House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 May 1995

Column 482

hon. Members, we must have rules that are clear and that the public and hon. Members understand. It is absolutely crucial that that is done with clarity and care.

Mr. Hunt: In responding to my right hon. Friend, let me reiterate the fact that the committee examined a number of matters, and three in particular: first, hon. Members; secondly, Ministers and civil servants; and thirdly, non-departmental public bodies. In opening this debate, I am primarily concerned to give the Government's response to the recommendations affecting Ministers and civil servants and non-departmental public bodies.

As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the first set of recommendations affects right hon. and hon. Members and the procedures of the House and the report does indeed make a number of proposals. Some are straightforward and do not require clarification, such as the restating of the 1947 resolution on hon. Members and outside contractual agreements. But others need to be looked at carefully to ensure that the improvements in the rules and procedures are carried forward in the most effective way with the least room for grey areas. That important point, which was made by my right hon. Friend, deserves reiteration time and again.

We must examine these issues very carefully and, as I said, resolve any difficulties before implementation. The public expect us to get this right: it is too important to get wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): My right hon. Friend did not answer the question about a statute. If the terms upon which hon. Members serve are to be materially changed, is not it right for them to be decided by statute with all the slowness, deliberation and public discussion that that brings rather than in panic in response to particular circumstances? After all, the worst legislation that the House has passed was the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Single European Act. They were passed in a hurry--

Mr. Michael Trend (Windsor and Maidenhead): But Maastricht was not.

Mr. Budgen: In my opinion that was not done slowly enough but that is a different point.

If the terms upon which we serve here are to be changed it would be wise, would it not, for that to be done by statute which would perhaps bite at the beginning of the next Parliament?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend proposes a fundamental constitutional change because the conduct of the House is not a matter of statute, and if the terms upon which hon. Members serve were to be encompassed in statute, it would be a fundamental constitutional change. Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Hunt: I shall give way in a moment, but I should like to answer my hon. Friend. What he said has been heard by my colleagues on the Treasury Bench and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be responding to the debate. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will allow us to hear whether there are any other views, particularly those to the contrary, on the rather fundamental constitutional change that he has suggested.

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that it was the

Column 483

Prime Minister, because of the urgency and the great weight of expressed public concern, who asked Lord Nolan to make his first report within six months? If it was important for Lord Nolan to report in that time, surely it is important for the House to take action as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman talked slightly complacently about the problems not being too great. Does he acknowledge that Lord Nolan said:

"unless the strictest standards are maintained and where necessary restored, corruption and malpractice can become part of the way of life. The threat at the moment is not great. Action needs to be taken before it becomes so."?

Surely that action needs to be taken on the time scale that was recommended by Lord Nolan.

Mr. Hunt: There was a general welcome for the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was setting up this committee. The Prime Minister made it clear that the central reason for setting it up was the increase in public concern about conduct in public life. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Lady will think again about what she has said in the light of the central conclusion of the Nolan committee that

"much of the public anxiety"--

to which of course my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred at the time--

"about standards of conduct in public life is based upon perceptions and beliefs which are not supported by the facts." Of course, the hon. Lady is right, and I shall come to the action to be taken by the Government on the proposals as they affect the Government.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hunt: Of course, in one moment. Equally, is it not right that the Government, having arranged for this debate to take place, should listen carefully to views expressed by hon. Members of all parties before moving to the next stage?

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the deliberate time scale that Lord Nolan has put into his report? Lord Nolan uses the categories of A, B and C. If we are considering the recommendations that apply particularly to hon. Members--down that list some quite fundamental changes in the rules with which we are to govern ourselves are suggested--most of them fall into the A category, on which Lord Nolan wants to see immediate action and most of the rest of them fall into the B category, which means that action should be taken and new committees should be in place by November. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise how quickly we would have to act to fulfil that timetable and thus restore public confidence?

Column 484

Mr. Hunt: I say to the hon. Lady that these are very important issues on which I hope that all hon. Members will reflect carefully in their speeches. It is important to get the facts right. If the hon. Lady would turn to pages--

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hunt: In a second. If the hon. Lady turns to pages 7, 8 and 9, she will see that what she has just said is incorrect.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: No one wants anyone to procrastinate, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it is vital to get the detail right and that the job of clarifying rules and regulations should not be done overnight?

Mr. Hunt: As I have said on more than one occasion, these are very important issues for this House. Therefore, I think that Opposition Members --

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunt: Just one moment. Opposition Members do a grave injustice to the Nolan committee if they seek to make this a party political issue. I believe-- [Interruption.] Let me just make this point. I believe that Lord Nolan's committee has given us--

Ms Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just looked down the list of recommendations that the right hon. Gentleman said were all classified C-- [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me deal with this matter. It must be a genuine point of order and not a matter for debate. The hon. Member made a long intervention. So many Members want to participate in this debate, and this House and the country want to hear their views. Let us make some progress. Is it a genuine point of order and not a matter of argument?

Ms Eagle: I am concerned that the House has been given a misleading impression by what was said, because 19 out of 20 recommendations--

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. There has been no breach of our Standing Orders or our procedures. The hon. Member is arguing with the Minister, who has the Floor.

Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Lady is seeking to continue to dispute the fact, which is rather a waste of time, I ask her to look at page 7. From that she would think that she was correct. But instead of confining herself to page 7, if she turned to page 8, she would see that the majority of the proposals there were Bs. If she recalls, she said at the outset that the majority of the proposals were classified A. On pages 8 and 9, not one proposal is classified A. They are B and in one case C. Therefore--

Column 485

Ms Eagle rose --

Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Lady examines the record carefully, she will see exactly what she said. I do not understand why we are spending time on a matter that is so clear in the report.

Mr. Duncan Smith: At the outset, so that we may get the matter absolutely straight, will my right hon. Friend confirm for the Opposition Front-Bench team and all hon. Members that the matters concerning Members of Parliament are for Members of Parliament to decide and that what will be implemented has nothing to do with the opinion of the Front-Bench teams of either party? Will he confirm that what will be implemented will be up to this House and this House alone and the opinions of either Front-Bench team have absolutely no bearing on the matter?

Mr. Hunt: I agree--

Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a genuine point of order. Will you tell us how the Standing Order relates to declarations of interest in the course of the debate? Should hon. Members announce their interest when they speak--and, more particularly, when they intervene?

Madam Speaker: It has never been required that hon. Members declare their interests when intervening, but I shall think it very wise if all hon. Members taking part in the debate carry out our usual procedures and say at the very start of their speeches what their interests are.

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) that it is arrogant of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to seek to dictate to the House what the response of right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber should be to these very detailed recommendations.

To return to what I was saying a few moments ago, these are serious issues for the House. I believe that Lord Nolan's committee has given us an excellent opportunity to re-establish public confidence in the system now. We should seize that opportunity and not seek to divert the debate down a particular party political channel. We should rise above that debate in order to deliberate on the real issues that face us.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Will the Minister give serious consideration to the answer that he gave about the use of statute? Far from the use of statute being a radical proposal, the House has always dealt with membership and its rules by using the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. There are 400 disqualifying offices, and although there may be differences on some issues, many people believe that such matters should be dealt with by statute rather than through a commissioner who would deal with Members. We could say, "If you are within the law you are all right, and if you are outside the law you will be taken to court." So I hope that the Minister will not rule out statute as the proper way of dealing with the matter. He might find that it had a far wider range of support than he believes.

Mr. Hunt: When my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South- West (Mr. Budgen) raised a similar point, I said that that was an interesting issue but that it raised fundamental constitutional questions. Of

Column 486

course the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is right to refer to the House of Commons Disqualification Act. And of course that is a statute. But the way in which we conduct matters within the House has never been primarily a matter for statute. If it were to become so, that would be a significant move that would require the fullest possible debate in the Chamber.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): I agree with the right hon. Gentleman--

Mr. Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I right in believing that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not declare his interests in opening his speech, and could have done so once you had given that ruling?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has an interest to declare, he will take the opportunity to do so before he takes the intervention.

Mr. Hunt: My interest is declared in the Register of Members' Interests-- [Hon. Members:-- "Tell us."]--as a partner in a firm of solicitors and as an underwriting member of Lloyd's. That is widely known, but it has no direct relevance to what we are debating. [Hon. Members:-- "Oh."] Nevertheless I make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of doubt.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree-- [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have some decorum and order in the debate.

Mr. Budgen: The Nolan suggestions--and they are only suggestions--do not impinge upon the procedures of the House or on how we behave here. They are suggestions about what are really the terms of our employment. Surely if our terms of employment are to be restricted in some way, that should be set out in statute. Is that not quite different from the old custom of our unwritten constitution, that the procedures of the House and the way in which we behave here are ordered within the House, with no statutory backing?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend raises some interesting points, which I hope will find a context in the debate. There are arguments either way, as I have been seeking to demonstrate.

To reiterate, the issues need clarification and we must examine all the difficulties that arise before the House moves to implementation. We are having the debate today so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can deal with the issues, and to allow hon. Members to express their personal opinions in the Chamber.

Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood): Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reflected on the fact that the assurances that he gave to the Nolan committee in evidence were comprehensively dismissed by that committee? Is not it the case that the Prime Minister, in setting up the Nolan committee, said that this was a matter of extreme urgency and that the public's trust in those in public life was at stake? Is not the origin of the problem the failure of the House to reform itself? If the House now prevaricates, will not that compound the problem that the Nolan committee was set up to resolve?

Mr. Hunt: I am not aware that anything suggested by the hon. Gentleman has ever been said by any of my right

Column 487

hon. and hon. Friends. It is important that we get this right. With regard to my evidence, I am coming to the rules affecting Ministers when they leave office. If I may make a little progress, I shall deal with that matter.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury): Does my right hon. Friend agree that sensational cases make bad law? Does he recall Edmund Burke's statement that one owes to one's electorate a duty to one's judgment and not to one's industry? If the judgment of Members of Parliament is so suspect that--for the first time--this place must be judged by somebody else, democracy will be irredeemably damaged.

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I recall that someone from Bristol said that a Member of Parliament owes to his constituents his industry, but must never sacrifice his judgment to his opinion, and I agree.

Mr. Leigh: I tried to intervene earlier, as I wanted to agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Does my right hon. Friend also agree with the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman made a serious point that, for 700 years, this House has taken the view that in order to safeguard the liberty of the people, the Executive could have no control over the House. If the House is to be regulated in this tight way--which may or may not be the right thing to do--it should be by statute. Hon. Members should know exactly where they stand, and should not be bound by a commissioner effectively appointed by the Executive to oversee independent Members of Parliament.

Mr. Hunt: These are all serious points, some of which could involve fundamental changes. It is important today to listen to the views expressed in the Chamber. In all cases, this House will have the final say.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) is interesting. But if we were to go down the route to statute, would not that delay the matter much more than if the House dealt with it itself? Would not such a process involve the introduction of a Bill? If we were to have a statute, would not we be handing over the scrutiny of this House to the judges and to legal interpretation? That may or may not be a good thing, but it is certainly something that the House should consider.

Mr. Hunt: This will be an interesting debate. We are entering an area that the Nolan committee does not address in its report in detail, and no doubt hon. Members who have views on that aspect will put them forward. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, at the conclusion of the debate. Like all of us, he will want to consider carefully the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Will the Minister answer the question that people outside have constantly put in the past few weeks? When Back Benchers become Ministers, 80 or so of whom form a Government, they must then get rid of their consultancies, directorships and all the rest. If that applies to Ministers, why cannot it apply to Back Benchers? One reason why the Government must wrestle with that problem is that, when Thatcher

Column 488

came to power, she allowed those Back Benchers to make as much money as they liked provided that they turned up here at 10 o'clock to get the legislation through. It was the age of materialism and now the Government are having to pay for it.

Mr. Hunt rose --

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Madam Speaker: Order. Not until the Minister has responded.

Mr. Hunt: I think that my hon. Friend anticipated that there was nothing serious to respond to.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a serious misconception here? There is a great distinction between the role of the Back Bencher and that of the Back Bencher who becomes a Minister. No Back Bencher is forced to become a Minister; if he does so, it is on the terms on which that employment is offered to him. If every Back Bencher is to be bound by new onerous and radical terms of employment, that becomes a matter for the whole nation as it is the basis on which we serve in this Parliament. That must be a matter for legislation.

Mr. Hunt: I have already acknowledged that that view is a serious contribution to a wide-ranging debate. The question of statute law as opposed to rules of procedure of the House is fundamental and I look forward to contributions on that subject.

May I deal with the recommendations addressed to the Government, that is, those on Ministers and civil servants? During its review, the committee looked at "Questions of Procedure for

Ministers"--guidance that the Prime Minister and the Government have made public for the first time ever. It had not previously been in the public domain. The committee made a number of suggestions to improve the guidance. It says that we should draw out the ethical principles and seek to formulate a code of conduct either within the guidance or as a free- standing document. The committee also recommends new arrangements to extend records of gifts to include hospitality accepted by Ministers in their official capacity. It is self-evident that the integrity of Ministers must not be open to doubt, whether during their service to the nation or in what they do afterwards. So I make it absolutely clear to the House that the Government intend to implement Lord Nolan's recommendation that proposals by former Ministers to take up appointments after they leave public office should be brought within the scope of Lord Carlisle's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

As Lord Nolan recognised, some important points of detail must be put in place before clear ground rules can be established. For example, should the three-month waiting period proposed in the report apply to Ministers who return to an earlier occupation or profession, which may be largely unconnected with their work in government, such as running a business, returning to office as a paid trade union official, returning to lecture at a university, or returning to work as a schoolteacher? How do we strike the right balance between openness and privacy? I would welcome any views that the House wishes to express before we make final proposals for the detailed scheme.

Column 489

The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood(Dr. Wright) asked me about the evidence that I gave to the Nolan committee, so let me explain what I said. I told Lord Nolan that I thought that the existing rules for Ministers were sufficient to uphold the standards of public life, but that the Government would consider very carefully what he recommended.

Lord Nolan's report finds that those standards remain high and that the problem lies mainly in public perception rather than in the facts. I accept that. I also accept the need to rebuild public confidence. We are therefore glad to accept Lord Nolan's recommendation, which will reinforce confidence that British public life maintains the highest possible standards.

On the civil service, the Nolan committee has been able to build on the welcome common ground that exists between all the political parties in the House. The Nolan committee supports the action that we are taking, for instance, to introduce a new code for civil servants, as set out in our response to Nolan and in our White Paper, "The Civil Service: Taking Forward Continuity and Change". That code, which will be a document of great value, arises directly as a result of a recommendation made by the all-party Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. It sets out concisely what is expected of civil servants and introduces a new right of external appeal. The Government will look constructively at the further points that the Nolan committee has raised and will take them all into account in the consultation exercise that we are currently conducting with the civil service staff and unions. The Opposition spokesmen and the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service have also been invited to offer their views.

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North): Will that consultation exercise specifically consider the position of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and women of whichever party and in whichever Government? The Chairmen of the Select Committees are given specific help, unlike the Opposition spokesmen and women who shadow Ministers, who, in turn, have all the resources of the civil service available to them. When considering how to resource Members of Parliament properly, we should take into account not just their constituency business, but their role in scrutinising parliamentary legislation.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Lady is arguing for more resources through the Short mechanism, which currently provides funds for the party in opposition. That does not relate directly to the point that I was making about the civil service, but should the hon. Lady catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that she will raise that issue again in the debate.

When we complete the consultation process with the staff and unions of the civil service, the Opposition and the Select Committee, we shall introduce the code, because I am convinced by the Nolan committee's recommendation that we should not wait for legislation to do that. As hon. Members will know, I have already said that our mind is open on whether such legislation should be introduced, but we agree with Lord Nolan that we need not wait. We shall therefore introduce that code when we have completed the consultation process. The Nolan committee report also considers the appointment procedures and propriety in the workings of executive

non-departmental public bodies and national health service bodies. Non- departmental public bodies are

Column 490

an integral part of public service. The need for integrity on their part is as great as it is for Ministers, the civil service and elsewhere. It is therefore reassuring to note that, on this issue, too, the committee explicitly rules out the idea that there has been any decline in standards.

The report highlights the continuing tradition of voluntary service by those many thousands of public-spirited individuals in positions that are often unpaid or paid at rates far below those that their skills could attract elsewhere. I should like to add my tribute to the many people who serve in those positions. I hope that they will all accept and that the House will accept that the Nolan committee's report offers a conclusive rebuttal of the allegations hurled, without any evidence or justification, at people who give their time and energy to serve the nation in a public capacity.

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): Some of the most serious shortcomings to which the Public Accounts Committee drew attention in its eighth report were in non-departmental public bodies. There were some very serious shortcomings indeed, which led to a unique report, of a type that had never been produced by the Public Accounts Committee.

The Nolan report is proposing that auditors from the commercial sector should continue to carry out the audit of some of those non-departmental public bodies. At present, two thirds of non-departmental public bodies are audited by the National Audit Office. I believe, and the Committee believes, that it is important that all those non-departmental public bodies should be audited by the National Audit Office.

Commercial auditors today--we have witnessed some examples of it recently-- have an advantage in obtaining so much of their money from consultancy work, and they make very low bids to obtain that. The only organisation that has no interest in those matters is the National Audit Office, which can be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee and can retain those standards. It is important that the standards that exist in the Government service as a whole be applied throughout those non-departmental public bodies.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the Minister continues, may I remind both sides of the House that interventions, by their nature, should be short?

Mr. Hunt: I have a great deal of sympathy with several of the arguments made by the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, one of the Nolan committee's recommendations is that audit arrangements should be reviewed, to ensure that the best practice applies to all public bodies.

I shall discuss appointments and then auditing arrangements and propriety. The Nolan committee does indeed endorse the key principles underlying the existing appointments system--that ultimate responsibility for public appointments must remain with Ministers, all appointments should be subject to the overriding principle of appointment on merit and public bodies should have a balance of skills and backgrounds in their membership.

The Government are already taking steps to improve the transparency and independence of the appointments process. We have reviewed the central guidance and there is increasing use, in the national health service and other

Column 491

public services, of advisory panels or committees with one or more independent members. Many of the committee's recommendations build on those initiatives.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunt: Of course I will give way, but I shall first reply to the argument of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

The Government welcome the proposal for a new independent commissioner for public appointments, who would monitor, regulate and approve departmental appointment procedures. We also accept the case for an extension of the role of independent advisory committees. We are developing formal plans now to implement those proposals. We need to consider very carefully what the exact functions of the commissioner should be. It appears sensible not to finalise the details until we have appointed someone of the highest integrity and listened to his or her opinions.

The committee also examined the standards of conduct, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne says. The report says:

"in general, the board members of executive non-departmental public bodies and national health service bodies are committed to the principles and values of public service and perform their duties to high standards of integrity".

To provide additional reassurance, we are ready to tighten procedures, as recommended in the report. In that way, we aim to show beyond doubt that the rules are being followed. Specifically, we accept that we should review the legal framework governing propriety and accountability in a wide range of public bodies. I am happy to tell the right hon. Member for Ashton-under -Lyne that work on that review by members of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury is already under way.

The committee also suggested that the Treasury "Code of Best Practice for Board Members," issued, I think, in June 1994, should act as a model for mandatory codes of conduct for each executive non-departmental public body. Although the Treasury model is indeed at the moment principally intended to cover non-departmental public bodies, it is not mandatory. I have an open mind about that. Perhaps it should be; or perhaps we need to tackle it in some other way, more responsive to the needs of each individual body. That issue merits very careful consideration.

National health service bodies, for example, have their own codes of conduct and accountability, which are already mandatory on all boards; and compliance is a condition of appointment.

Mr. Sheerman rose --

Mr. Hunt: I shall mention the committee's final recommendations, and then I shall give way.

The committee's final recommendations propose the adoption of the 1994 "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", together with the committee's own guidelines, throughout executive non-departmental public bodies.

Next Section

Home Page