................................................................................ ON THE RECORD MICHAEL HOWARD INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 18.5.97
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first, the leadership of the Conservative Party. There are six candidates and as far as policy is concerned, not a huge amount to choose between them. That may be why Michael Howard's pitch focus so much on his personality: a strong leader was what the Party needed. Is that approach in danger of backfiring? Ann Widdecombe has been Michael Howard's Minister at the Home Office and she's been attacking him savagely over the way he dealt with the man who ran the Prison Service, Derek Lewis. Mr Howard has always said it was Mr Lewis who had operational responsibility for the prisons, that's why he sacked him when things went so badly wrong. But Miss Widdecombe says that isn't true and that Mr Howard was interfering, even to the extent of threatening to overrule Mr Lewis on a crucial matter should the Governor of Parkhurst Jail be suspended from duty. Mr Howard is with me. Good afternoon. MICHAEL HOWARD: Good afternoon John. HUMPHRYS: Now Ann Widdecombe, she's going to lay out the charges against you in detail, in the House of Commons, tomorrow. She's going to send you them later this afternoon I gather, delivered by hand to your home. And the charges are going to include, and she repeated that this morning, that you misled the House of Commons. Now, are you in the Commons tomorrow, because you're going to be leading for your Party in a debate anyway, are you going to be defending yourself against those charges, that's part of what's going to happen tomorrow. HOWARD: Of course, I look forward to answering those charges with relish. Of course I did not mislead the House of Commons. Ann Widdecombe and I disagreed over the decision to dismiss Derek Lewis. I was faced with an independent report which came to the conclusion that there were serious shortcomings in the management of the Prison Service, from top to bottom. That was after we'd had the escape of six serious and dangerous prisoners from Whitemoor including five IRA terrorists, three more dangerous prisoners from Parkhurst and I felt that in the light of that independent report I had to overrule Ann and take the decision to dismiss Derek Lewis, that was something with which she disagreed, as we know she feels very strongly about it. But it was the right decision, it needed to be taken in the public interest. HUMPHRYS: But the question is not whether he should have been sacked or not, as far as she is concerned, although she didn't agree with you of course on that. The question is whether you interfered in his role, in Mr Lewis's role and what Miss Widdecombe says is..and I quote her from this morning: "I believe that some of the statements you made to the House of Commons on October 9th 1995 were not sustainable". In other words you misled the House. HOWARD: That is not true and since many people may be rather muddled about what actually happened let me explain exactly what the meeting to which I think Ann is referring was all about. It was a meeting that took place two and a half years ago now in January 1995, before I had to make a statement to the House of Commons that afternoon, on three things which had happened in quick succession. On January 1st Fred West has been found hanged in Birmingham Prison, on January 2nd there were riots at Everthorpe Prison and on January 3rd there was the escape of three dangerous prisoners from Parkhurst, coming just months after the escape of the terrorists from Whitemoor. So it was a very serious situation effecting the Prison Service and I've always taken the responsibility of protecting the public very seriously. I was appalled at what had happened. One of the decisions that was to be taken was what was to happen to the Governor of Parkhurst. Many criticisms had been made by a quick report that had been carried out about security at Parkhurst. Indeed Derek Lewis himself in his book describes the situation in Parkhurst as a "shambles" and so the question was what was to happen to the Governor of Parkhurst. That was a decision for Derek Lewis to take. I was entitled to be consulted and I was. I was entitled to explore alternatives, I was entitled to question the action which he proposed to take. But it was his decision, I was not entitled to tell him what to do. I did not tell him what to do. I always stayed on the right side of the line. HUMPHRYS: But did you threaten - this was the big question - did you threaten to overrule him? HOWARD: No I did not. I always stayed on the right side of the line. I knew where my responsibilities ended, where his responsibilities started. The decision was one for him, I did not tell him what he should do. HUMPHRYS: Well that's clear enough. But what's intrigued some people is that when Jeremy Paxman asked you that very question on Tuesday night you declined to answer it. He asked you the question fourteen times and the interview has been replayed on various other forms since then and you wouldn't answer it now... HOWARD: I wanted to be scrupulously accurate in answering that question. I'd been thinking of lots of other things that day. I wanted to check the documents, I did not want there to be any question at all of my giving an answer that wasn't entirely true and accurate. The next day I checked the records, I gave the answer, I did not threaten to overrule Derek Lewis. HUMPHRYS: But surely the only reason you could have had for wanting to check the documents, the minutes or whatever they were, was that you yourself weren't sure whether you had threatened to overrule him or not. HOWARD: This was a meeting that took place two and a half years ago and before answering a question to which I knew importance would be attached, I wanted to make absolutely sure that I got the right, honest and accurate answer and that's what I did. HUMPHRYS: But there must have been some doubt in you mind therefore. HOWARD: No, I just wanted to check absolutely that there was no question of my giving an answer that wasn't entirely accurate. HUMPHRYS: But all those minutes would have proved was that it was not actually noted. It could be, could it not, certainly since there was doubt in your mind at the time you gave the interview, at least you declined to answer the question. All those minutes could actually prove was that that bit of it wasn't noted, even if it had been said. HOWARD: I wanted to be a hundred per cent certain. I know how much importance is attached to these answers, I wanted to be a hundred per cent certain that the answer I was giving was entirely accurate. HUMPHRYS: So you had to check the minutes to make sure that you hadn't said something about which you were sure. HOWARD: I was pretty sure but I wanted to be a hundred per cent accurate, I didn't want there to be any doubt about it. HUMPHRYS: You could have said that couldn't you. HOWARD: I think perhaps in retrospect I should have said that but that was what I wanted to do before answering the question. HUMPHRYS: Are you worried that there might be, because clearly you weren't quite sure what was in those documents and in those minutes, are you worried that there might be another smoking gun somewhere, that might fire a bullet into you. HOWARD: We've heard all sorts of things about smoking guns in the context of this meeting. There was at one point Mr Blair, when he was leader of the opposition, talked about a fax which I was supposed to have sent and for days the newspapers were full of allegations about the smoking fax which was going to appear. The smoking fax never appeared, there wasn't a fax, there isn't a smoking gun. HUMPHRYS: Ann Widdecombe has said that obviously she intended to do you damage, didn't want you to become the leader of the Conservative Party. She has done you damage, this whole episode has done you enormous damage hasn't it. HOWARD: Well I hope that tomorrow night we can put this episode to rest once and for all and then I hope we can start talking about important things which have to do with the leadership of our Party, with the future of our Party and indeed with the future of our country. Because while we are arguing about these things, which have all been fully dealt with in Parliament, on the floor of the House of Commons, before a House of Commons Select Committee. While we're arguing about these things the new Labour Government is taking action which I believe is going to damage the future of this country. They have already indicated that they are taking away powers from those who send us to Westminster, we've seen them give away the power to set interest rates, we know that they're going to give away powers at the Inter Governmental Conference. There are their devolution proposals which will take away powers from the people who sent us to Westminster. There is their proposal to incorporate the European Court of Human Rights into our law, which will increase the powers of the judges. All these things are happening, these are the things about which we should be concentrating, focusing our attention and focusing our fire. HUMPHRYS: And, as you say those are the things that have been rather pushed to one side because there is this great row over you - absolutely unrepentent, quite determined that you shouldn't become the Leader of the Party. And, now, the allegation that you've misled the House and you're going to have to stand there tomorrow when you want to be doing other things saying: I didn't mislead the House. And, she is going to say: Yes, he did and I've got the documents to prove it. 'Cos she's done a great trawl of the Home Office documents as well as you have. HOWARD: Well, I look forward to setting the record straight yet again tomorrow night with relish in the House of Commons. But, I want to talk about other things, too. I want to talk about the Labour Government's plans and I want to say that although, of course, when they act in the national interest we will support them as a loyal opposition should, when they act as they are already beginning to, against the national interest, we shall point that out as well. And, we shall make it our business to alert the nation to what is happening, so that if damage is caused everybody knows what is responsible for that damage. HUMPHRYS: And, that's all part of your bid for the Leadership? HOWARD: That is part of our function as an Opposition; that is what we were sent to Westminster to do. I would have much preferred us to be sent to Westminster to carry on in Government but we're not there in that role. Our role is a very important one. It is to ensure that when the Government acts against the national interest, we lose no attempt to point that out to make it absolutely clear to the public. HUMPHRYS: And, you want to be seen - obviously - as a tough character, who is going to lead the Party in a pretty tough and abrasive way - after all you've got a job of Opposition to do, as you say. Hence, the emphasis on your character. Now, what Miss Widdecombe has succeeded in doing is damaging the appearance of a tough, straightforward character. HOWARD: No. People will judge the truth of the allegations that she's made when, no doubt, I've answered them tomorrow. And, then, I hope, we can move on to talk about these important things which we were sent to Parliament to debate and to explore and to question. That's the job we've got to get on with. HUMPHRYS: But, the reason I say that she's damaged you is because we now have people and this sort of language is unprecedented in this sort of campaign, from your own side. We have people like Charles Wardle who is a former Ministerial colleague of yours, in your own Department, saying: you're a man - and I quote - "obsessed and that obsession leads to a lack of stability". We have George Walden saying: a man who people instinctively distrust, even when he's at his most plausible. So, Miss Widdecombe's barbs have stuck, haven't they - they've caught? HOWARD: Well, I don't accept that at all. I think, perhaps, the people who know me best are my constituents and if you look- HUMPHRYS: And, not your Ministerial colleagues? HOWARD: If you look at my result in the General Election, we had the fifth best result in the country. My Ministerial colleagues - many of them leading members in my campaign team - are the people who've worked longest and closest with me: David McClean was my Minister of State for five years in two Departments - one of the leading members of my campaign team - I think, people can judge me on my record, on the fact that I've always shown a clear sense of purpose, that I have a track record of loyalty and achievement and that I believe that I can provide strong leadership, taking the tough decisions which are going to be needed if the Conservative Party is to succeed in the very difficult job which faces us, in getting the Party into a position within the next five years, from which we can win the next General Election - that isn't going to be done without tough decisions and I think my track record shows that I am able to take tough decisions where they are needed. HUMPHRYS: Tough decisions in the interests of the Party, in the interests of the country obviously but one of the charges against you and this may, or may not, have arisen with, or without, Miss Widdecombe is that you have made too many decisions in the past that have been based on furthering your own political ambition, rather than in the interests of the nation. Let me give you an example. HOWARD: That is absolutely nonsense. HUMPHRYS: This isn't- Alright- Well let me- HOWARD: Every decision that I've taken has been taken in the national interest. Some of them have been controversial. People can agree, or disagree, about what I've done and we've certainly made tremendous changes to the Criminal Justice System in this country. Remember, in 1992/1993, confidence in the Criminal Justice System was at a low ebb. We were hearing stories of vigilantes taking the Law into their own hands. You don't hear those stories now. Morale in the Police is improved. The Police and the Courts have been given the powers they need. We've seen a record fall in crime. We've seen a dramatic improvement in our Criminal Justice System. Now, the decisions that needed to be taken to lead to that result were controversial. Many people disagreed with them. Many people still disagree with them. So, I make no apology for those- HUMPHRYS: Alright. HOWARD: -decisions. They were all taken in the public interest. HUMPHRYS: But, come back to them in a minute. But, it isn't just decisions; it isn't just things you've done, is it? It's things you've said and impressions that you have created. The thing that sticks in my mind is a speech you made at a Conservative Party Conference about single mothers. You talked about girls, in the old days, frequently putting up their babies for adoption. They were ostracised. That may have been the best outcome. Now, some people would say that was a deeply cynical thing to do, because you weren't actually saying that should happen. If they'd come along to you and said: Home Secretary, is it a good idea that mothers/babies should be put up-single mothers' babies should be automatically be put up for adoption? You wouldn't have said: oh, yeah, we ought to have legislation to that effect but you were trying to create an impression about yourself so that you would win the Right-wing vote in the Party? HOWARD: Not at all. That was a serious contribution to the development of thought on a topic, which is, obviously, of great concern. It's of great concern for the future of our country that many children are being brought up by single mothers, who have never got married. Indeed, in many cases, have never had a stable relationship- HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but you don't want their babies to be adopted, do you - put up for adoption? HOWARD: -with the father of the child. Well, I looked at ways in which this problem is being dealt with in other parts of the world. It's a serious problem. It's not something that I think we can shirk. Indeed, we read in this morning's papers that the Labour Government has proposals to deal with this problem. HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but, I mean come on, nothing like the kind of things you were talking about there. It would be preposterous to suggest that. HOWARD: That was a-That was-That was-That was a serious contribution to political thought on a very important topic. HUMPHRYS: So, you're in favour of it, then? HOWARD: I make-I make no apology for it, whatever. HUMPHRYS: So, you- HOWARD: I was looking at ways in which that problem had been dealt with in other parts of the world and I was suggesting that there were-there were things that we needed to look at. HUMPHRYS: And- HOWARD: And, it is perfectly true- HUMPHRYS: But-but were you in favour of them? HOWARD: It's perfectly true to say that I didn't reach any conclusions in that speech. HUMPHRYS: Exactly. Well, I know. HOWARD: Well, fairly/very often-very often... HUMPHRYS: That is exactly the point I'm making, you see. You raised the issue and in some minds the idea will stick but, yeah, that old Howard he's a pretty tough guy. I mean- HOWARD: It is- HUMPHRYS: -he's going to do these things. And,you weren't intending to do them at all! You just wanted to raise the- HOWARD: It is not- HUMPHRYS: -impression. HOWARD: It is not at all unusual for politicians and others to make speeches in which they identify a problem, in which they talk about various ways in which that problem has been dealt with in different parts of the world... HUMPHRYS: Approvingly. HOWARD: ...but they don't reach a settled conclusion as to particular action that needs to be taken to deal with it. There's nothing unusual about that. Many of my colleagues have done it, politicians in other Parties have done it, that is the way in which political debate takes place. HUMPRHYS: But you were just raising a spectre there weren't you? HOWARD: Not at all. It was a serious contribution to political thought on this subject. HUMPHRYS: Let's look at another subject then - Europe. Now, during the campaign, and this some would say was an example of you putting your own eventual leadership bid interests before the interests of the Party - during the campaign you broke the consensus on Europe. You talked about the agenda for the Inter Governmenatal Conference in Amsterdam threatening the nation state, the United Kingdom - threatening the entire United Kingdom. Now, that wasn't the policy of your Party, and some would say it was done to curry favour with the Right-wing so that when you ran for the leadership they'd say: He's solid on Europe is Michael...... HOWARD: Absolutely not. On I think, the very morning where I made that statement John Major had an article in one of the newspapers in which he said: The Federalist agenda of many countries in Europe will be coming to a crunch ... HUMPHYRS: Different thing.. HOWARD: .. at the Amsterdam Summit. Not at all a different thing. HUMPHRYS: The Federalist agenda of many countries might damage, but not the agenda for the Maastricht Conference. That was another matter altogether because that hadn't even been agreed at that point. HOWARD: Oh no, the agenda what I was talking about was the agenda which other countries would bring in to the conference at Amsterdam at the end of June. HUMPHRYS: Well, Ken Clarke had the same role: I don't agree with him. And then the row got going didn't it? HOWARD: Ken Clarke disagreed but then went on to say that very big issues would be decided at that conference, and there is no doubt about it, other countries are bringing to that conference an agenda for a common foreign policy, a common defence policy ... HUMPHRYS: Sure. HOWARD: ... to be decided by majority voting. If those things were to succeed at Amsterdam wouldn't that have the very consequences to which I was drawing attention? HUMPHRYS: Each country of course has its own agenda, but John Major never said anything about a threat to the nation state, he didn't use any language of that sort. HOWARD: He said, the Federalist agenda of those countries would be coming to a crunch at that summit. HUMPHRYS: That's entirely different from saying that is a threat to the United Kingdom. HOWARD: If we have a Federal Europe that would be a threat to the survival of the nationhood of the United Kingdom were we to be part of it, and the point that I was making, and I make no apology for having made it because it's a valid point, is that if the agenda of those countries were to triumph at Amsterdam, if they were to get their way then we would be well down the path to a Federal United States of Europe in a way in which our nationhood would indeed be put at risk. That was the point that I was making. HUMPHRYS: And you're going to make another point this week, about repatriating powers, going even further than you've gone in the past before, saying that perhaps certain powers ought to be repatriated to Britain from Europe, and if they're not we should have a look at how much money we pay into Europe. HOWARD: Well, actually we had a proposal from the Home Office on repatriation in the White Paper which the last Government produced as our negotiating position for the Amsterdam Summit. We actually suggested that powers for civil protection which were ceded to the European Union should be repatriated. HUMPHRYS: But you're going to go further than that aren't you? HOWARD: Something that I have suggested before, but I do think that we need a new deal for Europe. I think that if we continue down the road which seeks to impose an absolutely rigid uniformity on every member state of the European Union from Finland to Greece, then it's all going to end in tears, and it's going to be bad for Europe. And I want us to be there in Europe leading the way towards a new vision of Europe with much more room for the nation states which comprise it to breathe, much more flexibility and adaptability, so that while everyone signs up to the core obligations of the Single Market, over and beyond that different countries can combine for different purposes. I think it's a very imaginative and exciting new vision and I think it's the only kind of Europe that will work. HUMPHRYS: So what other powers then, would you like to see repatriated? You mentioned the ones that you discussed during the campaign. HOWARD: That's something which can be discussed and negotiated in due course. HUMPHRYS: Well, give me a flavour, I mean there must be something..... HOWARD: I'll give you one example, I'll give you one example. There are common standards at the moment for drinking water throughout the European Union. I think it's very difficult to judge that they are necessary. They have caused us to spend a great deal of money which wasn't necessary because the scientific standards on which they are based are highly devious. I think that is one example... HUMPHRYS: Anything else? HOWARD: ... where matters can safely be left to nation states. HUMPHRYS: Anything else. HOWARD: Well, perhaps even more importantly than that, if the European Union is to be enlarged I think it's very doubtful whether the Common Agricultural Policy can survive in its present form. So we may need to look at ways in which the nation states can recover jurisdiction over their agricultural policies. This is the kind of approach which I believe is the only approach which can make Europe work. I want Europe to work, I think there are many things which we can do together more successfully and effectively that we can do on our own. HUMPHRYS: So we might actually pull out of the Common Agricultural Policy as we are in it at the moment? HOWARD: I'm suggesting that all these things should be the subject of a renegotiation, because I think that particularly if we are to have enlargement of Europe, which everyone says they want to see, I do not think that the present structure can be sustainable. HUMPHRYS: And you would got into those negotiations with the threat hanging over our partners, over the system of possibly withholding contributions. Now, somebody like Kenneth Clarke.... HOWARD: No, no. I don't talk about threats at all. HUMPHRYS: Well, no, that's not the language you use but that is the implication of what you are saying. HOWARD: No, no, no, I don't talk about threats. But if you are looking at our negotiating position in Europe what I do say is that it's very very much stronger than many people sometimes suppose it to be. If you look at the contribution which we make to the budget, if you look at our trading deficit with the other member states of the European Union, we are a very important member of that union, and the others will want us to stay there, and I think that gives us a strength when negotiations of a kind that I am suggesting take place. HUMPHRYS: Ken Clarke wouldn't go along with the sort of things you've been saying now. Would that mean therefore that you couldn't, if you were to become the Leader of the Party you couldn't possibly have him in your Cabinet could yoU - Shadow Cabinet? HOWARD: I very much hope that I would. Ken Clarke and I agree on a whole range of issues. HUMPHRYS: But not on these important things. You'd be further apart. HOWARD: We agree on very very much more than we disagree. Time after time ... HUMPHRYS: That isn't saying very much. HOWARD: Time after time in Cabinet in the last Government, Ken Clarke and I were on the same side of the argument when several other colleagues were against it. I've worked very closely with Ken Clarke,
he's been a friend of mine for thirty-seven years. I'm very confident that I could work closely with him in Shadow Cabinet in Opposition and again in Cabinet in Government. HUMPHRYS: But you want to be seen, and you're presenting yourself as a tough leader who'll brook no nonsense. You've been described, just to go back finally to Ann Widdecombe, as a dangerous sort of person. I get the impression you don't actually mind that particular description because you want to be seen as a pretty dangerous sort of bloke? HOWARD: I think that if we are in the Conservative Party going to put ourselves in a position from which we can win the next General Election in five years' time, we have to have a leader with a clear sense of purpose, a track record of loyalty and achievement, and someone who has shown that he is not afraid to take the tough decisions that will be necessary, who has never shirked those tough decisions, because I don't believe any of us should be under the illusion that the task which faces us over the next five years as Conservatives is anything other than a difficult one. We can do it, but we can only do it if we are prepared to face up to the decisions that are necessary. HUMPHRYS: So a bumpy ride under Michael Howard? HOWARD: I wouldn't put it like that. I would put it on the basis that someone will be in charge who is prepared to take the tough decisions that are necessary. HUMPHRYS: Michael Howard, thank you very much indeed. HOWARD: Thank you. ...oooOooo...