| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Malins: The Minister would not have said that the current choice is severely limited unless he had something with which to back up his statement. How wide is the field? What is the choice currently available?
Mr. Hoon: I referred to senior civil servants. Very few senior civil servants currently possess the requisite qualifications. Some lawyers have those qualifications, and anyone who has worked in the Department for the requisite period is similarly qualified--the hon. Gentleman overlooked that aspect, but I shall pass over that. As Conservative Members have emphasised often enough during the debate, someone with suitable seniority and experience will necessarily have had long experience of government. We would look to a very senior figure when considering an appointment to this position. Very few senior figures in Whitehall at present are suitably qualified.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He said that very few people in government service have the requisite qualifications.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: He said that very few people in the Lord Chancellor's Department--
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman keeps shaking his head and saying that he did not say that. I wrote down, "very few who have the requisite qualifications": those were his ipsissima verba. I am sure that he will explain them, and when he does so, will he say briefly what the requisite qualifications for this post are and where he expects to find them?
Mr. Hoon: Few senior civil servants with the requisite experience are qualified under the existing statutory rules. That is the problem which the Department faces in securing the appointment of someone who has the various qualifications that Conservative Members have set out.
Conservative Members are caught by their own logic. If their logic is that it is vital to appoint someone who is so senior and experienced that he could hold such a responsible position in the Lord Chancellor's Department, they must recognise that it is important for the Department, when seeking such a figure, to be able to attract candidates from the widest possible field and not be limited to people who have either a legal qualification or the requisite five years' experience in the Department. Those are the two qualifications that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
It is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman has just referred to two qualifications that candidates may not have, but he has not listed any of the qualifications that are required. He will certainly have done his homework, so he should be able to spin off at least five qualifications that he has in mind.
Mr. Hoon:
This modest, technical change to the rules is important, because it will allow us to appoint the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department from among people with suitable qualifications and background who are presently eligible to be considered for the post of permanent secretary in any other Department. We should be able to choose someone with the requisite qualifications for leadership and management of a large public or private sector organisation. They should be familiar with, and ideally have direct experience of, the processes of government, and have proven experience of strategic policy development and implementation.
The Bill removes the requirement of a legal qualification. I do not believe that it is necessary to have such a qualification. The previous Government established that in their legislation. It is remarkable that the House has been detained for so long by Conservative Members putting up bogus arguments. They voted for such a measure during the previous Parliament.
Mr. Grieve:
I want to understand fully the hon. Gentleman's position. The 1990 amendment to the
Mr. Hoon:
I distinctly heard the sound of ground changing: that was not the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. Having been reminded of the issues we are dealing with, he is now shifting his argument significantly. If he will forgive me, as he could not get it right the first time, I shall not pay any attention to his second, C-minus effort.
I have answered all the serious questions save one. The matter of retirement age much concerned Conservative Members. The current provisions will allow the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department to retire on the same basis as any other permanent secretary in any other Department. The permanent secretary will have the same opportunity as any other to continue after 60 in appropriate circumstances. There is that flexibility; former Ministers and any Conservative Members who have had experience of government know that full well. They are trying to put up a smokescreen: it is a charade.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
The hon. Gentleman said that former Ministers know full well that there is flexibility to allow people to continue after 60. I confess to less than complete knowledge of that. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in two sentences what the rules are and how long any permanent secretary can continue?
Mr. Hoon:
The rules are flexible and can be agreed with the person concerned in the light of the circumstances to which Conservatives Members referred. If someone in that position still fulfils a valuable role in the Department, that person can, by agreement, be allowed to stay on after 60. All this modest proposal will do is put the Lord Chancellor's Department on the same footing as any other Department.
Mr. Forth:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. It has been suggested that the Minister may seek to deal with further stages of the Bill today. It would help us if we knew before he resumes his seat, and before you ask the House for its view on Second Reading, how the Minister proposes to deal with this matter procedurally, and whether he is prepared to accept the reasonable amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) seeks to make to the Bill. I hope that you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that would help the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. It is a point of information to the Minister.
Mr. Hoon:
I dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's reflections on the vigorous opposition that he claimed the
Mr. Hoon:
No, I will not give way.
Indeed, the vigour of Conservative Members' opposition manifested itself so late in the day that amendments were submitted only at the eleventh hour.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not good enough. He has acknowledged in the House today that I alerted the Lord Chancellor last week to the suggestion that there should be a deputy secretary. That is the subject which we seek to debate today, and that is the matter on which we seek a careful and considered answer. I have tabled a manuscript amendment, which I hope will be selected for debate. It would be very helpful if the Minister would calmly and courteously answer the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and me about his attitude to a proper debate on this important issue.
Mr. Hoon:
I was not in any way casting any doubt on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's integrity; I was simply reflecting on the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that he was somehow a representative of some new, vigorous Opposition. Had he been as vigorous as he claimed, he might well have been able to check how long the proposal had been on the Order Paper--and, indeed, why his colleagues in the Opposition Whips Office had not sought to suggest, for example, in the light of today's debate, that the matter should be referred to a Committee.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |