HL Deb 18 July 1995 vol 566 cc157-68

5.47 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blotch)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement to the House on the Government's response to the first Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life which is being presented to the House today as Cm 2931.

"My right honourable friend and distinguished predecessor, the Member for Wirral West, told the House on 18th May that the Government accepted the broad thrust of these recommendations. The response covers all the recommendations addressed to government: 45 of 55 recommendations in all.

"The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is determined to uphold the highest standards in public life. The response details the Government's plans for implementation and action in respect of all the 45 recommendations addressed to government. It also sets out further proposals for a new Civil Service code, and for a new introduction to Questions of Procedure for Ministers.

"We accept the Nolan Committee's recommendation that Ministers should be brought within the scope of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. The response emphasises the very great importance of continuing interchange between business and commercial life and ministerial office. We should do nothing to deter talented people with private sector experience from entering public life, and nothing which prevents those who have completed their ministerial career from applying that experience to the benefit of British industry and commerce.

"The Nolan Committee strongly supported that principle, and to translate it into action we shall draw up rules setting out specific criteria, to be administered by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, to establish the circumstances in which Ministers should be advised to delay a particular appointment, or make its acceptance subject to conditions. We intend to publish a text for consultation before introducing the rules from the start of the next Session of Parliament. We intend to have a debate on this and the White Paper as a whole in the spillover Session. We shall also consult to the same timetable on an extension of business appointments rules to Ministers' special advisers.

"On the registration of hospitality accepted by Ministers, our response builds on the arrangements for registration of Members' interests in this House and on the guidance already contained in Questions of Procedure that Ministers should not accept hospitality which would or might appear to place them under an obligation. In the words of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, 'it is neither possible nor desirable to make a clear distinction between a Minister's conduct as a Minister and his conduct as a Member of Parliament'. "We shall act quickly and positively on the Nolan Committee's recommendations concerning appointments and propriety in public bodies and the National Health Service, building on many of the continuing initiatives which the committee endorsed. In particular we shall appoint a new commissioner for public appointments to offer guidance, monitor and audit departmental appointment procedures. This post will be advertised in a matter of days.

"We shall extend the use of advisory panels, including an independent element, to advise on appointments to executive public bodies and the National Health Service. This has been successfully piloted in a number of areas. All departments will introduce their own arrangements as soon as practical to allow the new commissioner to influence the procedures introduced. We believe that at the outside this will require no more than 12 months.

"My honourable friend the Member for Orpington announced last month a review of the legal framework governing propriety and accountability in public bodies, and their arrangements for external audit. We intend to reach preliminary conclusions by the end of the year, well ahead of the timetable envisaged in the committee's report.

"We have accepted the recommendations of Lord Nolan's Committee that there should be opportunities under the Civil Service code for a civil servant to raise concerns about actions in which he or she is not personally involved, and for nominated officials to investigate concerns raised confidentially.

"Our consultation period on the Civil Service code will now be extended to mid-September to allow further opportunities for comment. We accept the Nolan Committee's recommendation that implementation need not then await a legislative opportunity, and our intention is to have the code in action before the end of the calendar year.

"I am confident that the action we have set out will show the House, and the country as a whole, our determination to take practical steps which will uphold and sustain the highest standards of propriety, while ensuring that men and women of talent and experience continue to contribute to our public life."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

5.52 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement just made in another place. The first thing that has to be said is that, in numerical terms, when one looks at the White Paper which accompanies the Statement, it is true that a very high proportion of the recommendations made by the Nolan Committee have been accepted by the Government. It is important to put that on the record first. However, we have to read a little further to understand the implications of the Government's approach to the issues raised by Nolan. I am afraid that when we read a little further the situation is by no means as satisfactory as it appears from the simple enumeration of recommendations and responses.

Perhaps I may take, first, the issue of Ministers and private sector jobs after Ministers leave office. The problem is well-known. It is well-known that it is a problem peculiar to this Government. I am not conscious that any significant number of remunerative posts have been offered to former Labour Cabinet Ministers on leaving office. It is a problem which is peculiar in that it has applied particularly to those Ministers who have taken an active part in the privatisation of public sector companies and have then proceeded, almost directly in many cases, onto the boards of those privatised companies after they have left office. We hope that that may be a finite problem which will not arise in the future. Both of them may be finite problems which will not arise in the future. But they are particular problems and their political implications should not be forgotten.

When we look at the Government's response to the problem of taking up business appointments after leaving office we find that, although the Government claim to accept the recommendation, they do not in fact accept the recommendation that there should be a minimum three-month gap. They are perfectly willing to accept that there should be a maximum two-year gap but there is no acceptance of the minimum three-month gap. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us why that should be the case?

We know that the Nolan Committee talked about advice to Ministers rather than prohibition on Ministers. However, the phrasing used in the Statement, circumstances in which Ministers should be advised to delay a particular appointment", is a little weak in the circumstances. I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on the implication of that statement.

We welcome the suggestion made by Nolan and accepted by the Government that these timetables and rules should apply to special advisers and that special advisers should to that extent be brought within the scope of the Civil Service. I do not think there is anything very much we would want to say about the registration of hospitality. Nolan found that that on the whole is acceptable. Nolan's detailed proposals about registration, although they have not been accepted by the Government, do not cause us particular concern.

Where we start to have greatest concern is about quangos—non-departmental government bodies. Here we are told not that there is a response now to the recommendations of Nolan, but that Mr. John Horam has set up a review of the legal framework governing propriety and accountability. While acknowledging the appointment of a commissioner for public appointments, why is it that the Nolan recommendation that the appointment should be outside the Cabinet has not been accepted? Indeed, the staff of the commissioner are to work within the Cabinet Office. That is a worrying consideration.

When we come to appointments, all of the formal procedures proposed can very well be defended. But the formal procedures which we have had in the past have in effect been defended by Ministers over a number of years. We all know the reality. For a very large number of these appointments, departments and Ministers go round to the Whips' Office to get a suitable party candidate. What assurance do we have that the formal procedures that have been defended in the past and have clearly not worked will work in the future? What changes have taken place which give us that assurance?

We come to the propriety of the actions of the members of quangos. However many codes of conduct there may be, unless propriety is ensured by something much more comparable to the rules which apply to elected members of local authorities rather than to these appointed bodies, we shall not have very much confidence in them. Members of local authorities have been required by Parliament, following the Widdecombe Report, to obey very detailed rules on particular interests as opposed to general interests. I see no evidence in the Government's response—I do not see enough evidence in Nolan's analysis—of the need for non-elected members of quangos to be subject to at least the same rigour of rules as elected members of local authorities, including the threat of suspension and financial penalties, which do not seem to exist at the present time.

There is a good deal of reference in the Nolan Report to openness. There is some reflection of that in the Government's response. What does openness mean? It should mean that the activities of these bodies—the health authorities and so on—are as open as the activities of local government. In other words, except when there are particular issues of commercial confidence which need to be determined in private, non-departmental public bodies should conduct their activities in public in just the same way as local authorities. So far as I can see, there is no reference to that in the Government's response.

It is all very well, when talking about quangos, to speak about removing abuse of the system; but we must recognise that the system itself is an abuse. It is a fact that, even on the low estimates of Nolan, there are 9,000 appointments and £40 billion of public expenditure involved. Unless we are determined to bring those activities under democratic control, all of the codes of conduct and codes of standards will be of little value.

6 p.m.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, we on these Benches also greatly welcome the Statement. It is a most important Statement but inevitably a short one. Just as the Statement in another place produced the promise of a debate in the final part of the current Session, we also feel very strongly about the matter and would like to have a debate on it. There is so much detail in fine print which we cannot possibly pursue today because there is important business before the House; and, indeed, another Statement has already been discussed. However, I hope that we shall have such a debate during the spill-over period. That would give us an opportunity to pursue a number of matters that we cannot discuss today.

Naturally—and I make no complaint about it—such a Statement is selective. It is selective because of time and space but also because inevitably the Government want to put the best complexion on the decisions that they have made. I believe that it is for this House to scrutinise very carefully the White Paper itself against the Nolan Report. The Statement refers to a statement made in another place on 18th May that the Government accepted the broad thrust of the Nolan Report. It would help us this afternoon, and perhaps help to avoid further detailed questions, if the Minister could say, having accepted the broad thrust, where principally in the decisions set out in the White Paper the Government have actually departed from the Nolan Report.

There are one or two points to which I should like to refer. I do not pretend in any way that the Statement misleads the House, but I believe that inevitably the White Paper has rather more to say in its fine print than such a Statement. For example, Recommendation 14 is an acceptance of the need for the proper investigation of cases of "alleged impropriety affecting Ministers". In the White Paper there are also statements of the Government's position that they accept that recommendation. But, having discussed the problem and said that there is a range of alternative courses of action to be decided upon in each case, the White Paper does not spell out what those alternative courses might be. If not today, I hope in the debate that we may have in the spill-over period, the Minister will clarify the position more fully.

Again, there is reference in Recommendation 16 of the White Paper to the arrangements parallel to those of the Civil Service to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. The White Paper says: The Government accepts this recommendation, but believes there will be many circumstances in which the Advisory Committee will reasonably be able to recommend that the three month waiting period need not apply". There are a good deal of parentheses in the document of acceptance of the recommendations of Nolan followed by a "but" or a "however". As I said, although we cannot pursue all such matters today, I believe that we need a recognition of that on the part of the Minister, together with a statement of where principally the White Paper departs from the report.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer; namely, Annex A which deals with the conduct and procedure of Ministers. In itself, it is a significant document; indeed, I would make the case for a separate debate upon it. It is perfectly true that years ago no such statements were published. In fact, there was a time when Ministers had no such guidance. However, I must have been one of many Ministers who was guided by such a document. I am bothered by the fact that there are now some significant changes in Annex A to the document. For example, the first of the principles is: Ministers must uphold the principle of collective responsibility". Whether that is right or wrong, it is quite a different question to the conduct and procedure of Ministers. It is not something which might apply to all governments: it is a political process which we take for granted and which Prime Ministers often, rather unsuccessfully, try to enforce. However, I am not quarrelling with the thought—although I would be happy to discuss it—I am quarrelling only with why it is in the document.

Further, and more importantly, there is the introduction of the word "knowingly" into the paragraph in QPM which previously said: Ministers must not mislead Parliament". Now the document is to say: Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament". Perhaps the Minister will be able to say why I was able to live with the words, Ministers must not mislead Parliament", but apparently she is unable to live, given the Prime Minister's decision on the matter, with the words "knowingly mislead Parliament".

Yet again, referring to Ministers, the annex says: Ministers should avoid accepting any gift or hospitality which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement". In my time the wording simply said, "or might appear". However, "reasonably appear" has now been introduced into the document.

I also note that another paragraph which said, Ministers must keep their party and ministerial roles separate", has now been changed to read, Ministers must not use public resources for party political purposes. They must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service". I am not saying that there is no case for change, but it seems to me that those changes soften the rules for the conduct and procedure of Ministers. It would be most helpful if the Minister in this House could spell out very briefly today why she believes that the Prime Minister is obliged to make those changes.

As the Statement says, and as the White Paper very fairly makes plain, the latter deals only with those recommendations of the Nolan Committee which concern Ministers and the Executive; it does not deal with the recommendation of Nolan affecting Members of Parliament. I have no complaint at all about that because, as the White Paper says, it is for the Government to respond on those matters which affect the Executive; but it is for Parliament—and by that I mean both Houses of Parliament—to respond on the other issues of Nolan.

When the moment comes, as in our consideration of the Government's Statement today, I hope that we do not allow ourselves to be distracted unknowingly in our debate on the White Paper into the thought that the public are mainly concerned about the matters dealt with by the White Paper. Of course the public are concerned—and rightly so—but people are more concerned with the conduct of Members of Parliament; and, indeed, although it is a matter for the House at a future date, with the matters being considered by the sub-committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths.

Therefore, virtuous though many of the recommendations are, and good though there may be in most of the Government's acceptance of them, let us not forget that the people outside look to us in the conduct of our affairs to ensure most of all that our standards of public life in this country are as high as they ought to be.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am most grateful for the way in which both noble Lords have responded to the Statement. It was very constructive. I shall certainly pass on to my noble friends the request for a debate, possibly to match that in another place, to take place during the spill-over period. However, I say that without prejudice to the outcome.

I should like, first, to tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I believe he was a little disingenuous in what he said. Secondly, perhaps I may preface all my responses to what both he and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said. Before I respond, I should like to repeat something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, said in the introduction to his report. He said: It was equally clear from a considerable body of this evidence that much of the public anxiety about standards of conduct in public life is based on perceptions and beliefs which are not supported by the facts. Taking the evidence as a whole, we believe that the great majority of men and women in British public life are honest and hard-working and observe high ethical standards". The noble and learned Lord reached that conclusion after hearing evidence. It is important that we keep that in mind when referring to other points that have been raised.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was fairly scathing in his criticisms that although we had responded to 45 of the 55 recommendations, we had not done so wholeheartedly enough. He asked what assurances we can give about whether the procedures will be open and capable of clearing people's perceptions of those of us who operate in public life. The work of the commissioner and of the advisory committee on public appointments and the fact that departments will have to set up advisory bodies with an independent element will go a long way to clearing up some of the doubts in people's minds about how we operate publicly. The vast majority of people who take up public appointments in this country not only give generously of their time, energy and enthusiasm but mostly do so with great distinction and great integrity. We must remember that.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was concerned about the term "knowingly mislead". We shall, of course, debate the matter in much more detail when the time comes, but the use of the word "knowingly" here refers to wilfully or wantonly knowingly misleading the House. We in this House have a proud record. Those of us who sit on the Front Benches in this House may have gone through the pain of unwittingly misleading the House, but we have a tradition in this House of Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box to make amends for any statement in which they may have misled the House unwittingly. That is a very different matter from knowingly misleading either House. If we knowingly mislead the House, the culpability is ours personally. There is a real distinction to be made. We recognise that distinction in our suggestion that we alter the Questions of Procedure for Ministers in both Houses.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked why the Government have undertaken only to review the legal framework for propriety for quangos. He asked why there is to be no immediate action. The answer is that in Recommendation 45 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, stated that a review of those issues should be undertaken. That is what we have undertaken to do. As the noble Lord knows, this is a complex area and it is right that action on the legal framework should be viewed and reviewed carefully.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, queried Recommendation 14 and said that there had not been a full response from the Government. I repeat that the Government accept Recommendation 14. The way allegations are dealt with will depend very much on the nature of the case. An investigation is not necessary in every case where impropriety is alleged. Examples are given. I refer to where allegations are malicious, trivial or can be dealt with promptly in a personal statement by the Minister concerned. In such cases, investigation is not needed. However, where the gravity or complexity of an alleged impropriety is such as to merit further internal or even external advice or investigation to establish the facts, the Government agree that there is a range of alternative courses of action to be decided in each case by the Prime Minister in the light of the circumstances. The Government agree also that it is important to uphold the principle that advice from civil servants to Ministers should not normally be made public.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also said that we have not accepted for all Ministers the three-month gap which applies before a Cabinet Minister can take up a post. Many appointments will not raise any issue of impropriety. Some Ministers may return to a family business or a previous profession, for example. Where no issues of improper advantage apply, a three-month gap would serve no purpose whatsoever. The advisory committee on business appointments will decide each case on its merits and advise the Minister accordingly.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to the amendments in Annex A. He said that they are not all amendments to Questions of Procedure for Ministers. They are amendments to principles suggested by the Nolan Committee, which readily accepted that the detailed drafting was a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government. The present Prime Minister, my right honourable friend, was the first to publish Questions of Procedure for Ministers. In the noble Lord's day, there could be no debate about the text because in those days it was regarded as confidential.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to the activities of health authorities and said that they should be as open as those of local government. I believe that he was referring to quangos also. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and his committee examined the issue of openness and recommended that executive NDPBs and NHS bodies should develop their own codes on openness and build on the Government's code of openness. We have accepted that. We have endorsed the committee's standard of best practice on openness, including on opening meetings to the public and making the minutes of such meetings available to the public. The noble Lord also referred to public appointments and questioned whether the commissioner would be independent of the Cabinet Office. I assure the House that the new commissioner will be an independent person who will be appointed as a Civil Service commissioner, as the Nolan Committee recommended.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to the Government's response on the delaying of appointments. He asked why our response was not stronger. It is important that there is interchange between the public and private sectors. The rules need to reach a balance between that and providing safeguards to ensure that there is no impropriety in appointments. That is the whole point of opening up the procedure. Each case will be considered on its merits by the advisory committee on business appointments, which will advise Ministers directly. If the advisory committee thinks that a delay or behavioural condition is necessary, it will offer that advice. My understanding is that the advice will be made public.

6.15 p.m.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, where a former Minister is advised not to take up a particular post for two years, is it the intention of the Government that his ministerial salary will be continued for that period?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, it is not the intention of the Government that the salary will be continued. The recipient of such advice is not bound by it, but the advice will be made public if that person decides to take up the job. If the advisory committee advises that somebody should not take up a certain job for two years and must wait two years before doing so, one has to assume that, on the basis on which it came to that view, it would be improper for that person to take up that post and that it would therefore be proper for that person to take up a post elsewhere. The answer to the noble Lady's question is: no, the Government would not pay the salary in the meantime.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. I refer first to the new commissioner for public appointments. The noble Baroness indicated—I think that I quote her correctly—that he or she will be an "independent person". We welcome that, but will any Minister of the Crown be associated directly or indirectly with that appointment? Will any Minister of the Crown be consulted before that person is appointed? We should be grateful if the Minister could answer that question.

Secondly, the Statement indicates that the consultation period for the new Civil Service code will be extended until the middle of September so that additional comments can be made. We do not have any difficulty with that, but when will a Statement be made by the Government on that new Civil Service code? Does the Minister recognise that many of the gravest concerns arising from the Nolan Report—and, incidentally, some arising apparently as a result of the investigation by Sir Richard Scott—bear directly on this issue? It is an issue of the highest importance. When will we have a Statement from the Government on that point?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord if I do not answer his first question correctly. My understanding is that, as I said in the Statement, the appointment will first be advertised publicly. My understanding is that the commissioner will be appointed in just the same way as the Civil Service commissioner. Therefore, the appointments panel will be involved and I have no doubt that there will be ministerial involvement also. Again, I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.

On the second point the noble Lord raises, first, as he has said, there will be an extension of the consultation period. A debate has been promised in another place. I shall take back to my noble friends and the usual channels the request for a debate in this House. The Government will consider their response in the light of that debate. I cannot say when they will respond. I think that the noble Lord will agree that my right honourable friend is anxious that we respond as quickly as possible to all the outstanding points. I have no doubt that he will do the same with this issue.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, will the Minister clarify a couple of points for me? The first relates to Minister's knowingly misleading the House. I am a little worried about that. I have not been a Minister, but as I understand it, a great deal of what Ministers tell both Houses is the result of information they receive from their civil servants. If a Minister on taking up office says to his senior civil servants, "Always advise me what is in line with our policy, and do not tell me when I am misleading the House", effectively the responsibility is shuffled from the Minister onto the civil servants. What mechanism is there to enable the civil servant to say, "Look, it is not my responsibility. It is the Minister's"? If the Minister has not been told by the civil servant that he is misleading the House, he can get away from the problem by saying, "I did not knowingly mislead the House".

My second question relates to the concept of collective Cabinet responsibility. Again, I have not been in the Cabinet, but my understanding is that one could effectively describe it as a party political situation. My understanding is that Ministers are Ministers of the Crown. They are almost independent of people. They are effectively doing the Queen's business in a department of state. To think that they may be restrained from doing that business on behalf of the Queen because of some rule which is of a party political nature worries me a little. Will the Minister explain that side of things as well?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, on the first point, the noble Lord over-simplifies the role of those who have to serve on the Front Bench. First, we are not totally mouthpieces for the lines given to us by our civil servants. Clearly we have to be advised because a great deal of what we do is technical. We will take advice, be bound by that advice and deliver that advice. There are occasions when we do not agree with that advice. There is now a proper procedure set down here relating to the area in which a Minister may take a policy decision. There is a proper procedure for when a Minister receives advice, considers the advice but comes to a different conclusion.

There is now also a procedure for when a civil servant believes that a Minister is behaving improperly in any way, or even illegally, if one take a more extreme example. A procedure will be set down which will clarify the position to allow a civil servant to have a voice.

If in the course of answering questions—I am now answering a question well away from the brief on the Statement with which I started—I unwittingly mislead the House, I hope, as is the tradition of the House, that I would come back to the House and make amends. Sometimes we are cautious enough to preface what we say by saying, "I understand" or "If I mislead you, of course I shall write to you".

It would be a very different and much more serious matter were I knowingly to come to the Dispatch Box and mislead the House. That is why that behaviour is singled out as being a distinctive form of behaviour for a Minister. I believe that that is right.

On the other point, the noble Lord over-simplifies the whole issue of being a member of the Cabinet. Of course there will be spirited debate within Cabinet. I do not believe that there has been a British Government Cabinet in which there has not been lively, spirited debate and agreement and disagreement when subjects are being discussed. When a view is taken by the Cabinet, as a properly responsible member of the Cabinet it is entirely proper that collective responsibility is a condition of belonging to Cabinet. If one cannot accept Cabinet responsibility, the principled thing to do is to resign from Cabinet to make way for someone who will accept Cabinet responsibility.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, within the past 27 hours your Lordships have heard four Statements repeated from another place which have a strangely interlocking agent. In each case the interlocking agent has been the work of the media, specifically the work of the press, in giving rise to discussions and investigations into affairs which have required such investigations.

Yesterday a number of your Lordships expressed a wish to adopt the French system, which makes it much more difficult for the press and television to do their work. Had that been the case here, we would not have heard so much about any of the four Statements. The actions which led to Nolan would probably have not been made public, or not so many of them. It is ironic that all the Statements came together. It is the press which brought that about.

Only a few tributes were paid yesterday to the press for asking the questions that they have asked. There was a great deal of discussion about the invasion of personal privacy. It is that behaviour which everyone wishes to stop, and I have no argument with that. Were not the Government right yesterday to support the press and voluntary self-regulation of its affairs so that we were able to hear the Statement this afternoon and take action upon it?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. It is linked with the findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who said that we are dealing more with perceptions and beliefs about people in public life than what is the case in fact: that most people in public life are honourable and people of integrity. It is often the press that perpetuates the perception and belief. We must do what we can to counter that. As my noble friend pointed out, we can address these matters, but I think that it is depressing that we have to spend so much time and energy countering what are only perceptions and beliefs and not facts.

Back to