PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING
TO THE REPORT
Wednesday 7 February 2001
Members present:
Tony Wright, in the Chair
| Mr Mark Oaten | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Anthony D Wright
|
| Mr Michael Trend | The Committee deliberated.
|
| Mr Brian White |
|
*****
Draft Report (The Ministerial Code: Improving the
Rule Book), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft
Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 9 read and agreed to.
A paragraph- (The Chairman) - brought up,
read the first and second time, and inserted (now paragraph 10).
Paragraphs 10 to 13 (now 11 to 14) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 14 (now 15) brought up and read, as follows:
"Other developments have focused attention upon
the status of the Ministerial Code. Publication of the Code in
1992 provided the public, and the media, with a text which could
be referred to and quoted in connection with ministerial conduct.
Amy Baker observed that after QPM was made public it 'was very
quickly propelled into the public arena by journalists and politicians
as the authoritative set of rules and principles for ministerial
office.' The fact of publication increased public and parliamentary
expectation of it. Further, since its publication, a number of
further codes have been drawn up for other areas of public life.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life drew up its Seven Principles
of Public Life; and codes of conduct have been introduced separately
for Members of Parliament, civil servants, councillors in local
Government and board members of quangos. John Major told us that,
as a result of codes for other public bodies and associated developments,
'the need for there to be a Ministerial Code is extended.' Following
devolution, ministerial codes of conduct with a clear status have
been introduced by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
We believe that the development of such codes of conduct across
public life reinforces the need for the constitutional status
of the Ministerial Code to be properly recognised. It is unsatisfactory
for this status still to be in doubt. It is the rule book for
ministerial conduct, including the responsibilities of Ministers
to Parliament, and its status should reflect its importance. It
may have developed in a private and ad hoc way, but it
is now an integral part of the new constitutional architecture.
It is time for it to be recognised as such."
Amendments made.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave
out from 'doubt' to the end of the paragraph- (Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 4
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Mark Oaten
|
| Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
| Mr Anthony D Wright
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 15 to 19 (now 16 to 20) read and agreed to.
Paragraph 20 (now 21) brought up and read, as follows:
"Prime Ministerial ownership, or authorship, of the Code
does not preclude a role for Parliament (as we argue later). Nor
should it impede accountability. We considered whether the current
arrangements are adequate in this respect. Lord Neill told us
that 'the powers of Parliament must be adequate to ask the Prime
Minister to account for the contents and administration' of the
Code. He pointed out that the Prime Minister is answerable to
Parliament, notably through Question Time. However, John Major
conceded that Prime Minister's Questions was 'a bear garden',
adding that 'it is not an ideal forum for disseminating information
and for intellectual, thoughtful and constructive debate.' He
therefore thought that 'it would be a good idea for the Prime
Minister to accept Select Committee invitations. I do not think
it would be right for Select Committees to invite the Prime Minister
to attend every month and turn it into a political forum but I
do think on a staged basis once or twice a year it would be in
everyone's interest'. Prime Ministers have traditionally rejected
such requests on the ground of precedent. We believe that if it
is appropriate for a Prime Minister to appear on television to
answer an audience's questions on Government policy then it is
surely right that the same consideration is extended to Parliament.
We do not believe that Prime Minister's Question Time is an
adequate or sufficient forum for considered probing of Government
policy and recommend that an annual meeting should be arranged
between the Prime Minister and the Liaison Committee, representing
the chairs of all the select committees, under strict terms of
agreement, using the Government's Annual Report as its basis.
Questions might include the Prime Minister's responsibility for
the Ministerial Code, while the Prime Minister's own duty to account
to Parliament in this way should be included as a provision of
the Code."
Amendment proposed, in line 17, to leave out 'an annual' and insert
'a quarterly'. - (Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question proposed, That the Amendment be made: - Amendment, by
leave, withdrawn.
An Amendment made.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 21, at the end to add 'Where
the Liaison Committee was concerned that a breach of the Code
had taken place but not been adequately investigated the Committee
should call the Prime Minister to answer questions on the area
of concern'.-(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 4
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Mark Oaten
|
| Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
| Mr Anthony D Wright
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 21 and 22 (now 22 and 23) agreed to.
A paragraph- (The Chairman) - brought up and
read, as follows:
"There is one respect in which the accountability
requirements of Ministers in relation to Parliament have been
weakened over the lifetime of the Ministerial Code. This concerns
policy announcements to Parliament. The 1949 version of the Code
provided that: 'When Parliament is in session, important announcements
of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in
Parliament.' However, in the 1997 version the formulation has
become: 'When Parliament is in session, Ministers will want to
bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important
announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first
instance, to Parliament.' This represents a reduction in parliamentary
accountability. We recommend that it should be reversed and
that the next edition of the Ministerial Code should revert to
the original wording in respect of announcements of Government
policy."
Ordered, That the paragraph
be read a second time.
An Amendment made.
Question put, That the paragraph, as amended, be
inserted.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | Noes, 1
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr Brian White
|
| Mr Neil Turner |
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie |
|
| Mr Anthony D Wright |
|
Paragraph accordingly inserted (now paragraph 24).
Paragraphs 23 to 25 (now 25 to 27) agreed to.
Paragraph 26 (now 28) read as follows:
"The role of the Cabinet Secretary and permanent
secretaries in investigating allegations of ministerial misconduct
has received particular attention. Peter Riddell described the
role of the Cabinet Secretary in this respect as 'invidious',
while 'permanent secretaries are in a difficult position in relation
to their political masters.' He cited an example, from his own
journalistic contacts, of a permanent secretary feeling 'very
uneasy about being an adviser.' When asked about the role of the
Cabinet Secretary in investigations, Lord Neill agreed that 'this
is not really a role for a Cabinet Secretary...it is an impossible
situation'. Mr Major told us that 'It is the job of the permanent
secretary to provide information that is readily available from
within the Government. It is not the job of the permanent secretary
to investigate.' From our evidence it would appear that there
is a role for the Cabinet Secretary to play in the process of
investigation. However, if such a role included responsibility
for conducting independent investigations of alleged breaches
of the Code, this would require such responsibilities to be placed
on a statutory basis. In order to fulfill our desire for increased
parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive, the relationship between
Parliament and the Cabinet Secretary would have to alter radically."
Amendment proposed, in line 9, to leave out from
'investigate' to the end of the paragraph- (Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 2
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Anthony D Wright
|
An Amendment made.
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 27 (now 29) agreed to.
Paragraph 28 (now 30) read, as follows:
"We do believe that having an independent parliamentary
mechanism for advice and investigation would prove beneficial
in strengthening accountability. Parliament lacks an investigatory
officer to act on its behalf when there are allegations of ministerial
failure or misconduct. It routinely demands inquiries, but has
no effective means to put one in hand. This was pointed out long
ago by the Trade and Industry Select Committee at the time of
the Westland affair, leading it to propose that Parliament should
equip itself with an investigatory arm. Subsequent cases, including
the issue of arms sales to Iraq that was examined in the Scott
report, point to the same conclusion. Parliament should not have
to rely upon the executive to undertake inquiries into the executive's
own alleged failings. We believe that the role of the select committees
in scrutiny and accountability needs to be strengthened by an
investigatory officer capable of finding out the facts of a case
on Parliament's behalf. We do not, however, believe that a new
office needs to be created. Parliament already possesses officers
with the capacity to do what is required. We recommend that the
remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards be expanded
to include the provision of independent advice to Ministers on
their responsibilities under the Code. We further recommend that,
on referral from the Prime Minister, or by a resolution of the
House proposed by the chair of the Liaison Committee, the Parliamentary
Ombudsman should be empowered to conduct independent investigations
on alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code and to report to the
Prime Minister and to the House".
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 28 (now 30) and
insert the following new paragraph:
"Clarifying where the buck stops and establishing
a requirement that the Prime Minister must answer for the Code
to a Select Committee of Parliament, both in general and in particular
cases, should be enough to ensure that it is adequately policed
and to reassure the public that breaches have been appropriately
investigated. Were this to prove not to be the case a number of
further reforms could be considered, always having in mind the
danger of an excessively legalistic approach. First a more explicit
role could be established for the Cabinet Secretary in the process
of investigation. Such a role might include responsibility for
conducting independent investigations of alleged breaches of the
Code backed by a clear line of accountability from the Cabinet
Secretary to a Select Committee of Parliament. A second possible
approach would be to create a new post of Ministerial Code Commissioner.
Two precedents for such commissioners already exist in the Commissioner
for Public Appointments and the first Civil Service Commissioner.
The first polices the Nolan rules , the second the Civil Service
rules. The Commissioner might operate both by providing ex
ante advice to Ministers thereby relieving Permanent Secretaries
of this responsibility, and also have responsibility for conducting
ex post investigations. A third approach might be to extend
the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to include
the provision of independent advice to Ministers on their responsibilities
under the Code. On referral from the Prime Minister, or by resolution
of the House proposed by the chair of the Liaison Committee, the
Parliamentary Ombudsman could be empowered to conduct independent
investigations on alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code and
to report to the Prime Minister and to the House" - Mr
Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the paragraph be read a second
time.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 4
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Michael Trend
|
| Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
| Mr Anthony D Wright
|
Amendment proposed to paragraph, in line 4, to leave
out from 'hand' to 'Parliament' in line 8 and insert "has
been a concern of Select Committees for a number of years. In
1996 the Trade and Industry Committee, in their report on export
licensing, agreed in principle that parliamentary commissions
should be established to conduct thorough investigations. The
committee considered that such a system would strengthen the House's
ability to call the executive to account and recommended that
the Procedure Committee should consider their proposal. Also in
1996, the Public Service Committee, in its report on Ministerial
Accountability and Responsibility, welcomed the proposal of the
Trade and Industry Committee and endorsed its recommendation."-
(The Chairman.)
Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in
line 2 to leave out from "years" to the end. - (Mr
Brian White.)
Question put, That the Amendment to the proposed
Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 4
|
| Mr Brian White | Mr Michael Trend
|
| Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie
|
| Mr Anthony D Wright.
|
Proposed Amendment made.
Other Amendments made.
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 29 to 31 (now 31 to 33) agreed to.
Paragraph 32 (now 34) read, as follows:
"While we accept that there might be practical
drafting difficulties we believe there is a strong case for splitting
the Ministerial Code, clearly separating out the fundamental constitutional
principles from the rest. The most important aspect of the Code
relates to ethical principles. The Committee on Standards in Public
Life has consistently regarded Section 1 (see appendix) as the
most significant element of the current version of the Code. A
recommendation of the Nolan Report was that codes of conduct in
public life should routinely include the Seven Principles of public
life adumbrated by the Committee (Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity,
Accountability, Openness, Honesty, and Leadership). Yet Section
1 of the current Ministerial Code does not include, either explicitly
or implicitly, these seven principles and we recommend that they
are prominently included in the next version of the Code.
The Nolan Report further recommended that 'The Prime Minister
should put in hand the production of a document drawing out from
QPM the ethical principles and rules which it contains to form
a free-standing code of conduct'. When reviewing the Code in 1999,
the Neill Committee recommended that 'the Ministerial Code should
be improved to reflect its importance as a statement of the ethical
principles governing ministerial conduct.' We concur with the
Committee on Standards in Public Life and recommend that a free-standing
code of ethical principles is devised. We further recommend that
the Committee on Standards in Public Life should be formally consulted
on the drafting of such a code."
An Amendment made.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 9, after "principles"
insert "-although the Government Reply to the Committee's
Report mistakenly claims that it does-" - (The Chairman.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 2
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr Brian White
|
| Mr Neil Turner | Mr Anthony D Wright
|
Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the
Ayes.
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 32 and 33 (now 34 and 35) agreed to.
A paragraph- (The Chairman) - brought up,
read the first and second time, and added - (now paragraph 36).
Paragraphs 34 to 37 (now 37 to 40) agreed to.
Motion made and Question put, That the Report, as
amended, be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman
do make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That the provisions
of Standing Order No. 134 (Select Committees (Reports)) be applied
to the Report.
Several Papers were ordered to be appended to the
Report.
[Adjourned till Wednesday 14th
February at a quarter past Four o'clock.
|
