NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY ................................................................................ ON THE RECORD LORD NOLAN INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 14.5.95 ................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: It's become clear in the past twenty-four hours or so, that the Nolan Committee's Report into standards in public life is just the beginning of what may be a very long and controversial process. Nolan made a series of recommendations about MPs' outside interests and how ministers should behave and they were broadly welcomed by all political parties. But Lord Nolan himself has made it clear he wants to go further. When I spoke to him a little earlier this morning I asked him what areas he wants to look into next. Lord Nolan, where do you go from here? LORD NOLAN: We have now done what we were asked to do first time around, which is to produce a report within six months. The Prime Minister's original plan was that we should then sit back and have questions referred to us of a specific kind, that we would become in other words a standing committee for the rest of the three years of our appointment.
Now, as you know, we concentrated on three particular subjects in our first report and that left a lot still to be done, which I think we must cover before we can, so to speak, sit back and simply stand to receive references. HUMPHRYS: And what are those things you think you
must cover? NOLAN: First the House of Lords, at first I was not entirely clear that the House of Lords fell within our terms of reference because we were after all set up by the party leaders in the Commons, but the House of Lords itself accepted that they would be looking to us for help over their review of their arrangements which is now taking place and when the Lord Griffiths Committee has reported to the House, it's envisaged I think that our views would be sought if we have anything useful to offer. HUMPHRYS: What else? NOLAN: The question of local government is present in many people's minds and certainly in our terms of reference, so that's a possibility, a number of other subjects have been put on a list of things that people have written to us about, those are the things we are going to start discussing at our committee meeting next week. They'll be two items on the agenda next week, first to consider the reactions to our report and secondly, to consider what you are asking - where do we go next and how do we do it. HUMPHRYS: The question of how political parties are funded is one of great concern to many people, are you prepared to look at that? NOLAN: I was surprised to read in this morning's papers that I am about to have a confrontation with the Prime Minister about it, I have no plans for a confrontation with the Prime Minister. HUMPHRYS: Perhaps he has plans for it himself. NOLAN: He may, I don't know. Our terms of reference as at present drawn, wouldn't cover party political funding as a subject in its own right and so if we were going to tackle it the first thing that would have to happen would be for our terms of reference to be changed. Secondly, I think this is a very important question we'll have to consider as a committee, we have operated so far as an all party or if you like, no party committee, well able to take on controversial subjects but not ones that divide the party and all the parties were anti-sleaze. Whether they are all united on the approach to party political funding, I don't know, if they are not that's clearly a danger for an all party committee. HUMPHRYS: I'll come back to that in a moment if I may, but do you think your terms of reference ought to be extended to take in political...party political funding? NOLAN: I don't want to duck a question, it's clearly a matter of lively debate and controversy, clearly one which I imagine the media suspect and probably..would trust has a lot of good stories in it and about which would interest the public generally, it's a serious matter. Whether we're the right committee to look into it I'm not sure. HUMPHRYS: Your mind is open on that? NOLAN: Yes. But let me just complete the difficulty as I see it, we have absolutely no powers, we have no real status except as an answering body for questions, a sort of think tank where ten unelected individuals, and I think we want to be cafeful of appearing to be too big for our boots, some people may say we have already been too big....
and we...having no power, we have so far operated on the basis of openly on the record, which was plenty and on further information given to us voluntarily by a large number of people and that's been all we've needed for the work we have done so far, if we were to turn into a detective agency, we'd have to become a very different body. HUMPHRYS: It's unlikely isn't it that the public sees you as being too big for your boots, don't they see you as a sort of safeguard, working on their behalf and isn't that what you ought to be doing, listening to what the public is concerned about and then saying, therefore if they are concerned about this, we ought to seek a change in our terms of reference, a broadening of our terms of reference? NOLAN: Well that would be one reaction, to take the first part of your question, yes, I think we are cast in the traditional role of the auditor, a watchdog not a blood hound, and if the watchdog sees
something which is troubling the public, which needs looking into, then he should bark... HUMPHRYS: But there's no question that the public is concerned about this. NOLAN: Yes, indeed, but whether he then tries to turn himself into a bloodhound is another question or whether he says this is a question which should be looked into, but it's going to need a different kind of inquiry, not one we can do ourselves - that would be a possible approach. HUMPHRYS: But I'm interested in this distinction between the watchdog and the bloodhound. In your role as watchdog which is how you see yourself at the moment, what would the watchdog's view of this terribly important issue of funding political parties be? NOLAN: This one tenth part of the watchdog committee before expressing a view, would read the fairly recent report of the select committee on the subject which I haven't done, and study what's happening in other countries and say, have we got things we can learn from them, and would also of course as a first step, find out how far the parties and those who subscribe to them are willing to open the books. HUMPHRYS: But if one of the parties, Tory, Labour,
Liberal Democrat, it doesn't matter, if one of the parties, said, "Look, we don't think you ought to be looking into this issue", but you yourself, one tenth of the committee or even nine tenths of the committee thought you ought, would you then be prepared for a confrontation to use the word you used earlier? NOLAN: Well, we would then become a divided committee wouldn't we? HUMPHRYS: Well, let's assume it was a hundred per cent, let's assume that you were unanimous on this. Would you be prepared to seek, but to face the possibility of a confrontation with whichever party it was. If for instance the Prime Minister said, "I don't think you should be looking", because we understand that that's his view, that he doesn't think you ought to be looking into this question, but if you were persuaded that there was enough concern on the part of the public that you ought to be doing so, then what would your view be? NOLAN: I think that the terms in which you put the question may not be quite specific enough. Are you not really envisaging the government saying no and the other parties saying yes? HUMPHRYS That's entirely possible isn't it? NOLAN: Yes, and that would create a real problem for a committee whose membership has been nominated in part by each of the main parties, which might then cease to be a united committee of the kind that we've been so far. This would gravely weaken us. It would take away a great deal of our authority and it would land us into two things we've so far avoided, that is party political dog.... fighting and investigation of specific facts which as we all know is a lengthy, time consuming and very difficult business, it probably needs police powers and all sorts of things we haven't got. HUMPHRYS But are you suggesting that it's possible that the committee could be split over this issue, perhaps over others as well, but over this particular issue if one of the parties sought to create a division, and wouldn't that in a sense be selling the public short, if indeed the public does see you as being the watchdog, as it appears they do? NOLAN: Um, well, I'm not quite sure that I'm following your question, if saying, and let's be specific about it, if the Conservative Party, government said, "No, this is wrong", and let's say nine tenths of the committee disagreed with the government, that would leave Tom King who has put on as a Conservative Party member with a difficulty. I've no idea what he thinks about it, as I say none of us have considered this, but it would create an entirely new situation, it would take this committee which has got plenty of work to do on its original agenda, and with its original ways of working into a new confrontational area, and I would want to think very carefully before I answered any more questions about how we might approach it. HUMPHRYS: But you're not saying at this stage, and it is to an extent hypothetical, but only to an extent, you're not saying at this stage you would back away from such a confrontation, from such a possibility, the possibility the committee might be split, because after all on that basis it would be terribly easy for Mr Major if he so chose to say to Tom King, "Look, you know, be the minority, therefore split the committee and therefore that neuters the committee. That wouldn't be very acceptable to you would it? NOLAN: Well, we've...to answer your question, the first thing that would have to happen though would be to alter our terms of reference...agreed by all the parties. HUMPHRYS: Right, but you are prepared on the basis of - I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I'm assuming this is what you're telling me, that on the basis of concern that has already been expressed, you would be prepared to seek an extension of those terms of reference if you thought there was the public demand for it, let's put it like that? NOLAN: If I thought there was the public demand for it, if I thought we could do the job, and if I thought we had the necessary powers, and those are three big ifs in my mind at the moment, and I don't think I can carry them further until I've done some more research on what the subject would require and what my committee members feel about it. HUMPHRYS: Can we move on then to look at what was in the report, consultancies, cause for concern I think was the expression used, but in a sense didn't you rather pass the buck by handing it back to parliament and saying, "Look if you want them banned altogether that's for you to decide" Shouldn't you have decided it yourself? NOLAN: Well, we considered that, and in particular whether we, as we say in the report, we considered whether we should call for an immediate ban on consultancies which allow or enjoin advocacy, putting the client's case in parliament, and the reason why we drew back from it was two-fold, first that it would have meant calling on members of parliament in mid-parliament to break or give up engagements which they'd entered into perfectly lawfully, and apparently in accordance with the rules governing the register. HUMPHRYS: Though you could have set the balance some time in the future clearly, say within six months or whatever, a suitable period. NOLAN: That's actually near enough what we've done, but the other - the two difficulties were these, that the law of parliament is obscure. The 1947 resolution looks on the face of it quite clear that you mustn't bind yourself to do something for a client in parliament, but then you get the committee of the rules on the register of members' interests....specifically envisage doing such things as lobbying civil servants, arranging functions in the House for clients, and there's a conflict there, and we don't think that we should try and make parliament's laws for it beyond making recommendations in matters where the facts are clear. Now I'm a lawyer and I like to get facts clear before I make a recommendation, and the area of fact, and this is the other area in which we felt we weren't in a position to make a recommendation was just what all of these agreements do require the members to do and what they get paid for them. HUMPHRYS: But you're saying quite clearly that if parliament doesn't look at this properly, and doesn't come up with some sort of recommendation within a specific period of time, then you yourselves will make a firm recommendation? NOLAN: Yes, that's our plan. HUMPHRYS: And how long is that period of time? NOLAN: We envisage about a year from now. We've recommended that consultancies and sponsorship agreements with trade unions - this is the other side of the coin - should all be reduced to writing where they're not in writing, and deposited with the Registrar of the Register of Members' Interests and that will enable the public to see what members have taken on in the way of outside loyalties and obligations to unions or companies or trade associations or charities. Some members, as you know, are already completely open about this. For example, Mike O'Brien, who is a consultant for the Police Federation, actually publishes accounts of every penny he spends; he doesn't draw a salary. A number of MPs to whom we put the question at our public hearings, said that they could see nothing wrong with declaring your contract because it was a contract made as a result of your electors voting you into parliament and they should know how you're using the authority given to you. HUMPHRYS: That's the kind of transparency you want to see across the board? NOLAN: That's the kind of transparency we want to see, and then with all that information we'd like parliament, we've deliberately tossed this ball back into parliament's court and say now what do you think is the answer and if they don't come up with an answer, we'll...we would like to see if we can offer any further help. HUMPHRYS: Lord Nolan, thank you very much indeed. NOLAN: Thank you. ...oooOooo...