specifically, people like Mr Clarke, Mr Howard, all of them were doing it, they were all at it. HAGUE: I'm not going to single out individuals. We know we have a problem. HUMPHRYS: But you are saying they all do it. HAGUE: No, all I want us to recognise, and I want everybody in the Conservative Party to recognise, that we had some problems together. We had fantastic achievements but we also had some problems. What we've got to do in the future is make sure we build on our achievements but get rid of those problems as well. HUMPHRYS: Right, well let's look at your position now then, because one of the problems, the big problem as you acknowledge was the Single Currency. That was the big fudge if you like. Let's be clear though whether it was the policy that was the fudge - wait and see, negoitate and decide, whatever we want to call it - or the way in which it was pushed through, or failed to push it through. HAGUE: Well I think it was the way, it was part of the way we presented it and it was partly the way we changed it several times. It was exactly, it was the situation I have just been describing that collectively we failed to determine a policy which everybody stuck to and everybody felt happy with. Now I think what we have to do in the future and we're now in a different situation, we are in opposition now and we are looking years ahead to the next election, we are not the Government of the day, having to deal with these problems on a day to day basis. We should say very clearly that we have principled objections to a European Single Currency. We should say when you look at developments in France and Germany at the moment, that in any case what people have been arguing about may just be a distracting mirage. And what we should emphasise is that we want to be in Europe but not run by Europe. That is a position that the whole Conservative Party can agree on. HUMPHRYS: Right. I note you use the word 'principled' objections. In other words, loss of sovereignty - that's what you refer to when you talk about principles. So you then, would have to say, wouldn't you - if you don't want any fudge - you would have to say: we will not have any part of that today, tomorrow, or ever? HAGUE: I would say no politician should use the word 'never' about any... HUMPHRYS: No, no, that's nonsense isn't it. If I were to say to you: are you opposed, for instance - I don't know - to Capital Punishment or to bringing back the gas chambers in Germany, or something, you would say: of course not - never. So, really, you can't say no politican should ever.. HAGUE: If you take the most extreme examples in the world, we can quote examples against each other.... HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but to many people sovereignty.. HAGUE: ... but let me explain to you what I am talking about. -explain to you what I am talking about. HUMPHRYS: To many people sovereignty is absolutely key. HAGUE: When I say we have principled objections, I mean, we don't just think it would be a huge economic risk - although, it would be a huge economic risk in the foreseeable future to join a Single Currency - but we also fear that it would lead to a centralisation of tax and spending decisions in Europe. That Europe is not currently a vehicle, a political unit, which is subject to democratic control. It would, therefore, be hard to reconcile it with democracy. Now, if in some future decade that is no longer the case, or if there is a quite different plan for a Single Currency - a Single Currency in a different guise from the one that is proposed at the moment - of course, we would have to look at it anew. But, I am saying: unless we are dealing with a radically different situation, I am opposed to a European Single Currency. HUMPHRYS: Well, for the time being. Long term wait and see, then? HAGUE: But very clear principled objections. HUMPHRYS: Well not really. HAGUE: I don't think you could get clearer than saying there are principled reasons... HUMPHRYS: Yes you could. Some of your colleagues are quite happy to say: We will never, ever take part in a Single European Currency because of what it would do to British sovereignty. HAGUE: I think, if you ask my colleagues - you and other interviewers have been asking my colleagues - in this Election, none of us use the word 'never'. The majority of us never use the word 'never'. HUMPHRYS: I can never see myself signing up for this on behalf of this country. HAGUE: But we say that in any shape or form that it is proposed today in the Europe that we have today, we are not going to agree to it. HUMPHRYS: In any shape or form? HAGUE: In the shape or form that is proposed today, in the Europe that we have today. We should not agree to it and I think that is very clear. HUMPHRYS: So they might be able to find a way around this that would it satisfy Prime Minister Hague? HAGUE: I think, what I've said is very clear about the principles on which my objection rests. Now, unless- HUMPHRYS: It's not that clear, it's fudging a bit around the edge, isn't it? HAGUE: It's not a - unless those principles change, unless someone could show, sometime in the future, that tax and spending decisions would not be transferred to Europe, or that they would be subject democratic control. HUMPHRYS: What? Literally, they're not being transferred to Europe under the existing arrangements. HAGUE: Then, we would be dealing with a totally different situation. But, we're not likely to be dealing with that different situation for many years to come. And, so, I think, the Conservative Party can say, very clearly: we are not going to be signing up to a Single Currency. HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's look at another area that you've talked about in the past few days: sleaze. You have said that in two years from now, you want people when they look at the Conservative Party to see a Party that is not associated any longer with sleaze and greed and I quote you here: "We've got to be ruthlessly intolerant of sleaze". Now, you seem to be making a distinction because you talk about sleaze and greed, between sexual sleaze and financial 'fananglings'. HAGUE: Well, I think it's the-I think, it's financial problems that people object to most and that create the greatest problem in the minds of the voters, the ethics of politicians. I don't think voters want to moralise towards politicians. I think, they recognise that politicians have some human failings along with the rest of the population but what voters react very strongly against is the suggestion that MPs abuse their positions as Members of Parliament. So, we have to be very fair. We have to say that if people are accused of misconduct, they must have the chance to prove their innocence - which, by the way, they've not always been given a chance to do by media write-ups over the last few months, in many cases. But, if they are guilty of, let us say, financial misconduct, then, our Party must take an intolerant attitude towards them, just as Parliament and the voters should take an intolerant attitude. HUMPHRYS: But, on the question of moral behaviour, sexual behaviour, you're not going to preach to them, then, about family values? Preach to the public, that is moralise the public about family values? HAGUE: I'm not going to preach to the public about moral values. I do think that family values are important. I think that it's important to have a functioning civilised society, that we attribute some importance to the family. I think, there's a sort of policy that we were proposing in the Election for Married Couples Tax Allowances was a very good idea and would have helped to buttress the family but I'm not going to say that everybody has to live in a family unit of a given description. And, I'm not going to say that we expect everybody in the country to be absolutely perfect in every aspect of their behaviour. HUMPHRYS: So, this is a sort of-rather more liberal William Hague than one might, perhaps, have expected, then? You're not taking a desperately severe view of those who depart from the family values - to use that expression - you're taking a rather more liberal view? HAGUE: I would take a severe view of people who are hypocritical about family values but what I, particularly, want to take a severe view about is people who would abuse their position in Parliament, abuse their position in Parliament. Or, inded, abuse their position in any role in public life. I think, the Conservative Party has to be absolutely clear about that. We've got nothing to hide, we've got nothing to be defensive about. Politics, by and large, is full of people of great integrity and British politics is one of the least corruptive political systems in the world. Let's make a virtue of that but say where there are problems we will stamp them out. HUMPHRYS: Right. So not ruthlessly intolerant in that area but ruthlessly intolerant as far as greed is concerned. So, therefore, what does that mean? What do you do when you talk about being ruthlessly intolerant of greed? How does that change the way we've seen past leaders behave? HAGUE: Well, I think, we have to have a new sense of discipline in our Party and that is created in two ways. First of all, we have to make sure everybody can feel part of the team. I want to have the hundred and sixty-four most experienced Parliamentarians, part of the most effective team, that we've ever seen in British politics over the next few years. But, I, also, want people to know that if they don't want to be part of the team, then, there are penalties. HUMPHRYS: Now, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people who stray in one way or another because what you're saying is- HAGUE: But, it's a broader subject than that. HUMPHRYS: But let's deal with this question of greed - ruthless intolerance of greed that you've touched on. What you're saying is then for instance, any more brown paper envelopes stuffed with fifty pound bills - and I make no reference to any particular individual here - well, any of that, anybody that gets involved in that, they're dead meat. HAGUE: If such things were true, but I stress, (INTERRUPTION) I stress that people have to have the opportunity to demostrate that they're not true, but if such things were true, then we don't want people who do that in our parliamentary Party. HUMPHRYS: Two of the leading members of your own campaign team have created unwelcome headlines for the Conservative Party in the past and they've had to-and, they've had to resign as a result of that. So the standards that you've just talked about would apply to those wouldn't they? HAGUE: Well, I think we could debate some of those cases. I don't know which particular cases you are talking about, but they may fall into the category where people didn't have the chance to prove their innocence, they may fall into some of the other categories- HUMPHRYS: Well, they resigned as a result of it. HAGUE: -that we're talking about. Again- we're not going-I think it isn't fair to those individuals- HUMPHRYS: I'm not suggesting that we should revisit those cases. HAGUE: -to talk about them on a programme, but I think I've made my attitude towards people's behaviour extremely clear. I think it's one that the vast majority of the Conservative Party would agree with, one that the vast majority of voters would agree with and if we're going to make the Conservative Party fresh, clear, open and united - which I believe we can - then it's the sort of attitude we have to take. HUMPHRYS: But it's-it's the general principle that-that I'm looking at here. When you talk about being ruthlessly intolerant, you would say in future then that a candidate who was tainted by sleaze - as you say given the chance that he or she has the chance to make his case - you would come down very hard on them, you would want to be able to overrule a local Constituency, for instance, who said: we want to hold onto him - you as leader of the Party would say:No... HAGUE: In an extreme case I would want to be able to overrule them. I think there is a new contract to be had in the Conservative Party between its members and its leadership. The members understandably say they want a greater control, a greater role to play in the Party, and a greater role over their leadership - their control over the leadership of the Party. The quid pro quo of that is that the leadership must have greater authority to intervene in particularly difficult or embarrassing
situations for the Party. And again, I found in my tour of the country - that I've just completed, and I've spoken to nearly two-and-a-half thousand Conservative activists, and heard their views and questions - I think there is a great deal of support for that kind of concept in the Conservative Party. So when I say we start with a clean sheet of paper in the Conservative Party organisation I mean it. I mean we would have a radical restructuring of our Party in which the door would be open to a new kind of relationship between the leader and the members of the kind I've just been speaking of. HUMPHRYS: They might say to you now in principle that's - especially bruised as they are after this last defeat - they might say to you: Yeah, that all sounds alright. In practice, when push comes to shove, Constituency Chairmen tend to guard their patches pretty jealously, and the idea that the leader up there or down there in London, says you can't have him. Well, when push comes to shove, are you prepared to stand up to them? HAGUE: Yes. I don't want to destroy the day to day autonomy of Constituency associations. The local identities, the local input into a political Party is absolutely essential, but I find a very wide recognition across the Conservative Party that we do have to change some of our rules. Certainly that we need a new basis for our organisation. I think people are ready to accept that. We now have a once in a generation opportunity to change some of these things and I'm going to take them very quickly. HUMPHRYS: Does this principle of being intolerant of greed apply to the sort of thing we've seen happening? That has upset many people because they associate this with greed; with Camelot, the Directors taking enormous increases - ninety per cent in the case of one person;forty per cent overall. Would it apply in a case like that? HAGUE: Yes. I don't think we should be afraid to say that some people have abused the position which we and they have put themselves in. It has been extremely irritating to Conservative politicians as well as the politicians in other Parties- HUMPHRYS: 'Irritated'? Funny word? HAGUE: -to-to see people sometimes, in some industries, take huge rises when those rises are not available to the people who work for them. We don't believe governments should set people's salaries for them, but we do believe that shareholders in a company should exercise proper control over people's rewards and we shouldn't shrink from encouraging them to do that, and from voicing our opinion when things happen which we disapprove of. HUMPHRYS: So what would you do in this particular case? Tell them: cut those increases, don't take those fat rises? HAGUE: I would say that was my opinion. I don't think the Conservative Party should hold back or be defensive about these things. We believe in a society in which people can be rewarded for hard work and initiative, in which people should be able to get on in life. But we also believe in a society in which people should not abuse their position and in which the treatment of individuals should be seen to be fair. Let's not hold back from giving our opinion. Let's make-Let's be ambitious about how we're going to present our Party and how clearly we're going to state our opinions. HUMPHRYS: And that would apply across the utilities, wherever any chairman or cheif executive took a big fat rise, you'd... HAGUE: Oh, there may be cases when it is- HUMPHRYS: Sure, but we've been.... HAGUE: Sometimes an industry says the way, the only way we can bring somebody in of the necessary talent is to pay somebody a new much higher going rate for the job. That's fine, but sometimes when they say: this guy did the job for this amount before, and now he's going to do the same job for two or three times as much we're all entitled to object. We shouldn't shrink from it. HUMPHRYS: New leader, new toughness. William Hague, thank you very much indeed. HAGUE: Thank you. HUMPHRYS: And that's it for this week. Next week the Shadow Chancellor Ken Clarke, the last of our leadership interviews. Until then, Good Afternoon. ...oooOooo...