............................................................................... ON THE RECORD DAVID HUNT INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC-1 DATE: 23.10.94 ............................................................................... JOHN HUMPHRYS: And so to sleaze .... not the Government's favourite word these days. They've lost another Minister this past week, and productivity at the rumour mill would make any manufacturer beam with joy. So what are they going to do? David Hunt, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has been fielding the awkward questions all week...and Mr. Hunt, they're not going to go away are they. They're still with us this morning, a lot of pressure on Neil Hamilton to resign. He's going to have to go isn't he? DAVID HUNT: Well I don't accept that things have to happen in that way. The Prime Minister's always made it clear that we in the Government, indeed I believe across all political parties, are strongly supportive of the highest possible standards in public life. What we have to do and constantly be mindful of is to make sure everyone not only is aware of that but we can prove that. Now that represents a challenge. That's why I very much hope Parliament will proceed with the Committee of Privileges, will find a way of looking into some of the wider issues involved so that if necessary if there is a need for new guidelines, they'll be drawn up. HUMPHRYS: But before you deal with the wider issues perhaps you've got a deal with the specifics though at the moment Mr Hamilton is one of those specifics and there's a lot of pressure as I say for him to resign. Just this morning we heard two former ministers saying he should go. HUNT: Yes, I've nothing to add to what the Prime Minister and Mr Hamilton have already said. Mr Hamilton's made it quite clear he denies the allegations that have been made against him. There are now libel proceedings in the courts. I don't think we add very much to the sum of human knowledge by commenting any further. HUMPHRYS: Because there are those libel proceedings, he's going to have to spend a good deal of time dealing with them, huddled with his lawyers, as somebody put it this morning, for hour after hour, day after day. How can he carry on as Minister for Business Ethics while all that's going on? HUNT: Now that's of course essentially a matter for Neil Hamilton himself ... HUMPHRYS: ... and the Prime Minister. HUNT: Yes but he has made it absolutely clear he vehemently denies all the allegations that have been made. Now in those circumstances I don't think I can add very much to what already has been said. HUMPHRYS: But you're the Minister for Open Government you can see the kind of impression that it's creating. It must be worrying, it's sending all the wrong sorts of signals isn't it. HUNT: Now let me just make clear one thing about being Minister for Open Government. This Government has done a great deal to open up the processes. One of the things it's done, and the Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister ever to do this was to publish the rules
of guidance for Ministers. Now that had been a secret document for all time. John Major decided to publish it. Now you can see when you read through that guidance, which is available to everybody now. All the public can read it. You can see in that guidance that we are wedded to the highest possible standards. HUMPHRYS: Well, since we're talking about standards, is it right for any politician to accept thousands of pounds worth of hospitality at a time when he holds a position of some responsibility? HUNT: Well again that is all set out in the rules of guidance. It's up to every Minister and indeed Backbenchers to conform to the principles laid down so far as Members of Parliament are concerned ... HUMPRHYS: ... Ministers who haven't read that what is your answer to your question? HUNT: Well it clearly lays down for Ministers that they must never allow themselves to get into any position where there is a conflict of interest. HUMPHRYS: And Backbenchers who are chairing or Deputy Chairmen of important committees, the same thing. HUMPHRYS: Well so far as Parliament is concerned
there's a long standing series of reports which have been published from time to time making it clear, for instance the establishment of the register of members interests, making it clear what members are required to do. Now those matters are being examined these wider issues by the House of Commons at the moment. HUMPHRYS: So it's wrong. It's wrong for any politician to accept large sums of free hospitality. HUNT: Well ... HUMPHRYS: In your view, your own personal opinion. You're a Cabinet Minister. You've been a Backbencher for many years. What's your view? HUNT: My view is that Ministers and Members of Parliament must never allow themselves to get into any position where anyone outside could level an accusation against them that they weren't adhering to the highest possible standards in public life. HUMPHRYS: And you put yourself in that position if you accept huge amounts of hospitality from an individual don't you? HUNT: Well every Member of Parliament must have an opportunity of explaining exactly what the position is. Now over time the register of members interests, the Select Committee concerned has laid down further rules, further regulations, further tightening up here but at the end of the day it is up to each individual to make sure that they conform to the highest possible standard. HUMPHRYS: But there is a very clear principle here isn't there? Very clear principle. HUNT: Yes, I accept that. HUMPHRYS: And you wouldn't accept free hospitality of that sort. HUNT: I don't believe that anyone should allow any acceptance of any gift or hospitality to be allowed to colour in the public's mind their ability to stand up to the highest possible standards. HUMPHRYS: Well therefore on that basis alone, and let's forget about the central question of cash for questions, which as you say there is a court case about, on that pending court case about. On that question alone Mr Hamilton was wrong. HUNT: Well now going back to the case of Mr Hamilton, I've already made it clear John, I don't think there's anything I can add. HUMPHRYS: But he hasn't denied accepting that hospitality. HUNT: He has explained it. It is up to him to continue to explain it. HUMPHRYS: You believe he's explained it satisfactorily. HUNT: Well at the end of the day it is up to each individual to explain the circumstances in which they came to accept any show of hospitality of any sort. We have a register of members interests that allows members to detail that whether it's sponsorship by trade unions or consultancies with companies, we have established a code of conduct, a register which is now there evident for people to scrutinise and a Select Committee that is constantly making sure that people live up to those standards. HUMPHRYS: So there are clearly questions in your own mind, though you don't want to comment specifically but there are clearly questions in your own mind about Mr Hamilton's position as we speak. HUNT: No I haven't said that. I've in fact been very careful not to say that John, and I'll make that absolutely clear. I don't ... HUMPHRYS: ... about accepting large sums ... HUNT: I don't want to add anything to what has already been said about the position of Neil Hamilton but there are some very important wider issues here which is why I very much welcome the fact that the Speaker made it clear that she would like wider issues to be examined and the Government put down the motion which Members of Parliament then voted on to set up an enquiry by the Committee of Privileges and I just want to say, 'get on with that work as quickly as possible'. HUMPHRYS: You clearly from what you're saying wouldn't say that whatever Ministers may or may not have done in past doesn't affect what they're doing as a Minister now. HUNT: Explain that question, I don't quite understand what you mean. HUMPHRYS: Well what I'm suggesting to you is that some people say that it doesn't matter what Ministers may or may not have done in that past so long as their present behaviour as a Minister is fine, so long as they're performing their duties as a Minister perfectly adequately. Would you take that view? HUNT: No because I stand by the guidance from Ministers which includes all facts known to an individual when they become a Minister. That guidance is very clearly set out and thanks to the Prime Minister publishing it everyone can now read it. There are also in addition guidance for Members of Parliament, in addition to the guidance for Ministers, but the guidance to Ministers over-rides everything else so far as Ministers are concerned. HUMPHRYS: I put it to you because that's what Jeremy Hanley, the Chairman of the Conservative Party said last night. HUNT: Yes and I agree with what Jeremy said. HUMPHRYS: But, no, he said and let me quote 'As for the activities of a Government Minister, as far as they are concerned, whatever Mr Hamilton may or may not have done in past, that has not affected what he is doing as a Minister. HUNT: No I don't believe it has. In that specific instance I agree with Jeremy Hanley. HUMPHRYS: But that's being a bit narrow isn't it. That's inviting ... HUNT: ... I've been very careful, John not to comment specifically any further on the case of Neil Hamilton. I've nothing to add to what's been said already and I agree with Jeremy Hanley in what he said. last night. I'm much more concerned about the wider issues involved. HUMPHRYS: And those wider issues many of your colleagues say that there ought to be an independent investigation of those wider issues, do you agree with that? HUNT: Well at the moment we have the Committee of Privileges has been charged with looking at the wider issues. HUMPHRYS: But it's ... because the Labour members are refusing to take part in it because they want it to be held in public. What I'm suggesting to you is what Sir Norman Fowler and others have suggested in the past twenty four hours or so, that there should be an outside investigation. Do you go along with that? HUNT: Well it's very difficult to say yes or no to that when you have a Committee of Privileges sitting. Parliament's decided to set up this committee. It is a matter for the committee to decide whether it's in public or in private. HUMPHRYS: But you'd have a very ... HUNT: It's always in the past decided to sit in private but it is a matter for that committee to decide and it is very difficult to start talking about setting up any other body until the Committee of Privileges, which I understand is going to meet during the course of this coming week. HUMPHRYS: I'm not talking about ... HUNT: ... has decided exactly how it should proceed in debating the wider issues involved so far as Members of Parliament are concerned. HUMPHRYS: But that is the fox looking after the chicken coop in one sense, in many people's views isn't it, and what I'm suggesting to you which is what Sir Norman Fowler and John Biffen, both very senior Members of your party, former Chairman, Sir Norman Fowler, says is there ought to be an independent enquiry looking into this whole issue. Now you can imagine people in their homes in Britain today saying well why not for heaven's sake. Then they can be seen to be above board and we can have clear rules set down. What's wrong with that? HUNT: Well we have tried that in the past. In the seventies there was a very deep look at what interests should be involved, how interests should be recorded. We had an outside body ... HUMPHRYS: Well let's have another look HUNT: ... looking at that. Now it's always an option and indeed I'm sure that we're going to look at anything that is possible to prove to people that we have the highest possible standards. It is very difficult, very difficult at the moment to argue in precise terms about what sort of enquiry that would be when Parliament has already decided to set up a Committee of Privileges investigation. That's a matter for Parliament, it's a matter for the committee but in the meantime, John you will know that I was asked by the Prime Minister on appointment, indeed my predecessor was asked to look at some of the wider issues involved because the Prime Minister's determined, not only to have but to prove to have the highest possible standards in public life. HUMPHRYS: And with that remit, having been given to you by the Prime Minister, you would not rule out the possibility of an open enquiry conducted - or involving - outsiders? HUNT: Well, let's just see whether I should rule it out at a time when parliament has decided, sofar as MPs are concerned, to have a Committee of Privileges investigation. HUMPHRYS: Of course you don't mean Parliament do you, you mean the Tories in Parliament, not the Labour Party, not the Liberal Democrats, because they don't want any part of this because it's being held in private... HUNT: The setting up of the Committee of Privileges was a matter for Parliament.. HUMPHRYS: It was originally, but now they're saying...(interruption)...because of public unease, let's have another look at that. HUNT: No, when a Labour Member of Parliament raised with the Speaker whether or not this Committee should sit in private or in public, it was made clear that that was a matter for the Committee and still against that background, on an all-party basis, Members of Parliament voted to set up that Committee. And I would just like to see it get on with its work. In the meantime, I don't resile from the fact I have to answer specifically your question about the wider issues involved. I have a remit from the Prime Minister to look at those wider issues and I will be making recommendations to him. As you know, that remit was..originated in May, sofar as non-departmental public bodies are concerned and the whole appointments process, so I'll be coming forward with recommendations to the Prime Minister. HUMPHRYS: Are you the right person to be conducting that investigation. Because afterall you were responsible yourself for many, many, many of the appointments to those public bodies that you talk about? HUNT: Yes, but as a minister I would contend that appointments that I've been responsible for have always been of the best possible people. Now, when I was Secretary of State for Wales, I was responsible for a lot of appointments and indeed I appointed a lot of people from other political parties. Perhaps one of the most important non-departmental public bodies, I appointed a former leader of the Welsh Nationalists to. I appointed Jim Callagham's former agent, but not because of any political affiliation but because they were the best people for those particular jobs. Now, I want to open up even more the public appointments process and I'll be looking at ways that we can do just that. HUMPHRYS: But the Chairman of the two most important quangos in Wales - since you've mentioned Wales specifically -David Roebedow (phon) lives in Monte Carlo, he was the head of the Conservatives Abroad Association, not a Welshman. To many people's mind that's a rather odd appointment....say there's a bit of patronage surely involved in that. HUNT: You and I have discussed the Welsh Development Agency before. The previous Chairman, Dr Gwyn Jones and now Dr Roebedow are responsible for what I believe you would acknowledge John, knowing all the reputation for the WDA to be one of the best development agencies of the world. HUMPHRYS: That isn't the issue though. That isn't the issue it is. It's the appearance of these things. I mean here is a man who was doing a very important job for the Conservative Party, doesn't live in Britain, lives in Monte Carlo, seventy thousand pounds for these two jobs - not a Welshman - people look at these sorts of appointments and say "well is that right". It's the appearance of the thing isn't it? HUNT: No, what you need are the best possible people and there is no doubt if you go anywhere in the world they will tell you how impressed they've been with successive chairmen of the Welsh Development Agency... HUMPHRYS: Now there was nobody in Wales who could have done either of these two jobs? HUNT: Don't forget that David Rowbedow has some impeccable Welsh credentials, but forget all that, he is undoubtedly an exceedingly successfully chairman of the Welsh Development Agency. So was his predecessor. Of course we must have the highest possible standards, but you must also pick the best people and I would contend that that has been a feature of appointments. But there's always a need to extend the scope of appointments. I know many Members of Parliament from all political.. HUMPHRYS: What are you going to do about that? HUNT: Well many Members of Parliament from all political parties, nominate and suggest people. I would like to find ways in which we could ensure, not only that people can nominate themselves to sit on public bodies, but that other people can nominate those that they consider to be the best possible individuals. HUMPHRYS: And do you agree they should be more openness? HUNT: Yes. HUMPHRYS: In the whole system? HUNT: Yes. HUMPHRYS: Tony Blair... HUNT: Yes I have been trying to secure more openness to make people aware that they can nominate individuals for non-departmental public bodies. Now, although the number has diminished by some thirty-six per cent, we have got a lot of local bodies, like training and enterprise councils, private companies, housing association bodies, local housing associations, local school boards and I would like to see a much greater opportunity for local people... HUMPHRYS: So you'll advertise those will you - will you advertise those appointments? HUNT: Yes, I'm considering. I don't think, I don't think it would be possible to nominate everything, but there is a way of ... HUMPHRYS: I'm talking about advertising them, saying that these are the jobs on offer, if you want to apply for them, fine, and we'll look at them and we'll publish all the details. Tony Blair says publish the list of all members of quangos, in many cases we don't know who they are, their pay, their perks and any position with any political party; absolute openness. Isn't that sensible? HUNT: Well if Tony Blair and others who have criticised would look at public bodies 1993 and we'll be publishing another edition this year...at the end of this year. They would see a great deal...a great deal of the information is already published. What I was talking about.. HUMPHRYS: Not, the sort of thing I've just been talking about.. HUNT: No, not the political affiliations. HUMPHRYS: A man's CV, curriculum vitae, is a secret in many cases, not able to be published, that's outrageous, we have a right to know, don't we, who is governing us, at whatever level it may be. HUNT: What I was agreeing with you about is that there is a place for advertising. Generic advertising, the sort of individual you know of that you believe would have a part to play on a non-departmental public body, or indeed on any of these other local bodies. The specific cases, so very few of these jobs are full time, but on specific cases there is a need for advertising and that has come, Virginia Bottomley on Health Trusts has made it clear, they have published a Code of Practice, the Treasury have published a Code of Conduct for those who serve on these ... HUMPHRYS: And what about publishing the list as well, publishing a list of all members, what's wrong with that, a sensible thing to do isn't it? HUNT: All those on the central list, who might be utilised... HUMPHRYS: All those who are appointed to any public body at all, there should be... HUNT: That list is available, Public Bodies 1993, if you go to a public library you can look at it. What the Prime Minister has asked me to do, is to look at that publication to see if we can extend its scope to include other provisions on openness, accountability and that's exactly what I'm doing at the present time. Because the Prime Minister is determined that we should have the highest possible standards and that people should see those highest possible standards working. HUMPHRYS: And it's very important too, isn't it, that you should get rid of this idea that if you're a Tory you have a much better chance of being appointed to one of these quangos, than if you're not? HUNT: Well John, there's been so much mud thrown around, I have to tell you some of it is trash. If you look through, just let me give you one example: the Imperial War Museum. We have a national hero, General Sir Peter de la Billiere, who's been made a trustee of the Imperial War Museum, Tony Blair and his party published a great document last week saying that it wasn't because General Sir Peter de la Billiere was a leading national hero, was a General, knew something about war that he'd been appointed trustee of the Imperial War Museum, they said it was because he happened to be a non-executive director of somebody that had at some stage had given money to the Conservative Party. I've got lots more. There is a senior member of the royal family, who sits on the board of the Overseas Trade Board and has done for a long time, according to this list that's solely because he happens to be a non-executive director of some company that gave some money. I do think there's an awful lot of nonsense being flung around. HUMPHRYS: You wouldn't think that you see if you lived in Wales, would you, where they're deeply concerned that there are four times as many, some say six times as many people who are Tories on public bodies, as there are members of other parties, and yet only a tiny fraction of the seats in Wales are held by Conservatives. It looks wrong, doesn't it? HUNT: I have to tell you, John, that we have greatly reduced the number of so-called quangos, there are eight hundred.. HUMPHRYS: Well it depends how you define a quango doesn't it. HUNT: All right, there are eight hundred fewer now according to any definition. HUMPHRYS: Not if you count all the other bodies that are out there. HUNT: If you count the over two thousand five hundred housing association bodies, if you count the school boards. But, let's just have a proper debate, let's make it clear that we are wedded to the highest possible standards and I challenge everybody to help us make it clear to every individual in this country, that we are prepared to have the widest and most open debate about these issues, in Parliament with the Committee of Privileges, elsewhere, because the Prime Minister wants to see the highest possible standards in public life. HUMPHRYS: David, thank you very much indeed.