................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 5.11.95
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: So the Labour Party has at least some complications tomorrow but it's the government with the biggest difficulties. One view is that they lose either way: even if they win the vote they risk being painted as being in favour of sleaze. So, Mr Newton, before we get into that in some detail. Let's talk about the amendment that is going to be put forward tomorrow which would say in effect let's delay bringing in these new rules until the next session of parliament because afterall MPs who came in this time came in under a certain set of rules? TONY NEWTON MP: Well I'm obviously aware of the argument and I think without breaching the confidentiality of the Select Committee's discussions I can say that we did look at that very carefully. Indeed on one point the timing of the application of the ban on advocacy to existing agreements there was a difference in the committee but the overwhelming majority of the committee felt that this ban should be immediate from the start of the next session. And the plain fact is as far as that's concerned, that if you have come to the conclusion - as the committee very clearly did unanimously - that it is not right for people to be paid directly and specifically for making speeches, introducing bills, moving amendments, we can hardly say that that is wrong but it's going to be alright for the next eighteen months. HUMPHRYS: Do you find it helpful on disclosure? NEWTON: Helpful on disclosure...? I'm sorry I not quite sure... HUMPHRYS: The postponement - a postponement,a possible postponement. NEWTON: Well I can see the argument there and no doubt some people will want to look very carefully at that issue but we thought, the committee thought by a majority that given the - and it's interesting your..the direction your programme is taking - the ban on advocacy is very radical and sweeping and is quite different from and goes much further than Nolan and it was in that context that we went on to look at the rules about disclosure of remuneration. The contracts themselves of course would have to be deposited with the parliamentary commissioner but it was proposed that they should be deposited without the remuneration for reasons you may want to press me on in a moment but that was the view of the committee by a majority. HUMPHRYS: You said you'd looked seriously at the thought of postponing the disclosure? NEWTON: No I said I thought many members would want to look seriously at that possibility.. HUMPHRYS: And what would you recommend it personally because this is afterall a free vote isn't it. NEWTON: Yes but I was Chairman of the Committee and I agree with its recommendations and I intend to support its recommendations. HUMPHRYS: Why are you opposed to the Nolan recommendations on disclosure? NEWTON: The programme has been making that point throughout but I will now spell it....(interruption)..indeed absolutely right. The...as I've said this ban on advocacy...and indeed a ban on advocacy even by those who are simply advisors in the sense that they won't be able to table amendments, introduce bills, ask written questions and the like or oral questions other than supplementary ones and the like is very very far reaching. It is much simpler and clearer than what Nolan suggested and I think that it goes to the heart of what has been the cause of public concern. So you've got the whole argument about disclosure in a somewhat different context, in which a lot of the things that Nolan was aiming at or appeared to be aiming at, are just not going to be allowed at all. You then get into the grey area in which you have indeed been probing in the programme of what this borderline is between the areas where you would actually have to declare the remuneration and where you weren't. You've already made one of the strongest points, it seems to me, that manifestly a great deal of the broadcasting, writing, lecturing that Members of Parliament do, which brings in quite a lot of income is..arises only because they have been elected as MPs. Now there's quite a lot of income involved in some cases but under the proposals, the Nolan proposals that wouldn't have had to be declared as far as I can see. HUMPHRYS: And under your proposals that will will it? NEWTON: Under our proposals...no what I'm saying is that if you are going down this path, I'm drawing..making the point about drawing the line, if you're going down this path you've got other grey areas as well like the position of somebody whose contract requires only business advice, but who in practice is almost certain to give some advice about parliament as well. So what I'm really saying is that once you go down this
disclosure route, it seems to me that you inescapably are moving down a path towards full disclosure of tax returns. Now, I understand of course that there are some people and it certainly didn't include the committee and it evidently doesn't include at least many in the Labour Party, who might feel that that would be right. But I don't feel that that would be right, I think it would inhibit large numbers of people from wanting to be Members of Parliament at all, and I think you would then go down a path in which the only people who wanted to become Members of Parliament would be either those with a great deal of independent wealth which is what it used to be like, or those who are professional politicians or if you like, those who are attracted into it by the money. HUMPHRYS: Right, so what you are saying is that the restraint on advocacy, the new restraints on advocacy, proposed restraints on advocacy are so tight that there's no need for disclosure because it's dealt with that but you are also acknowledging that in truth they're not that tight, there are lots of grey areas. NEWTON: I think they are very tight. The report itself acknowledges that wherever you draw distinctions of the kind that we are talking about or indeed the rather different distinctions that Nolan was suggesting, for example, between multi-lobbying, multi-client lobbying firms and others, what were and were not parliamentary services, all that, there are going to be difficulties of definition and there will have to be, if you like, a body of experience and further guidance built up which we hope will be done by the parliamentary commissioner and the new committee on standards and privileges which we hope to get set up on Monday. HUMPHRYS: So a lot of your people are quite right to be worried aren't they. Let's look at an example that wasn't in that film, that we've all heard talked about, Michael Shearsby (phon) Sir Michael Shearsby of the Police Federation. He will not be allowed to initiate things, he won't be able to put down an early day motion for instance, or even initiate a question to use the word that occurs in the ruling, in the recommendation, to put down a question to the Home Secretary. Now that's a very odd position for the adviser of the Police Federation to find himself in isn't it? It's not workable. NEWTON: Well, I think it is workable. People may not like it, but I think it is workable. The position is I don't know what Michael's or anybody else's contract says. He would not be able to have a contract at all which actually required him, in which he, as it were, undertook for payment to make speeches, move bills, do all the things we have been talking about.... HUMPHRYS: Ask a question of the Home Secretary? NEWTON: Not a contract which actually required him to ask - in which he undertook to ask questions of the Home Secretary. HUMPHRYS: Oh, but in the real world you know perfectly well what happens. He gets a fee from the Police Federation quite properly - nobody is objecting to that - and they might say to him, "Look, why don't you ask the Home Secretary about XYZ", he gets up and does it. He won't be able to do that. NEWTON: He will not be able to have an agreement under these proposals that actually required him to initiate parliamentary action in that kind - I mean you're quite right in a way to raise your eyebrows. This is very far-reaching but the committee, and the committee I may say was unanimous on this. There was no division at all on this point that this is something which our rules in the House simply should not allow, to be paid specifically for taking - using parliamentary procedures if you like. HUMPHRYS: And we've got the case as well then, another raising eyebrows issue maybe, certainly for a lot of your members, Peter Atkinson, and Sir Michael Neubert we saw in that film whose constituency duties as it were, responsiblities clash with the assertion (sic) or are sympathetic with the duties that they have for the organisations who pay them. Now, they've got a problem. NEWTON: Well, the report again makes clear that nothing in this is - seeks to override a member of parliament's first duty which is to his constituents. If it is specifically a constituency interest then there would manifestly .... HUMPHRYS: Ah, but how do you say specifically, you see, I mean if Michael Neubert wants to raise a point about the fishmonger in his local market he could be doing it on behalf of the organisation he represents. So he's got a problem, he can't do it. NEWTON: Well, if he's being paid by an organisation to represent the interests, to initiate, to agitate on behalf of market traders generally, then I think he would need to confine his activity to those that could be specifically related to the interests of his constituents. HUMPHRYS: A void judgement, a Solomon time this isn't it? NEWTON: Yes, there are - don't get me wrong. As I've said now several times, these are not easy matters which is why the committee has spent - probably met longer and harder than any other select committe in history, and has recognised that there will be areas in which as experience develops furthere guidance will be needed from the new select committee in the same way as has happened historically with the old committee on members' interests, about the interpretation of the rules. HUMPHRYS So, we may find the rules being interpreted in such a way that these people are allowed to carry on doing what they have been doing? NEWTON: I think that would be virtually impossible, if the House indorses our recommedations tomorrow night as obviously I hope they will. I don't seek to shy away at all from the fact that there will be difficult cases, and that we haven't in the report been able to chart an exact path through every grey area. It's not that kind of problem, but what I think we have done and which this programme has very clearly focussed on, is to set a new line much clearer than anything else, anything that's existed in the past, which gives us the best way in to meeting public concerns about some of the things that they believe have been going on. HUMPHRYS: It's a bit like the line (phon) in the sand at the moment though isn't? The wind's blowing the sand all over the place. NEWTON: No, I don't think it is, and the other point that I would make of course is that none of this applies to anybody who is only - who is simply representing an interest because they support that interest, rather than have any financial ...(INTERRUPTION).. or a constituency interest where no question of financial payment arises. HUMPHRYS: But you may a problem here may you not, and Sir Micahel Neubert's made it clear that if this extremely limiting ordinance goes through, he may say "I'm going to deny it, people say that Ted Heath...are going to defy it". People say Ted Heath might do the same. They could blow a huge hole through the side of it could they not? NEWTON: Well, we are talking about the rules of the House, and not an Act of Parliament, and at the end of the day as happened when the Register of Members' Interests was introduced, Enoch Powell declined to go along with it, members will have to make their own judgements, but I think the overwhelming majority - in fact I'm sure that all MPs - that the
overwhelming majority of people outside will think that this is sensible and right, and I don't believe they will put pressure on Members of Parliament to do things which the House has said they ought not to be doing. HUMPHRYS: But you don't think it will severely embarrass you if a handful, maybe only a handful of some very high profile MPs said, "No I'm just going to ignore this , I'm going to go my own way". People will then say, "What's it solved?" MEWTON: It would create a difficulty for the House of course, because sooner or later no doubt there would be a complaint to the new committee on standards and privileges, and they would have to make a report to the House, making a recommendation of some kind, and the House would have to decide exactly as the Committee of Privileges which I currently chair made a recommendation in the Cash for Questions case. HUMPHRYS: The object of this whole exercise has been to restore the reputation of parliament hasn't it - of you people who represent your constituency's interests. It's all becoming so complex now, so difficult that people are going to say "Well, hang on, what's changed, we are thoroughly confused" (INTERRUPTION) This has been an immensely complicated and confusing conversation hasn't it? It's not your fault but it is now becoming terribly confusing. NEWTON: Well, I don't think that either the situation or the problem has got any more complicated and confusing. What I think has happened is that certainly for the first time since the introduction of the Register of Members' interests just over twenty years ago, parliament has taken a substantial fresh look at all this and sought to find new boundary lines and new ways of meeting public concern, and I think that the select committee have made a very good job of that. HUMPHRYS: And how's the Commons going to vote tomorrow? NEWTON: Ah, well, individual members will no doubt be considering things over this weekend. You've only got to listen to some of the interviews at the beginning of this programme to know that inevitably people are taking a bit of time to digest this report. HUMPHRYS: It sounds as if you're preparing yourself for a defeat. NEWTON: No, no, I think these are good proposals, I think that the House will support them, but as I've always said and is fundamentally the case, it is a matter for the individual judgement of Members of Parliament. HUMPHRYS: Tony Newton, thank you very much. ...oooOooo...