................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 5.11.95
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Mr Dewar, do you expect every Labour MP to vote the same way, to vote with you tomorrow? DONALD DEWAR MP: I don't expect them to vote the same way in terms of being under duress to do so, it's a free vote but I think on the particular issue where there is a division between the Select Committee and Lord Nolan and that is not, for example, what Tony Banks was talking about, about advocacy. But on the issue of declaration of earnings from consultancies or agreements related directly to an MP's work, on that I think every Labour MP will be in the same lobby but of course we'll have to wait and see. HUMPHRYS: Well you say you think they'll be in the same lobby. Are you saying to them: "I jolly well hope you'll be in the same lobby" in the way that chief whips tend to do. DEWAR: ...that makes us sound a very unpleasant race of men. No, we're not trying to put pressure on in that sense. We've certainly indicated to people that we hope they'll be a good turnout and I've been very impressed by the efforts people are making to be there, cancelling very long term arrangements and coming back from all sorts of places where they thought they could safely be, but there will be a debate. But on a very large number of the propositions, there is I think a large measure of unanimity in the House. As I say, it's on that particular point, of declaration of earnings where most of the clashes have been taking place. HUMPHRYS: But you've made this a party political issue haven't you. DEWAR: No, I didn't make it a party political issue. I think in a sense the Prime Minister did, that's a matter for him but when he decided to reject in fact the argument that Nolan should be implemented and when there was a split on the Select Committee....I think it's a matter of a genuine difference of opinion. The Conservatives appear to be arguing that it is important that we should not invade privacy. I think that's a tax matter, and earnings affair, I think that's a general proposition to which I would exceed but I think where it is a matter of earnings that relate particularly to the work of the parliamentarian, then I think that general presumption is overruled. And I rather liked your opening statement if I may say so... HUMPHRYS: That's very rare... DEWAR: No, let me give it to you, you said that it may be that parliament will decide to stop taking money for arguing someone else's case and I think that's the reason why I believe on this occasion declaration of earnings is entirely justified. HUMPHRYS: If you're concerned about what MPs disclose though, why don't you make them disclose absolutely everything, effectively open up their tax returns to the public gaze. DEWAR: Well I don't think personally that's necessary and it's not of course a proposition that has been put either by Nolan or by the Select Committee. HUMPHRYS: There's no reason why you shouldn't put it though? DEWAR: There's no reason why I shouldn't but I'll tell you why I don't and that is simply that if, for example, you have earnings which are nothing to do per se with your job, as a Member of Parliament, or your work as a Member of Parliament which have not come to you because you are a Member of Parliament, then I don't think that it is fair to rebuke the presumption of privacy which I referred a minute or two ago. But if I'm getting money, if I'm getting money because I am an MP, because I can offer a service which I couldn't offer if I was not an MP then I think there is a public interest in that being transparent, open and above board, I think the public has a right to know. HUMPHRYS: I take that point but it does rather weaken your position in a sense, doesn't it. I mean there you are with that very dramatic poster saying "What have the Tories got to hide?". Well what have you got to hide from the kind of disclosure that I've just talked about? DEWAR: Well I have nothing to hide.. HUMPHRYS: Not personally but.... DEWAR: I hold to the distinction that I made, I think it's a self-evidently valid one. I mean I believe that as a Member of Parliament, if someone comes along to me and say I want advisory services about a role in the House of Commons, which are built on my role in the House of Commons the passing of information which I could only get as an MP then it seems to me that I have to declare that as an interest and no-one would argue about that. But it is very relevant in judging what impact that has upon me as my judgement and my time to know whether it is really a thousand pounds a year to deal with necessary expenses or whether I am getting the kind of sum that might make my bank manager purr. Now it does seem to me that that is an important distinction and one which.... HUMPHRYS: I take that point but there's nothing way of looking at it. We see lots of MPs writing for the newspapers, it may be that they write like Jane Austen, on the other hand it may be that they've been invited to write because of their political connections and their political nous and what they've learned while they've been in parliament so there is a link there. There's a link with lawyers as well isn't there. DEWAR: I think it certainly is possible to say that a journalist - I mean Donald Dewar writing an article may never find a publisher, Donald Dewar MP telling the secrets of the Labour whips office just might, might be of some interest to someone. This again is somewhere where there's unanimity I think on the Select Committee, I believe largely about
....but if someone is writing regularly and has a contract to so do then that is certainly something that should be declared. If it is something that has to be yet declared and registered in the number of interests then if we win the vote and I say we - people of my mind - win the vote on Monday night then those earnings would have to be revealed as they would of any other advisory contractor that existed. HUMPHRYS: You are in favour of disclosure? DEWAR: I'm certainly in favour of disclosure but the disclosure within the limits I've described to you. HUMPHRYS: Are you also perfectly happy that MPs and it suggests...what you said earlier suggests this is the case, that you're happy that being an MP is a kind of part-time job. DEWAR: No. I don't think it's a part-time job and I think a great deal of what happens in Parliament is related to the outside world. It's related to outside organisations. I'm unashamed in saying that when I had specialist interests, I relied very often on briefing from outside organisations and that's part of...I've got to be well-informed. They've got to have an entry into the debate. That's all part of the proper Parliamentary process. But, as soon as I take money for services, in relation to that, then I think I have a duty to reveal them. And, of course, I think, that if MPs have other jobs which take up a large part of their time, that's a matter which they may well have to wrestle with their conscience and their constituents. HUMPHRYS: But, why are you making such a fuss about disclosing earnings related to activities as an MP? If they can't do it and they can't under the Select Committee's recommendations, then they can't be paid for doing it. DEWAR: Well, if it is advocacy then that is banned. That has actually been banned, in theory, since 1695. HUMPHRYS: Technically, yeah. But, now it's been refined. The whole thing has been sorted out. DEWAR: Since 1695/1947... It has always been the rules of the House of Commons that you can't take payments for a return for an agreement which inhibits your freedom of action, your freedom of judgment and ties you to a specific point of view. What the Select Committee is doing and what Nolan tried to do...and the Select Committee has toughened it to some extent, is that they have tried to make that ban practical and they made a distinction between advocacy and advisory services. I support that. There's no doubt about that. The two overlap, of course, because if you're an advocate you're also almost certainly an advisor and even if you're banned from advocacy services, you may want to register your advisory agreement. But, once you have registered that, it seems to me highly relevant. And really I didn't see any argument in the Select Committee Report that persuaded me that there's a substantial argument against saying that you ought to declare earnings in that area. HUMPHRYS: Let me offer you the argument against the advocacy thing then. There is downside for you, isn't there because the net now has such a fine mesh that it's catching the kind of fish that, perhaps, you didn't intend to? The point that Anna Neagle has made - and, has been made very clearly now, in the last twenty-four hours, that you get a huge amount of help from some organisations. I'm thinking of UNISON, who pays for the provision of the Research Assistant for the Front Bench Health Team. Now, you're going to lose that under these rules. DEWAR: I'm not necessarily going to lose it. That's a matter for the individuals. That's a matter for .... HUMPHRYS: But, that's the implication, isn't it with these new rules? DEWAR: I mean, it is quite clear, at the moment, if you have that sort of arrangement, you have to declare it on the Register of Members' Interests. What we are now saying that not only what we are arguing and what the Government - sorry - what the Select Committee has resisted, with the support of the Cabinet is that the proposition. Not only should you declare that interest and register it but that you should also declare the scale of the financial support. Now, if we win on Monday, that financial support will have to be transparent, above board and open to the public, I think that is right. HUMPHRYS: But, you can't have a Front Bench team that can't initiate things and that's the effect of these recommendations, isn't it? The declared intent of these recommendations. But, if they're taking money from an organisation, like UNISON; and UNISON says: Look, we want you to put down whatever it is, and early day motion, or whatever it may be, you can't do that. DEWAR: Well, I, certainly, accept that we will have to be very careful to make sure that we don't transgress those particular rules, which are- HUMPHRYS: But, that's a very prescriptive- DEWAR: I mean, what we can certainly do is take part - as you well know - in debates. That has always been the situation. HUMPHRYS: Fine. You can't initiate it. DEWAR: You've got to declare any interest that you have and there is no reason why you shouldn't, for example, ask general Parliamentary questions in the area of Health. HUMPHRYS: You can't put down a question. DEWAR: What you can't do - yes, you can - HUMPHRYS: Not under these new rules. It says you can't initiate.... DEWAR: I don't think that is a very interesting interpretation and it may very well be... HUMPHRYS: So, Tony Banks got it wrong there? DEWAR: There may well be rulings on that. What clearly you can't do is put down Parliamentary questions, or early day motions, or initiate listeners which give a particular and specific individual advantage to that sponsoring organisation. But, if you are going to have a general campaign about health standards, if you're going to have a general campaign about how you organise the Health Service that is a matter of general, public interest. What you can't do is put something forward which is tailormade... HUMPHRYS: Yeah! DEWAR: ...to the particular...that are sponsoring.... HUMPHRYS: So, therefore, this is going to disadvantage some Labour MPs. It's going to disadvantage those Front Bench Labour people, those Front Bench Health people. For instance... DEWAR: Well, I don't think it will disadvantage them because almost all of our campaigning is not related to a narrow, specific advantage for one particular union or organisation. HUMPHRYS: No. But here's a specific case. UNISON paying fifteen thousand.... DEWAR: It is a matter of the Health Service, the way it is run, the way it is organised, what health policy should be and the stuff - you know the very foundation - of the argument about the Health Service will continue to rage I've no doubt and properly should rage. I think that you are asking us to build upon a very proper wish to stop people tying themselves to arguing a particular case and taking money for it. You're trying to expand at that very proper ban to a ban on just general particular debate and the argument about how we should in fact run our affairs. Now, that, of course, is not what is intended. HUMPHRYS: What about this amendment? How can you justify arguing against a delay in the implementation of this? DEWAR: Well, I believe, that we should strike at what everybody agrees is undesirable - not undesirable, it's too harsh. But a looseness of the system which has led to some very unfortunate results. You know, as well as I do, that the reason why this has come up is because there have been a sad trail of incidents that have come to the public knowledge - I don't want to go into them individually but have come to public knowledge - which have, in fact, badly damaged I think people's perception of how Parliament runs its business. And I think there is an overwhelming public wish to see the House of Commons put its own house in order. And, to do that, I think, it is right that we strike at advocacy. The idea that you tie yourself, that you become a paid spokesman for an interest group. But, on the other hand, having banned that, I think, there's the wider issue of when I get money specifically out of my role as a Member of Parliament, I think, there is a public interest that it should be declared and transparent. HUMPHRYS: Donald Dewar, thank you very much.