HC Deb 16 February 1983 vol 37 cc289-90
55. Mr. Cryer

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will revise rules governing tendering for, and conflicts of interest in, consultants to bodies appointed by Ministers.

Mr. Hayhoe

The existing rules already give comprehensive guidance. There are no plans for revision at present.

Mr. Cryer

If the existing rules give comprehensive guidance, does the Minister realise that two members of the Serpell committee are principal partners in two consultancies which, between them, received over £500,000? Is he aware that the public at large are extremely suspicious, particularly when one of the committee members is a friend of the Prime Minister's economic adviser? Does he realise that those two consultants have been lining their pockets at the expense of the public purse? It is not good enough to have rules that allow such a thing to happen. If it is happening, as it clearly is, the rules must be revised. Such a thing would not be allowed in local government. People feel that the Government are applying a set of double standards.

Mr. Hayhoe

I heard the exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport earlier. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing this vendetta in the way that he is.

Mr. William Hamilton

Scandalous.

Mr. Hayhoe

The appointment of consultants was fully in accordance with normal rules and precedents.

Mr. Charles R. Morris

Is the Minister aware that there is appreciable public concern and anxiety about the circumstances in which the Serpell committee appointed consultants outwith the normal tendering arrangements? Will the Minister confirm that, with regard to the appointment of those two companies, the contracts should have gone out to tender had the guidelines established by the Government's chief accountant been observed? Those guidelines laid down that a candidate would be ruled out if there was a clash or a potential clash of interests. In those circumstances, is there not a case for a revision of the rules?

Mr. Hayhoe

The guidance that was given by the chief accountant was in no way broken by what was done on this occasion. I remind the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members of the clear precedent in 1974 provided by the McGregor inquiry into the press, which had, as one of its members, Mr. Chorley of Coopers and Lybrand.

Mr. Cryer

It was wrong then.

Mr. Hayhoe

That inquiry commissioned work from Coopers and Lybrand. That precedent in 1974 under the Labour Government makes nonsense of the spurious anger on this issue.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. I hope that you will give me a favourable opportunity.