................................................................................ ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 7.7.96
................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The Tories and Labour have been firing off some of their big guns this past week - Tony Blair with Labour's blueprint for the election campaign; and the Tory Leadership trying to blow it out of the water. I'll be talking to Michael Portillo. What part can he play in the Tory fightback? That's after the News read by CHRIS LOWE. NEWS HUMPHRYS: And it's been another pretty miserable week for the Tories. They tried to launch a pre-emptive strike against the Labour Party's new policy document - and it didn't work. Messrs Heseltine and Mawhinney did a double-act poking fun at Labour's policies - but the verdict was that it was THEY who'd ended up looking silly. And THEN - when Labour did launch its document - IT was taken very seriously. Page after page in the newspapers and as much serious analysis as any spin doctor could have wished for. So what ARE the Tories to do? The clock is ticking away to the General Election and they're still miles behind in the polls. Well, it's rumoured that they're sending for reinforcements and Michael Portillo is about to be pushed into the front ranks of the Tory attack. Mr Portillo is the Defence Secretary and he has his OWN problems trying to sell his policy on married quarters for service families. Mr Portillo, you want to sell off about fifty-eight thousand homes to private companies, and then lease them back. What's the point of that? MICHAEL PORTILLO: I want to improve the quality of service housing, and if I sell the married quarters I can raise a hundred million pounds that I can spend on improving the homes that our service families live in. And, I can do this I think, without affecting them in any other way, because the MOD will be the tenant of the new owner. They will continue to pay their rents to us, their rents will be set independently. And the only change that they will see, I believe, is the fact that I have that money which I can spend on improving their properties. Those properties, some of them, at the moment are not in good repair, and what is just as bad we have about twelve thousand empties which we've not been very good at selling. They ought to be sold into the general market so that people in the public can benefit from getting a roof over their homes and we don't have homes that are left empty. HUMPHRYS: But you'd raise much more money than that altogether. Obviously I mean, one point-six billion is the figure that's been quoted. I mean isn't the real reason for doing this to raise a bit of cash to help the Chancellor cut taxes? PORTILLO: We've not been good at owning property. We've made a bit of a mess of it quite honestly. We've had these empties and we've not maintained the properties in the way that we should have done. And, I know of no other way that I'm going be given a hundred million pounds to spend on improving the properties. And I say that because within my department naturally the money that we have we think first of all of spending on weapons and on salaries, and on things like that, and owning property has been a rather secondary activity for us. Now I want to make it clear in future that we will no longer be in the business of building houses and buying them and selling them, but we will be in the business of making sure that some of the money we receive for the houses we spend on improving the stock that we've got. HUMPHRYS: But you've been criticised by your own MPs, many of your own MPs, for the way you've gone about it. Julian Brazer (phon.) said it's going to be a bad deal for the service families themselves, and a bad deal for the taxpayer. PORTILLO: It's been very difficult to convice Julian, I agree. HUMPHRYS: And others. PORTILLO: And a few others, but I have taken the service chiefs with me. Now, you know as Defence Secretary, I hope ... HUMPHRYS: They do work for you, the service chiefs. It's not quite the same. PORTILLO: Well, as Defence Secretary, I hope you'll believe that my principle concern is the welfare of service people and their families, and the protection of their ethos. But even if you doubted it of me, you couldn't possibly doubt it of the service chiefs. And, the reason service chiefs are supportive of this - they've said so publicly - is that they too know that some fo the properties are not very good at the moment, and they too know that this is the best way of raising the money to improve the properties. HUMPHRYS: The problem is they don't vote, do they in the House of Commons, or indeed the House of Lords? PORTILLO: No. But I hope even those people in the House of Commons who've had their doubts about this will recognise that the Service Chiefs are not going to let down their people. I mean you say they work for me. They're not going to go along with a decision that they think is against the interests of the services. HUMPHRYS: No, but I mean what we're concerned about, people like Mr Brazier (phon), what they're concerned about is the way it's being done. I mean this idea for instance that the developers to whom you sell the properties can sort of swap. They can give you one of their sites for one of the MOD's. And, the problem with that - people are worried about it anyway - is that they can kind of cherry pick the best sites. It seems a bit of an odd arrangement to make. PORTILLO: Well, they say we're selling to developers, and actually most of the candidates are financial institutions. HUMPHRYS: Well, whoever they may be.... PORTILLO: They're not developers at all. I mean that is a pejorative allegation. HUMPHRYS: Oh. PORTILLO: They are not given the right to cherry pick. The Ministry of Defence continues to be the tenant of the properties and we can decide which properties we're going to hold onto and which we're going to give up. That's true that we shall give some up, because we've got twelve thousand empties at the moment and the way we do our business and where we do our business changes from time to time. So, I'm absolutely sure that we shall have some empties but what we'll do is we will let those go in discreet groups, because we don't want to break up what's known as the patch. We don't want to break up the community of service housing, because it provides a very vital social reinforcing mechanism which I think is particularly important when service people are away from their family serving their country. HUMPHRYS: But there is going to be this sort of system of arbitration isn't there? PORTILLO: Well- HUMPHRYS: If, if-When it comes to arguing the toss - if it comes to arguing the toss I suppose - there's going to be a system of arbitration. They'll have to use lawyers then to weigh in on either side. That, some of them say, is going to cost a fortune, and it seems a rather odd thing to spend money on. Why didn't you arrange it in a way that that didn't have to happen. PORTILLO: I think that really is getting the wrong end of the stick. It may be from time to time that the owner would propose to us to take back one of the sites that we presently have and to offer us another. HUMPHRYS: Which you may not want. PORTILLO: Which we may not want. In which case what we would do is, we would measure the offer. We'll say: Is this an offer that gives us something as good as what we've got at the moment or better, in terms of the housing, the size of the rooms, the availability and quality of schools, religious facilities, leisure facilities, travel to work, employment opportunities for the families. All these things will be measured to assess whether it is a better offer. If it is a better offer we'll accept it. If it isn't we'll resist it. And, if there's any conflict between us then it would be resolved by arbitration, which seems actually, the way of saving legal fees, not of generating them. HUMPHRYS: Your critics aren't impressed - some of them anyway aren't - I know some of them are, some of them have withdrawn their names from the motion and other names are going on it. But those who weren't most unimpressed are still not impressed. Are you prepared to offer them any sort of compromise at this stage? PORTILLO: Well, all the way through I've made improvements to the deal that I was offering, in order first of all to make sure that the Service Chiefs were happy - made some important changes there, and since I've been talking to parliamentary colleagues I've made another couple of changes. I would be pleased to make any improvement consistent with proceeding with the sale on time. I had a meeting the other day with backbenchers. I didn't actually receive any specific proposals, but I did say:
I'm all ears. Specific proposals I will certainly consider to make sure the deal is just as good as we can possibly make it. HUMPHRYS: Were you surprised to see so many names on that motion criticising your policy? So many names of people whom - Members of the Right-Wing of the Party, the same wing of the Party as you, who - you might have expected to support you? PORTILLO: Well, you have to understand that in the Conservative Party there are a lot of people who are very interested and concerned about the services, the armed services. This is one of the things that's different between us and Labour I think. We have a lot of people who are generally concerned about these matters. So, I'm not terribly surprised to find that people express their concern. Indeed, if they have their concerns it's their duty to express them. It's my duty to explain my policy, and as you say I have explained it, and a lot of people have withdrawn their concerns, their worries and their opposition. I think we're down to just a few people. You can't judge a policy by whether you manage to convince just everybody and sometimes you just can't convince- HUMPHRYS: No. PORTILLO: -you know, the last few. But, I think we've made good progress in explaining the policy, and I think that's been useful in itself. HUMPHRYS: I take that point. But I mean the suggestion is put forward that in some cases it isn't the policy that these particular MPs wanted to bash, it was you, yourself, Michael Portillo. PORTILLO; Well, my approach to it has been to concentrate on the issue. And, certainly, there have been genuine concerns about the issue. And, it's been my pleasure as well as my duty to explain what the policy is, and to get rid of some of the misconceptions which have undoubtedly arisen, but I think genuinely. HUMPHRYS: But do you accept that that is the case, that some of those who signed that early day motion were out to get you, or at least make trouble for you possibly? PORTILLO: Well, the people I've spoken to have had real concerns about the issues, and that's what.. HUMPHRYS: No, no. I take that. Of course, many of them will have done. I'm wondering if that's the .... because you haven't spoken to all, whatever it was of them have you? You haven't spoken to every one of them. PORTILLO: No, I haven't actually, although I've tried to. I've used my best endeavours to speak to everyone. HUMPHRYS: But, I mean, there's sixty (phon) odd at- PORTILLO: Well, that's our job, we speak to a lot of people. And, I have used my best endeavours to speak to people, and I have found genuine concerns, and I just concentrated on dealing with those and making sure that everybody understands what we're really about, because it is quite a complicated matter. It is possible to misunderstand things. HUMPHRYS: But is there a Portillo bashing going on, in your view? PORTILLO: In my view not. You are a journalist so you hear more things than I do. HUMPHRYS: Well. PORTILO: But I have been getting on with the issue. HUMPHRYS: I don't know whether I hear more things than you do. You're in the House all the time, and I'm not, but at least I heard Jonathan Aitken, who said: "There is a game of Portillo bashing in some quarters. There's an anxiety in the corridors of Westminster that one or two have joined in because it makes like difficult for Michael Portillo". PORTILLO: If I recall, Jonathan came into the question, because someone had said that he, when he was a Minister of Defence had not been a supporter of the policy, and he came in to say that indeed he had been a supporter of the policy - he thought it was a very good one - and I was very grateful to him for that. So, I think, it's important obviously that the facts should be straight about that. HUMPHRYS: What, grateful to him for pointing out that there's a game of Portillo bashing going on? PORTILLO: No, no, that's not what I said. HUMPHRYS: Well, if you were grateful to him for one thing, I wondered about the other thing. PORTILLO: No, I was very grateful to him for making it clear that this is a policy that has enjoyed the support of ministers over a number of years because, you know, apart from anything else there's been some accusation that we've dreamt this up very quickly, not at all. It's been in development for years and years and years. We've been talking to people about it for a long time and Jonathan helpfully made that point. HUMPHRYS: And was it helpful that he made the other point? PORTILLO: Well I don't think he did make the other point. I think... HUMPHRYS: Well verbatim quote. PORTILLO: I understand that but how did it come about. I think someone put the point to him because that was something that people were already writing about, but may I just repeat... HUMPHRYS: And he agreed with it. PORTILLO: ...that it's the issue that matters to me. HUMPHRYS: I understand that but you can't, I mean as you know as well as anyone, you can't take personality out of politics as much as some people might wish it to be but then, you know, we're not in an angelic state yet, sadly or otherwise, and politics, personalties do matter don't they. PORTILLO: But I don't believe I've come across anybody, for instance on this issue, or more generally, who would say: "alright you've explained the issue to me, I've understood the issue but I'm against it because it's you", in fact I've never heard that and I don't think that's a realistic proposition. HUMPHRYS: But you've said yourself I hope nobody's playing politics with service family as well. PORTILLO: And since I said that I've become more and more certain that we're dealing with genuine concerns and..that my job has been to explain it. HUMPHRYS: Let me suggest to you perhaps why, one can never be certain about these things of course but why so many of the sorts of names that I referred to earlier were on that motion. They were Redwood supporters, supporters of John Redwood. Now there is this view that you and Mr Redwood are rivals for the Party Leadership - whenever it becomes vacant. I know you're a loyal supporter of Mr Major but at some stage it's going to become vacant. You and Mr Redwood are seen to be Right-wing rivals for the leadership, now that, some suspect, is the ulterior motive for what was going on there. PORTILLO: Well, although you have paraphrased me a moment ago, I mean let me just repeat the point because it is important that we are all working together in the Conservative Party for a Conservative victory under John Major and as I think we may go on and discuss in a moment - we'll talk about the strategy, I believe the strategy is going to be successful and John Major will win and he will go on being leader of the Party. And so I really just don't think there's any reason to get into any other sort of discussion about this at all. HUMPHRYS: Well, but it's happened. I mean it is a perception, indeed you wouldn't deny surely that you at some stage and Mr Redwood will be fighting each other for the leadership of the Conservative Party, there's nothing to be ashamed of in that is there? PORTILLO: There may be nothing to be ashamed of but I really just do not know whether that would happen, when it would happen, why it would happen, or how it would happen. HUMPHRYS: Do you want me to tell you how it would happen, I'd be very happy to do that. PORTILLO: Let me tell you a completely different scenerio which is that John Major will win the next Election in the next year. He will do it against your collective view at the moment of what is likely.. HUMPHRYS: We look at the opinion polls - I don't have a personal view.. PORTILLO: But it's happened before, the collective view last time was that he wouldn't win, the collective view this time last year was that he wouldn't win the leadership, he did. Mr Major is somebody who defies the odds because he has a very striking and particular personality, with a great appeal, and I reckon he's going to win again. And therefore these issues just don't arise and for all I know the next leader of the Conservative Party is somebody who hasn't even entered Parliament yet. HUMPHRYS: Indeed, all of that may happen of course, but then at some stage, at some stage Mr Major is going to give up the leadership of the Conservative Party. They all do, I mean it happens to everybody and then at that stage somebody is going to have to take over. Now there are two people who are seen to be candidates from the Right-wing of the Party, one of then is Mr Redwood, one of them is you, perhaps there are others as well. But what seems to be happening, at least this is the impression that's been created, what seems to be happening is that there is a bit of a campaign to de-stabilise you. PORTILLO: Well I very much doubt it. I have just been concerned to be the Defence Secretary and to defend the interest that I have mentioned to you and to carry forward British interest in the world, to make sure that we do the best job we can in Bosnia, to make sure that NATO is reformed in a proper way, to make sure that we have a decent security relationship with the Russians, to make sure that we are protected against the possible rise in new agressive states with very nasty weapons. That is what I am concerned with and I'm sorry to find your line of questioning a bit irrelevant to all of that but it is really very much to the side of my daily life in politics. HUMPHRYS: I do want to come onto the broader political..but just to clear this up. Is there no sense in your mind that somebody is trying to orchestrate any kind of campaign. You see..it's either that you see or that you're kind of accident prone because we read stories. I mean this week alone we've had the story about you not having gone to the the Somme as the Defence Secretary. It was Lady Thatcher indeed who drew one's attention to that. A few weeks before that it was another allegedly noisy party that you had been at, at beating retreat (sic). Now somebody, it appears, somewhere is stirring things up a bit. PORTILLO: Well I don't share that rather paranoid presentation of what's going on.. HUMPHRYS: Why is it happening then, somebody's doing it. PORTILLO: And by the way I don't believe that I'm accident prone. I mean let's just deal with the Somme for a moment. In that case some veterans invited not me but Sir Patrick Mayhew. Why did they invite Sir Patrick Mayhew - because his father had fought at the Somme... HUMPHRYS: Absolutely. PORTILLO: ...and because he'd served in the same regiment. I can't imagine a better representative of the United Kingdom. HUMPHRYS: Indeed, so why was attention drawn to your not going by your own... PORTILLO: Well I don't know. If you're in politics of course bad constructions can be put on things and you just have to accept that, there's no point moaning about it you just get on with doing the best job you can and you hope that at the end of the day people will take the broad picture - you know what did he do while he was Defence Secretary and I hope that people will see the work that I've done on Bosnia and NATO and so on and stuff that doesn't attract much interest is nonetheless quite important. HUMPHRYS: But it would be helpful if that wasn't happening, is what you're saying are you? PORTILLO: Well obviously one would prefer that not to be the case but all politicians are got at for things that they do and not everything from our point of view is exactly accurately reported but you know we understand the nature of the world that we move in. We put up with that and we've got to be strong and robust and present ourselves and move forward and get on with the things that we think are important and hope that we can present an overall picture to the public which represents what we think of as being the best achievements of our work. HUMPHRYS: And maybe it's a bit more difficult for you to either fight back or fight for yourself because you're doing a ministerial job, you've got a department to run whereas some of them don't. They are free as it were. PORTILLO: Well if you're referring to the opposition I... HUMPHRYS: No I wasn't actually, I was referring to Mr Redwood, going to come onto the opposition in a minute but I was referring to John Redwood. PORTILLO: I think the point is certainly fair as regards the opposition. HUMPHRYS: Come to that in a second. PORTILLO: We have a real job to do but in any case I am very concerned to do the job that I do well and it's got a lot of responsibilities and a lot of representation and so, that's right I won't be drawn into fighting about every little issue that appears in the newspapers but what I will concern myself with is whether my policies are right. Going back to my first issue, you know it really does matter to me that the Chiefs of Staff are supporting what I'm doing to the extent of being willing to say so in public, I appreciate that and I think it's right because we are actually working very closely together to do what we think is best for the services and for the United Kingdom and for its defence. HUMPHRYS: Do you get worried that the sorts of things we've been talking about - the sort of things I want to talk about,you haven't particularly - is kind of damaging your attack? Taking attention away from what you ought to be seen to be doing and that is focussing your attack on Labour. PORTILLO: I think it would only worry me if it distracted me from doing the right thing on Bosnia, for example, or if it stopped me from, you know, attending an important meeting to sort out the future of NATO, or something. But, it doesn't. I don't let it distract me and it won't. HUMPHRYS: Is that attack being...proving to be as effective as it ought to be? And I mentioned in the introduction the Michael Heseltine/Brian Mawhinney business last week, when you tried to blunt Labour's launch. PORTILLO: Yes. HUMPHRYS: And, it didn't work, did it? I mean, there we had the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chairman of the Party, behaving like a couple of television comedians and not getting away with it and people didn't laugh at what they were doing, they laughed at the whole scene there, didn't they? I mean, it was demeaning, rather, wasn't it? PORTILLO: But of course come the Election that won't matter. Nobody's going to remember how it was launched, what they're going to remember is what was launched and I believe that the strategy of attacking new Labour for its new dangers is exactly right and the audience to which Brian Mawhinney and Michael Heseltine were performing that day was perhaps the most cynical and hardbitten audience in the world. It's the London Lobby Correspondents. These are the same people who, four years ago, told us that we'd made a complete mess of it because we'd come up with a slogan which was about Labour's tax bombshell - there's another stupid thing to say. It won us the Election. HUMPHRYS: Sure but I mean they do write in the newspapers don't they and the difference between now and four years ago is that you've now got people like..papers like The Daily Mail, even the Express, the Sunday Mail, The Telegraph, all joining in this ridiculing of your efforts. PORTILLO: But, you know, the great thing about being in politics is that we can communicate with the Electorate. We can put a point of view to them. The frustrating thing about being in the media is that despite all your best efforts to colour people's opinions they will, nonetheless, make up their own minds. HUMPHRYS: You don't think it matters at all what the papers report between now and the Election? PORTILLO: No. I think it does matter but I believe that 'new Labour, new danger' is a very powerful and well-directed message and I think a number of people who laughed at us this week will not be laughing at us at the time of the Election. HUMPHRYS: But, it could be...I mean, your problem seems to be - doesn't it - as far as Mr Blair himself is concerned that you had no real difficulty in the past. You had no trouble with Michael Foot with ridiculing him - that stuck - you had no trouble with Neil Kinnock - that stuck - John Smith wasn't there, sadly, for long enough for it to matter. But, Tony Blair, it doesn't seem to stick with at all does it, because he's seen almost to be a Tory himself maybe - or, at least, he doesn't sound very Socialist. So, every time you try to ridicule him, he seems almost to gain in authority, rather than be diminished. PORTILLO: No, I don't think in that at all. I think he's pretty good at PR. I think, he's quite a slick operator but I can't say that I think he 'gains in authority'. I mean, the indignity of what he has been through which is, apparently, abandoning so many principles along the way, standing on his political head - chopping and changing - these indignities do not, in my view, lend him greater authority, they make him look like a person who has no solid reference points. No principles upon which the policy is founded. Now, our strategy has evolved as their's has evolved. About a year ago, their position was: let's not declare any policies and now they have begun to declare some policies. We have, therefore, analysed those policies and we see them to be very dangerous. We see the breakup of the United Kingdom to be dangerous, the surrender of powers to Brussels to be very dangerous; higher taxes, higher spending, the Minimum Wage, the Social Chapter. These would destroy jobs, these would destroy our competitiveness. Now, these are policies which are features of new Labour and they are very dangerous and that's what people have to understand and we will explain that to them. HUMPHRYS: But I mean..you say your strategy has changed a bit. It's gone through a hundred and eighty degrees, hasn't it? There wasn no new Labour you kept telling us, it's the same old lot. You know, red in tooth and claw. Now, you've discovered there is a new Labour and this is your difficulty isn't it, because can't return to the old attacks. PORTILLO: John, I find this very paradoxical. Everybody knows that the Labour Party has somersaulted its way through politics. Now, naturally... HUMPHRYS: But you didn't. You used to tell us that. You used to say it's the same old lot - Blair, these warm words, but you watch it once they get into power, it'll be the same old Labour, again. It's not now. PORTILO: Well, many of the features of new Labour are extremely close to some of the features of old Labour. For example.. HUMPHRYS: You're not switching back again are you? PORTILLO: No, no, I'm not but I'm reminding you that one of the dangers is the breakup of the United Kingdom. The last Labour Government ended with a catastrophic Bill on Devolution and they tell us that the next one would be begin in the same way. One of the dangers of new Labour is that they would give trade union people power that they never had before, they weren't even offered under Michael Foot. Now, that is... HUMPHRYS: Oh, oh... PORTILLO: Oh yes, there are two specific proposals for trade union powers that were never offered under Michael Foot: the compulsory recognition of trade unions, after a ballot of employees and the outlawing of the sacking of strikers. These are things that were never offered before but they're now part of Labour policy. HUMPHRYS: I could give you a dozen things that Margaret Thatcher introduced and the Labour Party is not even touching - this higgledy-piggling for one and the list is absolutely endless. You know practically well that the policies that they are advocating now are not remotely - certainly in that area - like the policies that were advocated five years ago. PORTILLO: But John that is where we started. Of course, we recognise that Labour have been through the somersaults. Now, that for a moment they appear to have straightened out, so that we can recognise what they're talking about, we identify that their policies are dangerous. There are new dangers, although in many cases they return to old areas. So it's not the same as they were saying on the trade unions before - that is true but what they are saying on the trade unions today is dangerous. HUMPHRYS: What's extraordinary about this is that they seem to be so confident now that they're attacking you even over Defence - I mean a Labour Party attacking a Conservative Government for running down the armed forces. PORTILLO: They're not confident, they are cheeky. I mean, that is just an extraordinary proposition to say. And I'll tell you the crucial difference is this: we are a Party full of people in our backbenchers and in our Cabinet who are determined to see secure British defences. The Labour Party as a Party full of people on their backbenches and in the Shadow Cabinet who are determined to run down our defences. They vote for it, year after year and even now they say they are going to have a Defence review. We have already taken, as you know, the proper dividend from - what's known as the Peace Dividend - from the fall of the Berlin Wall, the breakup of the Soviet Union and so on. We're spending a bit less on Defence. We've reorganised our defences, we've entrusted to the modern world, we're spending more on equipment, we've got highly capable forces, we're able to project them better than other people. We've got more in Bosnia than other European countries, we had more in the Gulf than other European countries because we've done it well. And now all that having been done, Labour say they want a Defence review. Now, you would be naive in the extreme, in my view, if you didn't realise that a Defence review under Labour is simply an excuse for massive reductions in spending. Why - because the Labour Party does not have people within it who support strong, armed defences. HUMPHRYS: Well, let's look at what their spokesman is saying, rather than what you are saying. Overstretched - I quote - overstretched is the order of the day in the armed forces. Not only has the Government cut the numbers it has failed to recruit even up to that reduced level. The result is four thousand soldiers short and morale is plummetting, that's their Defence Spokesman. PORTILLO: A Defence spokesman can say anything. What we've been talking about until now is what Labour would do and since at
every conference they've voted for reductions in spending, way below where we are now, down to the European advantage. Why should Britain spend at the European average? We're a global power. We are on the permanent side of the Security Council of the United Nations. We have global responsibilities. Why should we go down to the European average as Labour votes for again and again? HUMPHRYS: Why should the country bear their weight? PORTILLO: Because our weight is made up of different elements and our economy is not as big in world terms as it used to be but we can make a very important contribution to world security through our Defence forces, through our diplomacy and so we should because although we may be a small country and although we are definitely a European country, we are also a global thinker and a global doer and under the Conservatives that's the way we shall remain. HUMPHRYS: Michael Portillo, thank you very much. PORTILLO: Thank you. ...oooOooo...