---

Mr. Darling: I certainly hope that they will. Now that the announcement has been made, people rightly want to see the sums that are due to them.

On my hon. Friend's general point, I believe that the course of action that we have announced today is the right one. I am only sorry that we have had to wait so long for Parliament to have a chance to make those changes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State made and congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) most warmly on the important work that he has done, but may I suggest that the required legislation could be given greater priority if the Government were to relegate to the circular filing tray their planned legislation against hunting with dogs?

Mr. Darling: I believe that most Members on both sides of the House have recognised that this is a very difficult matter. We are dealing with children who have suffered serious damage as a result of what has happened to them, and I do not think that this is the time and place for Tory knockabout politics.

Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford): I welcome the statement. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider extending the principle underlying the scheme by joining forces with the Secretary of State for Health to re-examine the case for a no-fault compensation scheme for medical accidents.

Mr. Darling: This is not a compensation scheme, and never has been since it was set up in 1979. It exists in

27 Jun 2000 : Column 727

recognition of the extra burden that families are obliged to shoulder. As I said in reply to some other hon. Friends earlier, the question of no-fault liability is a matter for the Lord Chancellor; it is not the subject of my statement.

The right thing to do now is to face up to the fact that some 900 children lost out in the past. Today we have an opportunity to resolve some of the problems that they face by increasing the lump sum, making back payments and ensuring that the process by which claims are entertained is much fairer than it was in the past. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and others on both sides of the House for the welcome that they have given today's announcement.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

David Lammy Esq., for Tottenham.

27 Jun 2000 : Column 728

Points of Order

4 pm

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to a written answer, reported at column 373W of yesterday's Hansard.

I put a written question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions that was prompted by an exchange that took place during Report on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill on 13 June. At that time, the Minister for the Environment said that he had taken advice on the implications on the Bill of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, indeed, of the European convention on human rights.

I know that one cannot ask a Minister or a Department for the advice itself, but the response of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to my written question was simply that the Government do not disclose the legal advice that they receive

nor the source of such advice.--[Official Report, 26 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 373W.]

It would be helpful, Madam Speaker, if you could advise me whether the source of advice external to the Department should be a matter of disclosure. I do not want to know what was said; I simply want to know who advised the Department so that we may judge the quality of the advice.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for kindly supplying me with the question and answer to which he referred. As he knows, I am not responsible for the responses given by Ministers to questions. I can only suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman is sufficiently ingenious as to table other questions or to raise the matter through the Order Paper in other ways--by such means he might be able to obtain the information he seeks. I understand and take his point; he does not want to know the advice that was given--he wants to know its source. He may find other methods--in questions or other exchanges on the Floor of the House--whereby his question will be answered.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Sometimes, ministerial answers provide a block on further questions of a similar nature. As that answer was unprecedented--as far as I am aware--can we be sure that, until the Government provide some justification, it will be possible for Members to seek information from the Government on this and other issues, and that the Government will not use the answer as a way of blocking similar questions?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long time. He and I both know exactly what is meant by the Government blocking further questions. I have not dealt with such a situation for some time, although in my early days as Speaker I had to do so. I cannot give him any guarantees, but I am aware of the point he makes.

27 Jun 2000 : Column 729

Ministerial Conduct

4.3 pm

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for enforcement of the ministerial code of conduct.

I begin with a quotation.

In issuing this Code, I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their Government . . . I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code. Ministers will find the Code a useful source of guidance and reference as they undertake their official duties in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.

The House will recognise the quotation. It is from the foreword to the ministerial code, written personally by the Prime Minister in July 1997.

In January, Lord Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life found that:

The effect of the foreword is to underline the status of the Code as the Prime Minister's document, written not only as guidance for Ministers but also as a pledge to the public.

It also said that the role of the Prime Minister should be clarified. It pointed out:

The Prime Minister remains the ultimate judge of the requirements of the Code and the appropriate consequences of breaches of it.

Therefore, this is the Prime Minister's code; he is its author. To quote the Cabinet Secretary, it bears the Prime Minister's "personal imprint".

The Prime Minister, however, declines to enforce the code. As the House knows, the Deputy Prime Minister, somewhat grandly, has four residences--one a flat on Clapham common occupied by his son. That flat is owned by the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union and the Deputy Prime Minister is also the Secretary of State responsible for transport.

Hon. Members are probably not familiar with all the provisions of chapter 9 of the ministerial code on Ministers' private interests. Paragraph 113 deals specifically with trade unions. It says:

There is.. no objection to a Minister holding trade union membership but care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest. Ministers should arrange their affairs so as to avoid any suggestion that a union of which they are a member has any undue influence.

There can be no question but that the Deputy Prime Minister has failed to do that. I quote again:

They . . . should receive no remuneration from a union.

The controlled rent on the flat is at least £12,000 a year less than the market rate. Although I do not suggest any improper behaviour by the Deputy Prime Minister, most people would see that as a considerable financial benefit.

Paragraph 114 states:

Ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or apparent conflict of interest between their ministerial position and their private financial interests.

Can anyone doubt that there is at the very least an apparent conflict of interest between the duties of the Secretary of State responsible for transport and his beneficial tenancy of a flat from a transport union? The principle is stated in paragraph 126:

It is a well-established and recognised rule that no Minister or public servant should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him under an obligation.

27 Jun 2000 : Column 730

Paragraph 109 states:


Ministers will want to order their affairs so that no conflict arises or is thought to arise between their private interests . . . and their public duties. Where there is a doubt it will almost always be better to relinquish or dispose of the interest but Ministers should submit any such case to the Prime Minister for his decision.

Sadly, the Prime Minister is unwilling to tell us whether this case has been put to him for his decision. Nor do we know whether the Deputy Prime Minister has consulted his permanent secretary, as required by paragraph 118. That becomes very relevant in considering the Transport Bill, on which the RMT not surprisingly made representations and on which the Deputy Prime Minister led the debate.

Even more relevant was the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, brought in by the Deputy Prime Minister's Department, which specifically capped increases in rent on flats such as his. Under paragraph 110 of the code, the right hon. Gentleman should have declared his interest to ministerial colleagues and

remained entirely detached from the consideration of that business.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said that she would have

expected Mr. Prescott to have made some mention within his Department of his interest in the subject matter of the order.

We should remember that this statutory instrument would have had a direct effect on the right hon. Gentleman's personal circumstances. The Parliamentary Commissioner also found that the Deputy Prime Minister

should certainly have registered the benefit obtained from his tenancy of the flat.

Unfortunately, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges overruled the commissioner for reasons best known to itself--a bizarre decision, in my view, especially because it then "invited" the Deputy Prime Minister to register the flat.

I hope that I have demonstrated that this is a very obvious breach of the letter and spirit of the ministerial code for which the Prime Minister is personally responsible. However, the Prime Minister has seen fit to ignore this contravention of his code.

In a letter to a Conservative colleague, the Prime Minister deliberately confused the code of conduct for Members--for which the House of Commons has responsibility--and his own ministerial code. He pretended that the decision of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges "vindicated" the breaches of the ministerial code--when the Committee could not even consider the subject.

Yesterday, I received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson. It said:

It is not for me . . . to adjudicate publicly on Ministers' conduct. The Prime Minister is fully satisfied that John Prescott has done nothing which in any way, shape or form reflects on his integrity or his ability to do his job.

I accept that reply, but Sir Richard is, of course, responsible for the conduct of civil servants. I wonder whether and how he would have judged a civil servant who ignored the rules in such a manner.

The Prime Minister is wilfully blind to this clear breach of the ministerial code. Members must decide for themselves the cause of this blindness. It is not the Nelsonian blind eye which all Britons used to be taught

27 Jun 2000 : Column 731

to admire. On the contrary, it exposes the dishonesty of the Government, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber might join me in condemning that.

Since RMT members complained and exposed the position of the Deputy Prime Minister, he has shown breathtaking arrogance. He has treated the parliamentary commissioner with disdain verging on contempt; he has ignored the request of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges that he register his interest; and he still refuses to concede that the ministerial code might even apply to him. He has made no attempt to distance himself from his benefactor or to put the matter right. Had he been a Minister in the previous Conservative Government, he would have been obliged to resign long ago. He should resign now.

Who on the Government Benches recalls the Prime Minister telling all Labour Members--

---