................................................................................ ON THE RECORD ANN TAYLOR INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 1.6.97
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Politicians are held generally in ever lower esteem by the great British public. And so is Parliament. Its job, if it's done properly, is to pass laws that work and to keep an eye on what the Government is doing so that it doesn't get too big for its boots. It's been doing neither very well for a long time now. Hence the Government's decision to set up this week a new committee to "modernise" the way Parliament works. It'll be chaired by the Leader of the House of Commons Ann Taylor. And she joins us down the line now. Hello Mrs Taylor. ANN TAYLOR: Hello. HUMPHRYS: Labour has said for years now that the executive, the Government is too unaccountable. Is that one of the reasons for this new committee? TAYLOR: It's one of the reasons but there's also the problem that a lot of the legislation that has been passed in recent years hasn't been of a very good quality. It's very often been the case that Parliament has passed legislation and then a couple of years later had to go back to it and amend it simply because the Government of the day wasn't willing to listen to even constructive criticism. And what we want to do is to acknowledge that there are areas where there are straight forward political disagreement and those measures are not things that we can deal with in a different way from that that we do at the moment. But there are some problems where if we had a different approach to legislation, if we had Government ministers being willing to listen, to try to develop some consensus towards the problem, then in fact we're more likely to get that legislation right. HUMPHRYS: So what you're saying is that as they stand now, the powers that Parliament has to scrutinise and to hold Government accountable are not sufficient. TAYLOR: I think that very often there are things that Parliament could do but doesn't do. But there's a bigger problem than this and Parliament's main job is actually to pass legislation which I think requires an obligation that that legislation should be workable. Too often, in the past, we have not been able to do that. Now that's been partly the fault of the Government of the day, who, after they'd been in office for so long thought that they had the answer to every problem and the monopoly and wisdom. and therefore, were not willing to listen to any ideas that didn't orginate with themselves. But it's also partly been that Parliament is very much geared up to political point scoring rather than constructive discussion and constructive debate and I think there are many areas where we could adopt a different approach. And indeed, we've already said that we will produce some draft Bills, some legislation in draft form, consult more widely and then decide how to proceed. And we've done this on some quite important issues, such as freedom of information, tobacco advertising, even the Food Standards Agency where we've got some idea of the direction in which we want to go but we want to make sure that it works properly and therefore we're willing to take time out to say: right, let's involve more people than usual, let's consult, let's make sure that when we pass that legislation it really addresses the problems that are there and it really will make a contribution to making sure those problems don't arise in the future. HUMPHRYS: Ann, you mentioned a couple of Bills there, a couple of areas there. Would this apply to all Bills, including the Devolution Bill that's coming up? TAYLOR: Well I think what you've got to do is look at each Bill on its merits and see what's most appropriate for that Bill. What I would say is not that there should be a series of hurdles for each individual Bill but that some Bills should be dealt with in one way and some in another. For example, if you have a Bill that is not fantastically politically controversial, then maybe you should do what we've done with the Food Standards Agency and have a White Paper, have consultation, have a draft Bill, maybe have a committee looking at it at that stage and then move to actually writing the legislation. Where you've got a straight forward political confrontation, then there's no point in going down that route because the political confrontation is so much of a head-on situation that you're not actually going to improve the quality of legislation by taking time out, because the differences are just too basic. HUMPHRYS: Shouldn't it - it's interesting you use the language of 'hurdles'. I mean shouldn't the question be not how confrontational..controversial they are, but how technical they are. Shouldn't that be the key factor? TAYLOR: It's one factor but it's not the only factor. And the real question is, if we adopt different methods can we actually improve the quality of the legislation that goes through. The example that I used in the debate last week, and I think it's a good one, is the Child Support Agency. Everybody in Parliament agreed that both parents should be responsible for the bringing up of their child, should contribute to what was needed and yet we have legislation there that was flawed right from the beginning, simply because the Government put its head down, said that it had got the answers and then we found out later that it hadn't. Had we had a different committee system, more scrutiny, less resistance from the Government, maybe less points scoring from the opposition, then we might have had legislation which could work first time off, rather than wasting Parliament's time and coming back and having to look at that legislation time and time again. HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's have a look then at the whole question of accountability. Of the accountability of ministers, the Government, the Prime Minister to Parliament. The Prime Minister, take him first, has obviously enormous power, he can appoint all sorts of people, thousands of different people, some hugely important positions, the Governor of the Bank of England for instance, the regulators of the big utilities. Are you happy with that, shouldn't Parliament have some say over that, some oversight? TAYLOR: Well we've already gone on record as saying that we think that the Select Committee system is a good one and that we should look to develop it. There has been discussion about the role of Select Committees and whether in fact they should have a ratification role on some of the senior appointments. That I think is something that the new committee can look at because there could be a role there for Select Committees on an extended basis. Select Committees have worked, they do hold ministers to account. Ministers have not always been forthcoming but I would hope that in the future we'll have less of that particular problem. HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but let's stay for a moment with this question of vetting some senior appointments. You would be quite happy, the Government would be quite happy if this committee that you're setting up said yes, Select Committees should have a role in approving or otherwise, the Prime Minister's recommendation for, let's say the new Governor of the Bank of England, you've be happy with that? TAYLOR: Well Gordon Brown has already said that that is something that he thinks the..a Select...Treasury Select Committee could look at and he'd be quite happy with this issue being considered. That doesn't mean that we go down that line and we've reached a decision. Part of the purpose of having a committee to look at modernisation is to try to get some kind of agreement about where we should be going. And I'm not going to sit on that committee with a blueprint for what Parliament should be doing in the future. I'll come up with ideas but it's for the committee to make recommendations and at the end of the day, for Parliament to decide. But there are areas there where we have indicated we want greater openness, greater scrutiny and greater transparency. Let me just give you another example. Very often the heads of agencies have said to Select Committees that they can't go and give evidence because the minister has said that everything has got to go through the minister. On other occasions the minister has said he's not going to give evidence to a Select Committee, they should go to the agency head. And you can go round in circles like that. Really what we need is a new framework, so that all Select Committees know exactly who they should be going to, but incidentially so should individual backbench MPs because when it comes to tabling Parliamentary questions, we sometimes have the same problems. HUMPHRYS: And, if the Committee says : we want to call the head of that agency before us to answer our questions, it will have the power so to do? TAYLOR: Well, what I'm saying is, there should be a new framework - and that new framework should agree and set down rules as to where Ministers should be responsible and where the a head of the agency should go directly. As I say, we have the same problem on Questions because sometimes, in the past, under the Tories, Ministers have refused to answer a question about an agency and yet the head of the agency has said: ah, this is Ministerial policy. And, we've got to have some clarity there and a new framework. It's not something that can be done overnight but we've got to develop it and set out the basic approach that Members of Parliament, as well as members of the public can see brings openness, brings transparency and brings better scrutiny in the future. HUMPHRYS: But, effectively, the days of Ministers behaving in a cavalier fashion towards these Select Committees, towards MPs are gone? TAYLOR: Well, I think, we've already seen from Question Time, including Prime Minister's Question Time, a more serious attitude on the part of Ministers. They have been very serious in the answers that they have been given-giving in Parliament. They have been saying that they're wanting to take issues on board. They haven't just been engaging- HUMPHRYS: Ah, but that's a different point, that's where they- TAYLOR: - that's important. HUMPHRYS: Yes, but they have a choice in that..So far, that's looking alright, you say. But, what I'm saying is that in future: even if they don't want to do it, they're gonna have no choice. There will be a system in place that means they've got to do it. They've gotta be accountable, they gotta answer reasonable questions. TAYLOR: I think, they have to be accountable; I think, they have to answer reasonable questions. HUMPHRYS: Right. TAYLOR: And, we need to have a new framework that defines how that should work in practice. HUMPHRYS: Now, one of their problems, they would say - they do say - is they simply don't have the resources, at the moment. If they want to look at the work that the Ministries, the different Departments are doing, they don't have the resources. They may have a senior clerk and, perhaps, a couple of youngsters helping him, or her, and that's it. I mean, we spend more money on military bands than we do helping our Select Committees to do their job. Is that gonna change? Give them more resources? TAYLOR: Well, I don't think you should be so disparaging about Select Committees. HUMPHRYS: Well it's not me, it's them. TAYLOR: No, but many- HUMPHRYS: It's what they say. TAYLOR: Well, many of them have done quite significant work in the past. Now, I think, there's general agreement that this system of Select Committees works. How it can be improved needs to be looked at and addressed as well. But, I don't think that those people who have served on Select Committees in the past have, actually, felt that they were too constrained by resources. HUMPHRYS: Well, plenty of them have told me that they are. TAYLOR: Sorry? HUMPHRYS: Plenty of them have told me that they are - very constrained, indeed. TAYLOR: No. I don't- HUMPHRYS: -...properly. TAYLOR: -think that is the case. We've not found them jumping up and down for more resources. There's been a question as to whether the Chairs of Select Committees should actually be paid for their extra responsibility - something that I, personally, am not fantastically keen on. I do think that they need the resources that they should have to carry out their work. But, really, it's a very hands on job - being on a Select Committee. Members have got to read the papers themselves, Members have got to keep up with the work themselves. And, in those areas, where that has happened, I think, Select Committees have been one of the successes of the last year. Although, obviously, we've all got to acknowledge that their reports have not always had the- HUMPHRYS: Ah! TAYLOR: -debate and time that everybody would like. HUMPHRYS: Absolutely. I was gonna ask you about that. Are you going to say that in future they will be debated. Some of them are just dumped in the bin and forgotten about. TAYLOR: Well, some of them are more important than others and, I think, it is important that anything that is significant should be found a slot if at all possible. We've now got a situation where some Parliamentary time is reserved for Select Committtee reports on the Wednesday morning ever so often. And, the topics for discussion are not chosen by the Government. They're actually chosen by a Backbench Committee and I think that's something we can look at and that's something we can build on and we can assess whether there is sufficient time there, or whether we should build in more of those slots. So, that more of those- HUMPHRYS: Do you favour that? TAYLOR: -reports can actually be discussed. HUMPHRYS: Do you favour that, do you? More time? TAYLOR: Well, I think, you can only have more time on one item, if you have less on another. And, I do favour looking at the balance of Parliamentary timetable. For example, the amount of time we spend on set piece debates, the Queen's Speech, the Budget, the annual debates on a whole range of topics- HUMPHRYS: Ah! TAYLOR: -which, very often, are not well attended. Whether, perhaps, we should be looking to curtail some of those and, perhaps, find more time for other things, such as Select Committee Reports. That might be one case that we can look at. HUMPHRYS: You mention the Budget there. It does seem daft, doesn't it - some people say anyway - that at the end of the year, in the Autumn, we have everything jammed together - the Budget and the Queen's Speech; that all of that entails and everything. Makes sense to shift the Budget? We gather that Gordon Brown's thinking about it - back to Spring? TAYLOR: Well, this year it isn't a problem because, obviously- HUMPHRYS: No, I'm thinking about next year, now - yah. TAYLOR: -the Parliamentary Year started early. But, in many years, it's a very, very real problem because Parliament usually goes back in October/November. You have the Queen's Speech, which takes up either six Parliamentary days, followed very quickly by the Budget, which takes up another five or six Parliamentary days. It means that Bills that are going to be introduced start late and, very often, can't have their Second Readings before Christmas and it does cause congestion in the Parliamentary Year later. So, I do think it's something we have to examine and try to make sure that we pace the Parliamentary Year better, so that we don't have lulls and times when there's not much happening and, then, a mad rush in June/July, so that everything has got to be passed at the last minute. HUMPHRYS: So-So, we might go back to a Spring Budget - that's a possibility? TAYLOR: Well, I think, all of these things are up for consideration - yes. HUMPHRYS: Right. Just before we leave the Select Committees, by the way: you talked about scrutiny, about accountability of Ministers and all that kind of thing and, possibly, being able to vet some senior appointments. What about the honour system because a lot of people argue that MPs should have some say over who gets what Honours as well - certainly, at the top end of the scale. Would you look at that? TAYLOR: Well, I haven't considered that at all. MPs are allowed to nominate people in the same way that a wide range of other people are. It hasn't been something that I, personally, have given much thought too. But, if anybody comes up with positive suggestions I'm sure that they can be looked at. HUMPHRYS: Ought there to be a sort of department of the Opposition, as it were? So that they are helped to do what you found, sometimes when you were in Opposition, quite difficult to do? TAYLOR: Being in Opposition is a very significant responsibility and, I think, that a lot of work goes on that people don't quite appreciate. Having a Department of the Opposition is one of the ideas that has been put forward and there are some advantages; there are disadvantages as well because whilst it was allowed for interchange - perhaps, between Civil Servants, so that they could understand how an Opposition worked - it might be that the politicians who are in Opposition felt that they didn't have sufficient choice of who the people who were working for them were. I think, this area has to be looked at but it's got to be looked at in a slightly different context as well, because, of course, in a way, it relates to the funding of political Parties. At the moment, we do have funding of Opposition Parties - what's often called the 'short money' - and that has paid for researchers for the Opposition Parties, for a good number of years no. We're going to go into negotiations about that money for this Parliament. Obviously, the balance on the Opposition side will be up for discussion because now that the official Opposition - the Tories - are so small, relatively - compared with..in the last Parliament, the balance of the Opposition. The minority Parties are, obviously, going to be making a case for their position. So, I think, we should be looking at these things but it's very difficult to look at them in isolation from all the other items that have to be on the agenda as well. HUMPHRYS: You mentioned the Civil Service in that answer. Now, a lot of people are worried that what you are doing is beginning to politicise the Civil Service, of going much further down that road than has happened before. We're seeing an awful lot of political appointments in areas where Civil Servants used to do the job, and the Civil Service Commissioner Sir Michael Brett is worried about that. Are you going to stop it? TAYLOR: Well, let's just get this into perspective, because there's been a lot of speculation about a lot of political appointments... HUMPHRYS: Not speculation, we've seen you doing it. TAYLOR:L ... but no-one has actually seen the final numbers, and in fact the Prime Minister is answering a question on this at the moment, but lets's also..... HUMPHRYS: We've got double the number of political appointees in Number Ten Downing Street that we had before you came into power, that's one number. TAYLOR: Well, I don't think there's been a fantastic increase. I think you've got to get it into perspective, and just remember what Sir Michael Brett said. What he actually said was that he was not worried at this stage. HUMPHRYS: No. He said there shouldn't be any more. TAYLOR: No, what he said was, if there were to be hordes more, and I don't think that anybody is suggesting that there should be hordes more. He said he wasn't worried at this stage by the appointments that have taken place so far, so I think that all of this is somewhat speculative and not really a real issue. Yes, there have to be advisors, yes, there has to be a role for advisors and they've got to know what they're doing, and we've got to know what's political and what's Civil Service, but I think the guidelines are there and the guidelines are pretty clear. HUMPHRYS: But I mean having a political advisor as the private secretary to the Prime Minister, Jonathan Powell, instead of a Civil Servant as it has been in the past, that is a worrying development. Every single thing that goes to the Prime Minister goes through his hands. He's in a position of immense power and influence, and he's not a Civil Servant. TAYLOR: But it is a very political role. You've just said that everything - everything that goes to the Prime Minister goes through his hands. HUMPHRYS: He vets everything he sees, yeah. TAYLOR: That is a political role. What I think is happening there in Number Ten is that there's a redefining of roles. Some of the things that the principle private secretary used to do in the past have been separated off and are going to be done by somebody else, and the political side, and the political side is important remember, goes through Jonathan Powell. Jonathan Powell has been Tony Blair's chief of staff for some time now... HUMPHRYS: Yes, but I mean.... TAYLOR: And I don't see why going into government you can't transfer that situation. HUMPHRYS: Yes, but I mean on that basis half the people who run departments and heaven knows what in the Civil Service will be slung out and replaced by political appointees. TAYLOR: No they wouldn't. What we're talking about is what you've already described as a key role for political information going through him. HUMPHRYS: No, I said all information, not political information, everything - the lot. TAYLOR: All information. When you're in Number Ten and you're the Prime Minister all information could be political information. I think there'd be a lot of complaints if we had a chief of staff who was being asked to do political activity, and that person and was a Civil Servant. HUMPHRYS: Aright. TAYLOR: So I think it's right to have the lines drawn but I don't think you should be critical when we're saying: right, this is a political role and somebody who's a political appointee is actually going to fill it. HUMPHYRS: Let's look at the role of MPs then. Your MPs specifically now, you talk of giving them more responsibility and yet we learn this morning that you're treating MPs now, Labour MPs as though they're all sort of potential miscreants. You have this vast computer in Millbank in which their names are entered, and if they've done anything naughty that appears against their name. What's going on here - this is thekind of thought police at work isn't it? TAYLOR: Well, it would be if it was as you'd actually described it. I don't think we're all plotted into there and tracked. It's an electronic library, so if you put anybody's name in there, if you feed any name in there then you will get a reference sheet about what they've been saying. HUMPHRYS: Or doing. I mean, you know, Hugh Kerr MP heckled Tony Blair at a private reception. For heaven's sake! TAYLOR: Well, if it's an electronic library, it's in there, people can actually use the Data Protection legislation to find out what's on about them. I don't think that it's unreasonable to keep records of what we, as members say. Very often we want to know ourselves what we've said on other occasions. We want to look at what other people have said. HUMPHRYS: Do you know what they've got on you then? TAYLOR: No, but I presume thay've got everything that I have said on the record. HUMPHRYS: And what about those things you've said off the record as well? TAYLOR: I think that's very wise, because it means that if colleagues or people on television programmes are saying: Ann Taylor said this on such a date, it can actually be checked, and I think that's very wise of us to keep that. HUMPHRYS: But you know, perhaps at one stage in your career, heaven forfend, but you might have said something a bit less than generous about your leader, about the Prime Minister. I mean that might be there - a bit worrying isn't it? TAYLOR: I think that we should all be prepared to stand by anything that we've said, and I don't think that there is the sort of sinister connotations that everybody here is talking about. HUMPHRYS: 1984. TAYLOR: I think it is important that we have things on record and this is the modern way of keeping things on record. It's an electronic library for goodness sake. Surely everything that I say, all my press releases, all the parliamentary questions I answer should be there. I don't really see what's wrong with that. HUMPHRYS: Ann Taylor, thank you very much indeed. ...oooOooo...