................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 6.10.96
................................................................................ INTERVIEW WITH BRIAN MAWHINNEY HUMPHRYS: Brian Mawhinney, let's have a look if we may at those various weights that are dragging you down in the race as we approach the General Election, and let's take the last area first, distrust, the whole question of so-called sleaze. This latest allegation that the committee that is supposed to investigate sleaze was, in effect nobbled by a senior Conservative a couple of years ago when it was trying to do its job, is a very serious one isn't it? BRIAN MAWHINNEY: And the Chairman said it's bunkum. HUMPHRYS: The Chairman said it was bunkum, but the Chairman was a Conservative. MAWHINNEY: Oh, well, if you're suggesting that Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith is lying, that's something you would have to take up with him. He faced the allegation made by certain newspapers and said, - I think I quote him correctly - that it's bunkum. HUMPHRYS: He did not deny the existence of the memorandum. MAWHINNEY The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we believe in the highest standards in public life. It was he who set up the Nolan Committee. Out of the Nolan Committee came the role of what is called parliamentary ombudsman, Sir Gordon Downey. It was the Prime Minister who said that he wanted fully to co-operate
with Sir Gordon's investigation into all of these matters. It was the Prime Minister who took the lead in saying that he wanted Sir Gordon to have access to all of the relevant documents that were government documents, and it was the Prime Minister this morning who said that he wanted the committee to publish the report when the investigation was concluded. That doesn't sound
to me like a government that's seeking in any way to obscure from the people the facts of the case. HUMPHRYS: But Sir Gordon Downey is in effect the servant of that committee. He has only the powers that that committee chooses to give him, and he does what he has to do in accordance with the wishes of the committee. If the committee has in any way been influenced, his powers are circumscribed. MAWHINNEY: Well, clearly we're - this is quite complicated John. We're talking about a different committee now from the one that was in place a couple of years ago. HUMPHRYS: What I'm talking about is what happened a couple of years ago, because it throws light as far as many people are concerned, on what is going to happen in future, because the implication is, the allegation is that this committee ought not alone, because of what we know of what has happened in the past, to be responsible for what is going to happen in the future. MAWHINNEY: But you don't know what has happened in the past, and the Chairman of the committee said that the allegations were simply not sustainable. What we do know is that we now have a mechanism to deal with this. It was a mechanism that was supported by all of the political parties. It was widely welcomed in the media and by the public generally. Everybody has agreed not least Neil Hamilton, against whom allegations have been made, and who has made denials around those allegations, that it should be investigated by Sir Gordon, and the Prime Minister has said that he wishes the committee to decide to publish the report. Now, frankly I'm not going to pre-judge it, and I know you well enough that you're not going to pre-judge it. HUMPHRYS: No, I'm not trying to do that. MAWHINNEY: But we have a mechanism in place to deal with it, it's a new mechanism, it's a mechanism that has commanded support right across the political spectrum, and across the country, and I think we should let that mechanism work. HUMPHRYS: Well, I'd like to pursue it if I may, because you say bunkum, you quote Geoffrey Johnson-Smith as saying bunkum, but what did happen is that a memo was written, handwritten by David Willetts
which is in the possession of The Guardian newspaper - it's been by and large published in the newspapers this morning, and what it clearly shows is that David Willetts, who was then a whip, who is now a government minister, had given advice to Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith at his request as to how they should handle the investigation at the time. Now, do you believe that it is proper that that should have happened? MAWHINNEY: Well, you are assuming a certain amount in evidence that I frankly don't know whether is true or not, and I'm not going to speculate on what may or may not have happened. What I am absolutely clear about is that Sir Gordon will have access to this and all of the other documents that he considers are relevant to his investigation, and when he has had a chance to consider all of that the committee will decide how to proceed, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that he wishes the report to be out in public, because it was he and this government who have decided that we have to have a system in this country which offers the reassurance to everyone of the general perception that we have among the highest standards of public conduct of any country in the world. HUMPHRYS: And that's why this memo is so important isn't it. Let me - if you wish me to refresh your memory as to what it said. It had David Willetts advising Geoffrey Johnson-Smith on two courses of action, that the committee which Sir Geoffrey was then chairing should take (a) argue that it is now subjudice, that's the thing they were investigating at the time, and get the committee to set it aside, or (b) investigate it as quickly as possible exploiting the good Tory majority, and I quote from the memorandum. Now those two things, that advice, was precisely what happened. Now that is disturbing isn't it? MAWHINNEY: Well, you say it was advice. I don't know whether it was advice. HUMPHRYS: Well, I'm quoting from the memo. MAWHINNEY: Well, I don't know whether it was advice or not John and ... HUMPHRYS: He wants our advice is what the memo said, in terms, "he wants our advice". I quote directly. MAWHINNEY: And I was not party to the discussions. HUMPHRYS: I'm not suggesting that you were. MAWHINNEY: I was not party to the discussions and so I am not going to speculate on the discussions that may or may not have taken place, but what I know is, and this is where we are today - what I know is that allegations have been made against Neil Hamilton... HUMPHRYS: I'm not referring to those. MAWHINNEY: Of course you are, because this predicament... HUMPHRYS: I assure you that I'm not. MAWHINNEY: Well, the point I was going to make, was that this document was a document that was made available in the context of the Hamilton Court case. My understanding is that as Neil said, legal changes took place which meant he could no longer afford to get all of these issues resolved in the legal system, so he said let Sir Gordon look at it, that's what it's there for. The government wants that to happen, government is going to co-operate with it. Government wants the report of the committee published. That's where we are today, so I'm not going to speculate on that piece of paper or any other piece of paper. HUMPHRYS: I don't want to ask you to speculate on anything. MAWHINNEY: Not least because I haven't seen the pieces of paper and if you would forgive me saying so, having seen some of the stuff that's been written this week in newspapers that are not particularly favourably inclined towards the Conservative Party, I would be even slower to make some judgements around those issues. HUMPHRYS: Alright. I'm not asking you to speculate on anything. What I'm asking you is whether in your view as the Chairman of Party, as a very senior Conservative, it was proper for a Government Whip to have had a conversation with the Chairman of a committee that was in the process of an investigation on how to proceed. Now was that proper? MAWHINNEY: Government Whips talk to people all day every day, it's part of their job. What is very clear from the Chairman of the Committee is that the committee was not influenced by conversations in the way that you are speculating about. HUMPHRYS: I'm telling you what actually happened. What actually happened was in direct accordance with the advice that was given by the Whip. MAWHINNEY: And I'm telling you that the Chairman of the Committee said that it wasn't influential. Now, ... HUMPHRYS: Well, was it proper that it should have happened in the first place, that's really what I'm asking you. MAWHINNEY: The issue John, is going to be looked
at by Sir Gordon. That.... HUMPHRYS: Not necessarily. That isn't part of his remit in this particular case is it. He's now looking into the question of Neil Hamilton which I do not wish to discuss with you at all. All I want to discuss with you at this particular stage is what has already happened and suggest to you, as others have suggested this morning, Paddy Ashdown for instance is very deeply worried about it, Tony Blair is worried about it, and you may say, "Well they're opposition politicians, they would wouldn't they", but they are concerned with the public image that Parliament has to police its own affairs, and that's why I'm persisting it I may, for a little bit longer
with this line of inquiry. MAWHINNEY: Of course you may, but the person who is most concerned about the public image is the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who took the initiative on Nolan. Took a certain amount of stick for it as well, took a certain amount of stick for it from Mr Blair and Mr Ashdown, as I recall. It was the Prime Minister who said we have got to have the highest standards and we will put in place mechanisms to allow any querying of- of action or behaviour to be examined in a proper way. Now, I am not - simply not - going to get myself into a position of speculating around documents that I have not seen. HUMPHRYS: No. MAWHINNEY: About conversations that I know nothing about- Except, I repeat, that the Chairman of the Committee said that the allegations in the papers are bunkum. HUMPHRYS: He has not denied that memorandum, he has not denied that he had a conversation with the Chief Whip-with the Whip about these proceedings. Those are facts that we know. MAWHINNEY: And, he has certainly made it clear that there was no pressure put on the committee and, that any discussions that may or may not have taken place were not influential in the way the committee- HUMPHRYS: Doesn't it depend on what you mean by pressure? MAWHINNEY: Sir Gordon's going to look at all of this, John, and he's going to report and we, in Government, want that report to be published. HUMPHRYS: But it's not part of Sir Gordon's remit in this particular case - the Neil Hamilton investigation - to look at how Government Whips may or may not have behaved two years ago and yet that is crucially important, I would suggest to you, as far as the public's confidence in the way Parliament polices itself is concerned. And you still, if I may say so, have not answered the question of whether in your view it is proper for a Government Whip to talk to a Chairman of an investigating committee and that is a crucial question isn't it, about the matters involving the committee? MAWHINNEY: John, let me make it clear Whips talks to Members of Parliament all the time- HUMPHRYS: I understand that. MAWHINNEY: -about a whole variety of things. HUMPHRYS: But this is different is what I'm suggesting to you. This is in effect a court isn't it? Those people, when they're sitting there and questioning people, as they have the power to do, are almost judge and jury. Now it amounts, if it happened in the way that it is being suggested, it amounts to nobbling the jury, in effect? MAWHINNEY: But Sir Geoffrey said it didn't. HUMPHRYS: Yes but let's look at what happened. MAWHINNEY: Well, let's take the Chairman of the Committee's word as an honourable man that it didn't. Now you're going to continue your line and I am going to continue to point out to you that Sir Geoffrey said that the implications of what you're saying are really probably quite unacceptable but Sir Gordon is going to look at all of this. HUMPHRYS: But let me point out to you then that other members of the Committee - Labour members of the committee - and you will say: well again they would, wouldn't they because they're the opposition? - MAWHINNEY: Well, they- HUMPHRYS: They walked out in digust at what had happened at that committee. Now this is an All Party committee, who ought to work together did they not? Because what we're talking about here is the image of Parliament in the nation - crucially important for every single one of us. And if that is going to be besmirched, as it has been as a result of this publication of this memo, surely the Chairman of the Conservative Party ought to be in a position at the very least to say: I don't think it's proper for X to offer advice to Y, if that is putting Party politics aside, to the extent that one can, if that is going to influence the outcome of that committee's deliberations? In other words, what I am suggesting to you, is that instead of searching for the truth, there was an attempt here to limit the damage to the Conservative Party. MAWHINNEY: Nonsense. I don't believe it for a moment and to suggest that is to impune the honour of a number of very senior Members of Parliament and I'm not going to do that and I would be dubious of anyone who embarked on that particular path, particularly ahead of the investigation by Sir Gordon. And you're absolutely right, Labour MPs walked out and you're absolutely right they would do anything for a degree of political advantage. HUMPHRYS: I didn't actually say that part of it. MAWHINNEY: Sorry, no you didn't. HUMPHRYS: That's your view. MAWHINNEY: My view is that the record is well stacked with evidence that they would do things if they thought there was a political advantage to it. So I simply rest on what I said to you at the beginning. HUMPHRYS: So, the fact- MAWHINNEY: We set up the mechanism. We have confidence in the mechanism. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Parties have confidence in the mechanism. So, I'm not quite sure why we are trying this morning to prejudge the outcome of an enquiry in a system in which everyone has confidence. Let's discuss HUMPHRYS: I'm not trying to prejudge. I'm discussing something that has already happened. This is the point and I'm suggesting to you it is a remarkable co-incidence, is it not, that the advice that was given by an important Government Whip - now a Government Minister - was precisely what actually happened with a Conservative majority on that committee? That's what I'm suggesting to you. MAWHINNEY: And the Chairman said that the implication of your suggestion is bunkum. HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's move on to another area then. We saw those weights in that film that our Tory runner was struggling to carry. One of them and it's a very big one is the question of dreaded old cliche, the feelgood factor. Now it doesn't seem to matter how much better off people may or may not be and there's dispute about that, you cannot get the message across. MAWHINNEY: Well, the first thing I think is not in dispute is that the average family this year is going to have seven hundred pounds more spending money than at the time of the last Election. HUMPHRYS: The Labour Party dispute it - but okay. MAWHINNEY: They would say that wouldn't they? Seven hundred pounds more spending money than at the time of the last General Election and that's after tax and inflation. But it is also true John, that the sharply rising part of that is coming in this financial year. So, it is only now starting to make its way through in substantial amounts into the pockets of people. And you and I have discussed before, perhaps the closest correlation of any single factor and voting intention is real disposable income. Now that's rising as I have said to you but it's rising quite sharply now and if you look at the economic optimism indicators they're all rising as well. HUMPHRYS: Don't seem to be any relationship between them, though, as they used to be in the old days between them and your standing in the polls does there? That link seems to have been cut. MAWHINNEY: Well we will see what the result is on Election night. You know I'm going to say that because that's what I always say because it's the only poll that actually matters. But the point that I'm seeking to make to you is that if you look at, and if you have any belief in these things, if you look at what I call the second-tier factors, they are all now moving in our direction and certainly if you look at the sense of morale in the Party, if you look at the sense of morale in the country, if you look at the drop in Unemployment, if you look at the increase in spending power, if you look at the increase in house prices again, you can see reflecting increasingly in the pockets of individual people that excellent economic set of circumstances, which now makes us the envy of Europe. HUMPHRYS: But if we look at the strategy that you've deployed so far. The first part of the strategy was to say to people yes it hurt but it worked. So therefore they ought to be grateful to you because it worked. In fact what they seem to be saying - we heard it on that film from the Haines family - it worked for some. If you're rich you're doing very well. The fat cats are okay, we're not okay. Second part of it was you ought to be scared of the Labour Party because by golly there's an awful lot to be scared of. That appears not to be working either. What else can you offer that is likely to work, except to repeat what you've just told me? MAWHINNEY: But the judgement as to what worked and what didn't work will be made on General Election day, it's not going to be made now. HUMPHRYS: You're not bothered about the polls at all? MAWHINNEY: Well yes I'm very worried, concerned,
anticipatory, excited, actually quite bullish about the General Election poll. But in the meantime we keep on talking in terms that people will understand and identify with. You see there may be a perception that the rich have done well but the figure that I gave you, the seven hundred pound figure was average family figure. HUMPHRYS: Yeah. The trouble with that though is a lot of people will say, as the Haineses said, we're better off, if we are better off, because we've worked for it. MAWHINNEY: Of course they are. HUMPHRYS: We're not going to thank the Tories for that. We're looking at the Tories' record and we actually don't trust the Tories' record as they said because of what happened with Black Wednesday in part. And if we are better off because interest rates have come down and all the rest of it, that's because your policy failed. You had to do something you didn't want to do which was pull out of ERM, therefore cut interest rates and so on. Why should we be grateful to you for that? We got where we are because of the sweat of our own brow. MAWHINNEY: And that's absolutely right and one of the things that has characterised this Government has been that it has put in place an economic framework that has allowed people by the sweat of their brow to do better. Businesses have done better and unemloyment has come down. People have worked hard and they have been able to keep more: (a) because interest rates have been low and mortgage rates have been low and (b) because we have now started again to be able to resume the downward path on income tax. HUMPHRYS: Ah, well, now. MAWHINNEY: Let me just make one more point, if I may. What was interesting about last week's conference was that nobody was saying in the Labour Party that the economy was in bad shape. They couldn't because the rest of Europe is saying how great the British economy is. You would almost have thought that they had played some part in creating this good economy. In fact they opposed every single measure we took which has now produced excellent economic circumstances. And on an Election Day the Haines and everybody else will go into a polling booth and they will say to themselves, do I really believe that the Party that opposed every single thing which has now got us in such good economic shape is actually going to do a better economic job than this Government? And the answer is clearly no. HUMPHRYS: Alright, downward paths on income tax - that's what you said. Now, here's another of those horrible weights dragging you down isn't it, because your own Chancellor of the Exchequer has said effectively, we can't cut taxes any longer because if we do the voters will be - and I quote - "deeply suspicious" because we promised tax cuts last time and weren't able to deliver and so they'll look with a sideways glance at any tax cuts in future. That's a bit of a problem for you, isn't it? MAWHINNEY: I don't consider it as a problem at all. What Ken has been saying, what I have been saying, what all of us have been saying is that we have a responsibility to millions of working people out there to have an economy that is sustainable. People don't want boom and bust. It's not good for individuals, it's not good for the country. So, they want a sustainable, economic development. And, you place income tax, you place Public Spending, you place all of that in the context of what is a sustainable, economic development. People understand - my constituents understand - that the predictions at the last Election - that if we won the recession would be over - didn't turn out to be right in the event. The weight of the recession in Europe was so strong that it went on for some time longer and people got hurt in that process and it takes time for people to get over the hurt in that process. HUMPHRYS: Right. MAWHINNEY: And they understood that the huge Public Sector Borrowing requirement that emerges in all countries after a recession had to be dealt with but it has been dealt with. It has been dealt with in a sustainable way which now has our economy admired, respected, envied by France, Germany - the other countries. HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's- MAWHINNEY: That's where we are going to be when we get to the Election. HUMPHRYS: Well, let's- MAWHINNEY: People will have to decide where do we go from here? HUMPHRYS: Let's pick up one of those other weights then, that we had in the film. And, where do we go from here is absolutely the right cue, because we're talking about Europe, obviously. Now, Mr Major has, actually, made your job a bit more difficult hasn't he, in the last few days, because he has said to those people who are desperately worried that Britain may dump the pound under a Conservative Government or any other Government, for that matter. He said: we are not going to rule it out. We are going to stay in there, at the table and the implication is therefore: perhaps, we may. If we decide it's the right thing to do, perhaps we may join the European Monetary Union and dump the pound. Now, that's made it tricky for you, hasn't it, because you can't even hold out the hope to them now? MAWHINNEY: Of course not. That's been the policy for months and months and months and months. HUMPHRYS: I know it is but it's a very unpopular policy. MAWHINNEY: But you said Mr Major has made it more difficult for me in the last day or two? HUMPHRYS: Mmm, by sounding so tough on this question of not backing away. MAWHINNEY: Would you forgive me if I mention that about two weeks ago newspapers were full of: Mawhinney - tough on reaffirming Cabinet's position on Single Currency. HUMPHRYS: And awful problems it's causing you, too. MAWHINNEY: On the contrary. There are discussions around a Single Currency - the mechanisms for Monetary Union. Some countries will be in, some will not be in, at least initially. So, what the mechanism is will affect this country. HUMPHRYS: Of course, it will and David Heathcoat-Amory said this morning - quite clearly - you can be in on those discussions even if you rule yourself out of joining EMU in the next Parliament. MAWHINNEY: But David, who's actually, had a bit of experience and therefore ought to... HUMPHRYS: Indeed, Treasury Minister - formerly. MAWHINNEY: ..ought to have a slighly deeper understanding, knows perfectly well that if you make a premature judgment, then people will no longer credit your views in those negotiations. HUMPHRYS: He says it'll strengthen you. MAWHINNEY: Well of course it won't strengthen. That's a position that isn't defensible at all. HUMPHRYS: Alright. Well what about.. MAWHINNEY: If you would allow me, the point that is at stake here is that we are working in terms of the national interest - what is best for this country. No sensible person, John, rushes to make a judgment of this magnitude, if there is the prospect of more information still to come that would be relevant to the making of that judgment. HUMPHRYS: No, I'm not disputing the issue, I'm just disputing the politics of it. MAWHINNEY: What distinguishes us- I'll tell you what good politics are. Good politics are seen to be working in the national interest. That's what good politics are. HUMPHRYS: Yes and you see this is the problem. MAWHINNEY: And it is this Party. We are the only Party who have said: if in the next Parliament, Cabinet decides that we should go into a Single Currency, Parliament would have to pass the necessary legislation and if it does, the people, ultimately, will decide in a referendum. HUMPHRYS: Right, but here is the problem, because ninety-three per cent of your new candidates according to George Gardiner's survey are sworn not in the winnable seats - that is, in the winnable seats, which is so important - are sworn to vow not to dump the pound under any circumstances. Now, how can you have a situation where the Government says: well, yeah, we've decided, having weighed all the evidence, this is what we'll do. Ninety per cent of your new MPs sitting there in the House of Commons are going to say no way we would put it in our manifesto. We will not do it, under any circumstances because this is above Party. This is the country we are concerned about, our national sovereignty. MAWHINNEY: Well, first of all, I haven't seen George Gardiner's figures and I hope he won't take it amiss if I- HUMPHRYS: You wouldn't suggest for a moment he'd have cooked the books, would you? MAWHINNEY: I wouldn't at all but I would certainly - I would certainly want to verify your rather eloquent interpretation of what we saw on the film. We will make it very clear that when a decision has to be taken, we will take it in the national interest and if it's in the next Parliament - and we decide to go in - ultimately, the people who will decide. But, the big Election issue, John, because there are differences of view in all of the political Parties - all of them. Labour Party has differences of views, we have differences of views, even the Liberal Democrats have differences of views for goodness sake! A Party that has been committed to a United States of Europe for ages. You go down to the pub and you talk to people who have no political affiliation and they have differences of view. That's right because this is a big issue. But, the Election issue will be very easily distilled. Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are in favour of a federal Europe. The Conservative Party is not in favour of a federal Europe. HUMPHRYS: Well, no. MAWHINNEY: And that will be the - that will be the issue at the General Election and I have no doubt at all that we are closer to the mood of the British people. HUMPHRYS: Fine - well closer to the mood of the British people - a final thought. Isn't the exact opposite your problem? That you are no longer really in touch with the British people and that when you say: we're better for you than the other lot, what you tell them is at variance with what they believe. MAWHINNEY: This week's conference is going to be about opportunity for all. It will be opportunity for millions and millions of working men and women around this country. Increasingly abandoned by a New Labour Party, that's interested in vested interest groups, in stakeholders but not in ordinary people. I hope that we will be able to demonstrate beyond per adventure that we are the Party that is most closely attuned to the aspirations of the millions and millions of working people in this country. HUMPHRYS: Brian Mawhinney, thank you very much, indeed. MAWHINNEY: Thank you.