................................................................................ ON THE RECORD CLIVE SOLEY INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 25.5.97
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Clive Soley, you've just been elected chairman of the biggest Parliamentary Labour Party in history: three hundred backbenchers with no role in Government. All raring to make a name for themselves. It's going to be a bit of a job keeping them happy isn't it? CLIVE SOLEY: I'm sorry that last line was lost, can you say that again. HUMPHRYS: It's going to be a bit of a job keeping all those backbenchers....all right I'll ask the whole question all the way from the top. We'll be chopping the question off but anyway. You've just been elected chairman of the biggest Parliamentary Labour Party in history: three hundred backbenchers, no role in the Government. All raring to make a name for themselves. Isn't it going to be a bit of a job keeping them all happy? SOLEY: Well I hope not. I think it's a very real opportunity. We can't go round looking at our majority as though it's a problem. The majority is actually an opportunity. What we've got to do is to reform the Parliamentary process to make sure backbenchers really do play an active part in what we think will be one of the most radical and reforming governments for a very long time. HUMPHRYS: Well you say an active part but Mr Blair has told us how he expects the backbenchers to behave. They are there to do what they are told by the leaders, it seems. As chairman of the whole Party, are you quite happy with that? SOLEY: Well what he's actually said is he wants to be an inclusive leader. Now let me just give you examples of what I mean and I know the leadership will be sympathetic to this sort of thing. We want backbenchers to be able to assist in the process of getting the government's legislation through but not as just rubber stamping without bringing their own ideas to it. So for example, our backbench committees will have the opportunity of asking ministers questions, seeing the ministers regularly. And what I would hope and this is what our advantage is in having a large majority, going out into the country, asking questions and getting information, in other words being the eyes and the ears of the ministers, on things like education, the health service, the environment, whatever. Coming back to Parliament, seeing the ministers, reporting that and trying to adjust and rephrase the legislation that we're putting through in order to use that extra information. There are other things we can do too. I am hopeful that we're do many more standing committees. The committees where we legislate on by taking evidence first. Now we've been able to do that for some years but there are only about seven committees done in that way in the whole of the last eighteen years. So if we start taking evidence on Bills again, you actually give backbenchers more involvement. Previously, what was happening, is that they just sat on the committees, often signing their correspondence because the Government of the day, the Conservative Government didn't want them to participate. We have to avoid that trap. We really do want to reform Parliament in that way. HUMPHRYS: Alright. So in two areas, you're going to be listening to what people have to say, ordinary people out there in the country as it were and experts you'll be hearing from..on these standing committees. And you'll be going to the Government and saying in effect: we the backbenchers think you ought to be doing this that and the other. And then putting a bit of pressure on them? SOLEY: Well, I would hope that it will be a two-way process and I would also hope, and this is the thing that I think people have got to begin to recognise, there needs to be a change in the culture of Parliament itself. It does need to be more inclusive and that means, yes, ministers have got to listen and be more flexible than perhaps they were under the last administration. But it also means that backbenchers have got to have their voice. We can't reform Parliament in such a way that it simply gags backbenchers. And I have to say I don't think the leadership does want that. I really don't believe that. HUMPHRYS: And will you.. SOLEY: I'm sorry.. HUMPHRYS: Will you have the right, will you be looking for the right to bring ministers, for instance, before these committees that you talk about so that they... SOLEY: It's already agreed in the standing orders of the Parliamentary Labour Party that ministers can come to these committees and answer questions. That is a normal expectation and I anticipate that that will happen. I know ministers want to make this work too. It's not as though we're looking at this one sided and we really do have to get away from this idea that the job of the backbenchers is to stop the Government at getting legislation through. It is true that the job of the backbenchers is to check the legislature of the Government but it doesn't mean to say they don't allow it to get its legislation through. We have to have this balance where backbenchers do put their views forward. They are listened to, the Government does modify its behaviour or adjust its Bills in some way, but the other side of that deal is that the backbenchers have to accept that the Government should be able to get its legislation through. HUMPHRYS: Indeed. SOLEY: And that's the normal process of Parliament but refined in a way which brings in much more involvement by the backbenchers? HUMPHRYS: Ah right. More involvement by the backbenchers. So they'll have a bit more power, a bit more influence than they've had in the past. And the reason why I ask that question is because Mr Blair talks about them being ambassadors for the Government, there to extole the Government's achievements. It sounds as if you and he may have slightly different ideas of what the role of the backbenchers is going to be. SOLEY: Well, you know, nobody pretends that everything will run perfectly, but let me give you an example of what I mean. Let's take education. Let's take a group of backbenchers who go out to a particular area and look at the schools and the problems in that particular area. They come out with the acknowledgement that they are going to report back to the minister so that people in the area - the local press, the media - know it's an important visit. Problems are aired in that area and then those people come back to the House of Commons, they see the minister, they say "we think the legislation might be of benefit if it had this type of amendment," or "we did things differently in this way," a number of other arrangements, and that can be considered in the normal to and fro of Parliamentary discussion both in our backbench committees and indeed on the floor of the House and in committee. Now if we do that and if we also start taking evidence on Bills,then we take a big step forward. Let me just give you an example of what goes wrong if you don't do this. You will remember the Child Support Agency was one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation by the last Government. The Poll Tax was another. I take the view that if they had been taking evidence from people outside the House of Commons and if their own backbenchers had been able to hear that evidence in the way that we anticipate will happen rather more often, then frankly we won't make those sort of mistakes. And that's very important. It leads to better legislation, it's a bigger role for the backbencher and it means the Government does get the benefit of eyes and ears, if you like, of people outside in other areas of the country coming back in with these ideas and discussing points. HUMPHRYS: So what the Conservatives have - as everybody well knows - is this 1922 Committee for backbenchers. No Ministers on that Committee, no frontbenchers, just backbenchers. A lot of your people think now you should have the same. I think it was Austin Mitchell who said: "Seize the moment to get a better deal for the backbenchers. Let's have a 1997 Committee." Do you agree with him? SOLEY: I don't think we need that but what I do think is, I face a challenge in terms of delivering for the Parliamentary Labour Party - this new very large Party that we've got, with the Government in power on a radical programme - this delicate balance of being able to help the Government get its legislation through but at the same time giving a much fuller role to Parliamentarians. But let me stress this, John, because I do feel this issue about Parliamentary Reform is in danger of being missed as ...both as an opportunity and as an issue today. If, for example, I'll give just one more example, if I may, the Peter North Committee set up to look at the marches in Northern Ireland did a great job - a very good man - but he's an academic. Now, why didn't we set up a Parliamentary Committee of Parliamentarians to look at that contentious issue, to debate it within the Committee and take evidence on it in the same way that we used to in the House of Commons in the last century - but haven't done so much in this century - and then get your legislation right; you inform your Parliamentarians about it, you give a sensible, meaningful role for your backbenchers and you enable the Ministers to have eyes and ears around the country, feeding back problems on the presence situation and you generally improve the quality of legislation as well as giving your backbenchers a role. So you need to not go back to the old rubber stamping role of backbenchers signing their correspondence on Government Committees, which is what was happening before. HUMPHRYS: All right. Let's move on, briefly, if I may, to another area, and that is Mohammed Sarwar the Labour MP who has been accused of bribing one of his opponents in the last election. There has been another development, as you may know, this morning. Gordon Guthrie who ran his campaign has said: "Mr Sarwar got into a car with a political opponent and a bag of money," and apparently there is an eyewitness now for that. "That spells the end of any MPs' career. He must go now." Do you believe that his actions as we know them already - and we are not pre-judging, obviously, any inquiry that may be held or any criminal investigation - but do you believe that he has already brought the Party into disrepute, which, as you know, is an expellable offence. SOLEY: If the facts are as they are stated to be, and I have to say I haven't seen that immediate report, but if the facts are as stated then I think this is extremely serious and what we want to do is to be judged by how we handle it. We put it in the hands of the police, the NEC is continuing an inquiry and I would anticipate that any MP - and I am not just talking about this particular case of which I don't have the latest development - but any case where they either bring it into disrepute or they have behaved dishonestly, will feel the full strength of the Parliamentary Labour Party's anger on that. There is no doubt in my mind, it will be very tough disciplinary procedure. HUMPHRYS: Should the whip be withdrawn now? SOLEY: I would think that that would happen in a situation where somebody had been dishonest or the evidence was convincing, and if that is the case with any MP whoever they are, then I would be very surprised if we didn't take that sort of action very quickly, but I have to say I have not seen the latest information on this case. I'm therefore saying that any individual MP who is found guilty of dishonesty or has brought the Party into disrepute by actions of the type you're describing would in fact, face very tough disciplinary action, which might well involve the whip being withdrawn and possibly more than that. HUMPHRYS: Clive, Soley, thank you very much indeed. SOLEY: Thank you. ...oooOooo...