................................................................................ ON THE RECORD MICHAEL ANCRAM INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 22.2.98 ................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Well, Michael Ancram, the Shadow Minister for Constitutional Affairs is in our Edinburgh Studio. Good afternoon Mr Ancram. MICHAEL ANCRAM MP: Good afternoon. HUMPHRYS: Some fairly radical thoughts being voiced there. Is that the way your Party is heading now? ANCRAM: Well I think it's part of a very necessary debate which is taking place at the moment, because one of the realities we have to face is that although we've always been the Party of incremental and evolutionary Constitutional change, that luxury isn't going to be available to us when we get back to power. We're going to find that this cascade of Constitutional reform which the Labour Government is producing at the moment will fundamentally alter the landscape. And being realistic in politics we've got to start from the position we're going to find ourselves in. So, we have to think forward in terms of the sort of ideas which have been put forward by my colleagues in your film. But we've got to debate them carefully. I have to say we need to exercise a little caution because when you begin to examine some of the proposals that are being made they don't necessarily work as simply as they might seem to at first sight. HUMPHRYS: Well let's try and break them down a little bit. Let's look at the Scottish problem, if that's how you see it first. And that's the old problem, that you've always believed it wrong that if Scottish MPs have their own Parliament, they shouldn't be able to vote on English affairs. Now you do still think that that is unacceptable, I take it? ANCRAM: It is unacceptable and I think that most people would accept that where you have a Constitutional arrangement where one set of MPs can vote on matters which really are not part of their electoral mandate because they weren't elected to deal with them, but can't even vote on those similar matters in their own constituencies because they're not to be part of a Scottish Parliament, that is an anomaly which is going to create resentment and unhappiness in the years ahead. It's going to - if I could use this expression - it's going to fan the flames of English Nationalism and it's going to endanger the United Kingdom. And I've always said that I regard this not as a Scottish question but as an English question - 'unfinished business',
to use John Smith's phrase - which we need to resolve in one way or another if we are going to hold the United Kingdom together in this new devolutionary age. HUMPHRYS: So, the solution to that might be then for England to have it? If it isn't to have its fan-flames fanned, to have its own Parliament? ANCRAM: Well, I think that-that there are a number of options, none of them really are without their flaws. You can talk about an English Parliament and a federal system, you've still got the unresolved question of how you deal with a federal structure where one of the four elements represents eighty-three per cent of the whole. It's a very unbalanced structure and I think that is a considerable difficulty. You can look at designating Bills in Parliament as English or English and Welsh Bills and excluding Scottish MPs from voting on them, as Malcolm Rifkind was suggesting in his comments. But again, there you then create two categories of MPs within the same Parliament and that has Constitutional implications as well. But what we have got to face up to is we're going to have Scottish MPs in Parliament, who are going to be essentially part-time MPs, in the sense that they will not be carrying out all the Constituency duties that their English colleagues will and we have to have-find some way of resolving that without creating tensions within the United Kingdom which could tear it apart. HUMPHRYS: So you wouldn't rule out an English Parliament? ANCRAM: I wouldn't rule in or rule out anything at this stage because I think we have to have a debate. I mean there is the other suggestion of turning the English-the Westminster Parliament into an English Grand Committee for the purposes of looking at English legislation on certain days of the week. There may be other suggestions to come forward. I'm trying to generate a debate and I think that William Hague on Tuesday will be further trying to generate this debate, really asking people to think about these problems, to see that there are dangers inherent in what is being done in this unco-ordinated way by the Labour Government at the moment. We really have to look for answers to these problems when we're back in power. HUMPHRYS: And they are all possibilities are they, as far as you're concerned? ANCRAM: They're all possibilities but as I say the more you look at them, the more you see that there are flaws within them and I'm not claiming to have complete knowledge of the whole Constitutional range of possibilities. I hope that through this debate we may get some other ideas coming forward and that these can be looked at. The one thing which is certain, is that the Labour Government's answer to the West Lothian question, or the English dimension - which is to regionalise England - is really a non-starter in solving the problem because- HUMPHRYS: So, you rule that out? ANCRAM: We'd certainly rule that out because we don't believe that England can be so easily fragmented but quite apart from that unless you actually gave each of these regional assemblies legislative powers you don't actually answer that particular question. And, if you were to do that, you'd be going even further than the Labour Government's gone in Wales. So, I think that's really a sort of fanciful suggestion and one that really has to be put to bed very quickly. HUMPHRYS: Right, well that limits the options a bit doesn't it? So, let's have another look, then, at the- a proper look perhaps at the notion of an English Parliament. You say when we are returned to power. Well if that happens you could - could you not? - find yourself in a position where you had a Tory Prime Minister of the Westminster Parliament? You might - unlikely I accept this under this particular scenario, but you could conceivably - have a Labour Prime Minister for England, possibly a Labour Prime Minister of Wales, and so-? You know, you'd-you'd have this odd position, wouldn't you? Where you'd have Prime Ministers of different bits of Britain, of different political Parties and possibly a different Prime Minister for the United Kingdom as a whole. Very odd, innit? ANCRAM: I think it's fraught with difficulties. You don't need to persuade me of that, or how odd it would be. One of the things which worries me about the legislation we're taking through at the moment, is whenever we come across these problems, and we talk about how we are going to resolve the arguments and the conflicts which could arise from this, we're told: oh, don't worry, it'll all be done by informal agreement. And this word 'concordat' has suddenly appeared on the scenes-on the scene - rather like executive agreements in America which bypass the need to get Congresssional approval. I'm very worried by that development because, you know, if you are going to base Constitutional reform on temporary and unenforceable agreements, then it's a very unsound basis for taking Constitutional reform forward. I want to see these type of safeguards built into the legislation itself. But I have to say, with the majority I've got in Parliament against me, I'm not having very much success in that. HUMPHRYS: Well, and you certainly have a large majority against you. If we look at the other option, or one of the other options and that is saying to Scottish MPs: you may not vote. You talk about a Grand Committee for instance: you may not vote on English matters. You might then have the spectacle of the House of Commons, the floor of the House of Commons, onto which Scottish and Welsh MPs might not be allowed during certain days of the week. That'd be an unusual spectacle wouldn't it? ANCRAM: Again, I mean- HUMPHRYS: Unique, not unusual. ANCRAM: Yeah. I mean, as somebody pointed out to me, if that's the Grand Committee route, if you went down that route and you had say Monday, Tuesday, for an English Parliament, what happens if something international happens on the Monday or Tuesday? Do you suddenly reconvene the Westminster Parliament or what? I mean there are enormous difficulties in that. The easiest one is to go down the route of what's called designation where the Speaker designates certain legislation as English only, or English and Welsh only and Scottish MPs are excluded from voting on it. But when you do that you begin to accept that there are two categories of Member of Parliament in the Westminster Parliament and if you're a Constitutionalist, that is something which a lot of people would find offensive and undermining of the whole concept of the United Kingdom. So, as you can see, I mean, there is an enormous debate to be had on this, but there are no easy solutions. HUMPHRYS: No. But, in spite of that, your mind is still open on either of those routes. ANCRAM: Absolutely. In fact, I mean, I think, within the next week or two we have amendments down to the Scottish Bill to really examine and explore some of these options. But in dealing with them, I'm going to make it absolutely clear that there are no simple solutions. I'm - My excuse for that is I wouldn't have started from here. I wouldn't have created this problem, in the first place. HUMPHRYS: No, but-but- ANCRAM: But, because the Labour Government is not prepared to do something to resolve what is going to be a very considerable running sore in the future, as a Conservative Opposition, we have got to start doing that work for them. HUMPHRYS: And, yes, I mean, the important point here is that you cannot leave things as they are going to be. That's the point, isn't it? ANCRAM: That's - that's absolutely the point. I think, what is being created is so unstable that, at the end of the day, it flies in the face of all the Labour Government's protestations of what they're doing is to strengthen the United Kingdom. It seriously endangers it. It unbundles it even further and that is something, which as Conservatives, we can't accept. HUMPHRYS: Something that must happen, presumably, though, is that the number of Scottish MPs must be cut? ANCRAM: Absolutely and, in fact, in the Bill there is already a - a provision in order to do that - to bring them to parity with England. HUMPHRYS: In other words, so that you have the same number of Scottish MPs per constituent, or other - constituents per MP - as you have in England? ANCRAM: Yes. But, very noticeably this isn't going to happen for another ten years. So, it's rather far down the road. I think, you're going to be pressing for it to happen rather sooner. HUMPHRYS: How much sooner? ANCRAM: I'd like to see it happen before the next Election. There's another very good reason. The size of the Scottish Parliament, ultimately, is going to depend on the number of Scottish MPs around Westminster, according to the Bill. So, to set up a Parliament of one size and then change it four years later does seem to me to be rather a strange way of proceeding. HUMPHRYS: But, of course, you would say that, wouldn't you? On account of every - You don't have a single MP in Scotland! So, you'd want to cut the number, wouldn't you? ANCRAM: No. Not at all. I'm hoping to see a large number of Conservative MPs elected at the next General Election and much more importantly in the shorter term to see a large number of Scottish Parliament MPs elected for the Conservative cause as well. And, I think, we have a very good chance of doing that. HUMPHRYS: What about cutting it beyond or below parity - to use the word that you used - to reflect the fact that the Scots would have their own Parliament. ANCRAM: I think, that this is something that has to be part of the debate. I heard what Malcolm Rifkind had to say but you know when we look at the Ulster experience after Stormont was set up, the number of MPs at Westminster was below parity, to reflect the fact that there was a separate Parliament in Northern Ireland. Now, I'm not saying that that is necessarily the route that we should go, or should end up on. But, I think, we need to look at all that as part of the overall debate. The numbers are really the symptom and not the cause of what's become known as the West Lothian question. But, in looking at the whole of this question and the English dimension within it, I think we need to look at all these possibilities and to debate them openly, and eventually, to come to conclusions. HUMPHRYS: So, apart from regionalism, as it were, nothing is going to be ruled out by you? ANCRAM: That's right. I mean, regionalism, I think, for a very good reason. I represent a seat which is on the very edge of the southwestern region, as it would become, stretching right down to Penzance in Cornwall and having its centre somewhere round either Bristol or Plymouth. And, I think, you've only got to go to a region like that and travel round it and talk to various people in various parts of it, to know that it isn't a region at all. HUMPHRYS: Right. Let's move on to the House of Lords, then. Now, Labour is going to dump the hereditary peers. Do you want to talk to them? Do you want to have discussions, at this stage, about what ought to replace them? ANCRAM: I think, in terms of all their Constitutional reform, I think it's very wrong that they haven't tried to seek consensus, 'cos, I think, if you are making dramatic and fundamental reforms to the Constitution the more agreement you can get the more likely it is to last. And, dealing with it on a partisan basis is - is not, in my view, a secure way of proceeding on Constitutional reform. But, so far as the House of Lords is concerned, I think, what we're seeing, at the moment, is not really a Constitutional reform on their part, it's a piece of politics. They want to throw some red meat to their Left Wingers, therefore, they want to get rid of the hereditary peerage within the House of Lords. They've said they're going to do that. We, actually, think the House of Lords works quite well, despite the fact it defeated us on a very large number of occasions when we were in Government. But, we have to accept, again, that if Tony Blair is true to his word, we are going to find a very different House of Lords. Probably, the biggest politically - appointed quango that's ever been seen in this country. And, we have to move on from there. HUMPHRYS: So, what's the alternative, then, to that quango, as you describe it? What would you do? ANCRAM: I think that I would avoid the trap of saying I see a House of Lords which is going to be constituted in a certain particular way, at this stage, for this reason. HUMPHRYS: But, how can you have a debate? Sorry, bu I mean how can you have a debate if you're not prepared to suggest what you think ought to happen? ANCRAM: Well, I think, it's looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope because I think what you've got to say is what is the Constitutional position we're going to find in four years' time and, therefore, what sort of House of Lords do we need to be able to deal with that? And, that depends, to a large extent, on how far, if you like, the breakup of -
the regionalisation of the United Kingdom's gone. We want to see what's happened to the powers of the House of Commons in relation to devolution and so on. We need, then, to have a House of Lords which, actually fits into that, which actually carries out a role which is going to be of benefit to the Constitution and there are certain principles which we can annunciate at this time. It's got to be - have an independent element, it's got to be able to hold the Government to account, it's got to be able to ask the House of Commons to think about things again. And, at the end of the day, it's got to represent all parts of the United Kingdom. So, there are certain elements which we are clear on but it would be very strange to design a House of Lords now, not knowing what the - if you like - the Constitutional landscape was going to be, within which it's got to work. HUMPHRYS: Well, could some of those independent elements be elected? ANCRAM: I don't think you can rule out anything again, and I know that William Hague's made it quite clear he isn't going to rule out anything. We, as I say wouldn't again, have started from here, but given that we are going to see this dramatic change we have to look at all possibilities. But what we've got to do is to achieve a House of Lords which is going to work constructively within the constitution as part of what is going to be a very new type of constitution for this country. Another little example of this is the Human Rights Bill, going through parliament, which is going to for the first time, politicise judges within our country. Now, we have to take all of that into account in looking at the overall shape of what we're going be dealing with. HUMPHRYS: If they were to be elected, might they be elected by proportional representation? ANCRAM: I'm not going to rule in or rule out anything, because you can't actually make these judgements until you, as I say, you know what you want your House of Lords to do, and you can't know that until you see the problems with which it's going to have to wrestle - HUMPHRYS: But I mean ... ANCRAM: .. constitution into which it's going to have to fit. HUMPHRYS: But you do know what it's going to be like, what the House of Lords is going to look like if the Government goes along the road it is now embarked upon, and that is you will have, to use your own expression - a quango. So on the basis of that you can surely say: Well this is how we're going to avoid that regrettable state of affairs coming about. ANCRAM: I don't think we can avoid it coming about, because if they want to do it, they... HUMPHRYS: Well, they stop it, you know, change it, so that it doesn't stay like that. ANCRAM: But we will - again starting from the position which we wouldn't have wished to start from, we then have to say, how do you take account of what is happening in terms of the rest of the United Kingdom, in terms of devolution, in terms of as I say, of what is happening within the judiciary, what is happening within the House of Commons itself, because all these constitutional reforms are going to change the nature of the House of Commons. Now, we want a House of Lords which is going to fit in to that scenario, and it really - it may be an interesting and theoretical exercise to say we'd like a House of Lords to look like X or Y, but it's not a very pragmatic one when you don'tknow what that House of Lords is going to have to do at the end of the day. So I'm not bucking your question, I'm being realistic and saying I want to see the landscape into which this particular tree is going to have to fit, and fit comfortably. HUMPHRYS: And it might well be, as you say, since you acknowledge that some may have to be elected, that they would be elected by proportional representation. ANCRAM: Again, I ruled nothing in and nothing out. As you know we don't like proportional representation, and we think the first past the post system has served this country well. We're having to accept that we're giing to fight elections to a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly and to a European parliament on the basis of different forms of proportional representation. We are having to be pragmatic. We no longer have the luxury to move forward in incremental steps. We are going to have to accept that the landscape is changing and we're going to have to deal with what we find. HUMPHYRS: So therefore when you - if you make perhaps I should say, a submission to the Commission led by Lord Jenkins that's looking at electoral reform at the moment, you're not going to say to Lord Jenkins: Do not even consider proportional representation for the House of Commons. Are you going to say: Well, we're not ruling anything out there either? ANCRAM: No, we've made it absolutely clear that so far as the House of Commons is concerned, we believe that the first past the post system is the right way of electing members of Parliament, and we will be arguing that very strongly in the country, because I think that this is going to be a major public debate, and the people are easily led by soundbites talking about fair votes, and I think we need to actually point out to people in this country the very real dangers that exist within the systems that create unstable governments, that create permanent coalitions, that create politics in smoke-filled rooms. All of these are things which we are going to be arguing very strongly and very publicly over these next months. HUMPHYRS But the question is, whether over these next months you're going to be leading this debate or following it. .... I mean everything, almost everything you've said today, some of which is very radical, but it does rather suggest that you're kind of reacting rather than saying: Now this the road down which we want to go. ANCRAM: Well, I think we've - as I say when you're in the middle of an enormous constitutional reform of the sort we're seeing at the moment, particularly an unco-ordinated one, where one bit isn't actually matched to the others, then we have to be very clear as to the situation we're going to find when we being to look at the constitution ourselves. That means we can at the moment have a debate in which we look at all the options. That's not following, that is actually looking - opening people's minds to the possibilities, and it's only when we see what the problems with which we're going to have to deal that we need to come to resolutions of those questions. HUMPHRYS: But a very different approach than we would have expected a year ago. ANCRAM: Well, politics changes people's minds. I'm always reminded that we opposed the eighteen-thirty-two Reform Act, but we after that became some of the greatest reformers on the back of it, because we had to accept that the landscape had changed, and we're going to have to accept that again. HUMPHRYS: Michael Ancram, thank you very much indeed. ANCRAM: Thank you. HUMPHRYS: And that's it for this week. The full hour, the Full Monty next week. Until then Good Afternoon. ....oooOooo....