---

Public Appointments

21. Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North) (Lab): What action is being taken to open up public appointments to groups who have traditionally been under-represented. [179602]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government want boards of public bodies to be both appointed on merit and representative of society as a whole. The 2003 publication "Delivering Diversity in
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1181
 
Public Appointments" outlines the action being taken by each Department of Government to increase diversity on the boards of their public bodies, and the targets that have been set for 2006.

Mr. Savidge: While welcoming the targets for diversity, which my hon. Friend has outlined, will he provide some practical examples of what the Government are doing to achieve them? Would one of my constituents from an under-represented group, for example, receive any practical assistance from the Government?

Mr. Alexander: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because it highlights the point that I sought to make in my previous answer. A new website is now available from the Cabinet Office—www.publicappts-vacs.gov.uk—in which available public vacancies are set out. Anyone wanting to access those opportunities to serve on a public body will now be able to do so in the north-east of Scotland and the south-west of England. There are a range of different ways in which those who do not have access to the web can obtain information—a newsletter is also provided—and I want to ensure that my hon. Friend is made aware of those opportunities so that he can, in turn, communicate them to his constituents.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I suppose that we should be modestly grateful that the Minister mentioned merit, but can he give us a guarantee that, in the matter of public appointments, merit will never be undermined or compromised by an obsession with so-called diversity?

Mr. Alexander: If I recollect correctly, that is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has put that point to me. It is fundamentally the case, as I have set out previously from the Dispatch Box, that there is no inconsistency whatever between appointments on merit and appointments on representational aspirations. I believe that we should aspire to make our public bodies reflect the diverse nature of modern Britain. In that sense, I see no inconsistency between ensuring appointment on the basis of merit and making sure that we have diverse public bodies.

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of attempting to achieve that would be to pass the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, which is currently being blocked by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? That measure would ensure proper appointment to the civil service on merit rather than through long-out-of-date rules on nationality. Is it not time that the civil service reflected the society in which we live, rather than the society that the right hon. Gentleman thinks exists, but may never have existed outside his own rather peculiar imagination?

Mr. Alexander: I am cautious about intruding on a private argument but, like many colleagues, I was disappointed at the failure last week to make progress on that Bill. My hon. Friend makes his point well: we must make sure that the civil service is genuinely updated in terms of its ability to ensure that diversity is achieved.
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1182
 

Policy Development

22. Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): What guidance he has issued to regulatory offices concerning policy development in their areas of regulation. [179603]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government have recommended that all Departments and regulators follow the Cabinet Office guidance entitled "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessments". That guidance is available on the Cabinet Office website, and in the Library of the House.

Dr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is important to maintain the distinction between the policy-making function—that is, the steering function—of the Government and legislature, and the implementing function of regulatory bodies? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that legislation that amends or changes the nature of regulatory bodies maintains that distinction?

Mr. Alexander: I spoke at the recent conference of independent regulators, at which we addressed the specific challenge involved in recognising the distinctive role of regulators in the area of policy making. I also point out that the Government accepted the 14 recommendations in respect of independent regulators contained in the report from the Better Regulation Task Force entitled "Independent Regulators." I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a full copy of that report, and of the Government's response to it.

Unpaid Advisers

23. Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): If he will take steps to increase the accountability of unpaid advisers working (a) within his Department and (b) across Government. [179604]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): In its response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government agreed to amend the ministerial code to make it clear that Ministers are accountable for the management and discipline of their unpaid advisers. This amendment will be incorporated into the next version of the ministerial code.

Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that, although the model contract for special advisers provides some tenuous accountability for them, paragraph 51 of the ministerial codes states that there is no contractual relationship between unpaid advisers and the Department involved? Does that not mean that there is therefore no accountability in respect of people such as Lord Birt and Lord Levy?

Mr. Alexander: I simply do not accept that characterisation, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to my initial answer. We have accepted that the ministerial code needs to be amended, and the relevant precedent suggests that that should happen at the beginning of a
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1183
 
new Parliament. The ninth report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life was published in April 2003, and the Government's response to it was published in September of that year. It may be of assistance if I share with the House the substance of that response. As I have said, the Government accepted the case for amending the next version of the ministerial code to make it clear that Ministers are personally accountable for the management and discipline of their unpaid advisers. Further, the code will make it clear that Ministers must provide a level of information about unpaid advisers
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1184
 
similar to that provided for special advisers. That information will include numbers, names and details of particular expertise, if appropriate. Finally, the letter of appointment for unpaid advisers will be amended so that it includes the requirement to uphold the political impartiality of civil servants, and the requirement not to use official resources for party political activity.

I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), but the Government have already gone a long way towards addressing it.

 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1183
 

 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1185
 

Bichard Inquiry Report

12.32 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Bichard inquiry report.

Last December, following Ian Huntley's conviction, I asked Sir Michael Bichard to conduct an inquiry into the events leading up to the murder of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. I am publishing his report in full today. The families have shown great courage and dignity. We extend again today our most heartfelt sympathy to them.

I am grateful to Sir Michael for the speed and thoroughness of his inquiry. We have accepted his critique. In doing so, we must not forget that, as he states,

"Huntley alone was responsible for these most awful murders. None of the actions or failures of any of the witnesses or the institutions they represented led to the deaths of the girls."

Sir Michael's report uncovers serious failures in recording and managing information. These failures include local systems for recording, retaining and accessing data. They include national frameworks for inspection and information exchange, and the systems that underpin them.

As a consequence, the report is wide ranging in its recommendations. These apply to a range of public services and Government Departments. I am therefore responding on behalf of the Government as a whole.

We are, in principle, accepting Sir Michael's main recommendations and will act on them immediately.

It is the Government's task to ensure clear national standards as well as providing strong leadership. But other national bodies and local agencies also have a key role in strengthening the system.

Let me turn to the specific recommendations. Sir Michael recommends the introduction of a national intelligence system. Information collected should be shared and acted upon before an individual is employed in a sensitive post. Let me describe how this will operate. The police national computer is the cornerstone of police information systems, but its task is to register recorded crime. It holds basic information—for example, names and addresses of offenders. We are working with forces to improve the quality and timeliness of data. It is necessary for it to keep up with the growing and changing demands on the police service.

But the police national computer does not hold intelligence information—for example, where someone has been questioned in relation to repeated allegations of sexual assault. Until now, all 43 forces in England and Wales have operated individual systems for handling this kind of information. This should no longer be the case. As Sir Michael puts it, we cannot have a situation in which—and I quote—

"local accountability will be used to defend ineffective local systems when a national system would be more appropriate".

This report marks a watershed in how police forces and authorities will work together to procure the intelligence and information systems needed to do the job properly. No longer can the historical justification of
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1186
 
operational independence take precedence over the imperative of being able to track and deal with offenders effectively.

We are therefore now introducing the first national police intelligence computer system—entitled "Impact". "Impact" will ensure that all forces use the same system to manage and share intelligence information. As an interim measure, we are bringing forward the nationwide introduction of the police local exchange—PLX. It will begin this autumn and be complete by next spring. It will provide an easily searchable index of all those on whom any police force holds information. Sir Michael commends this.

But systems are only as good as the information that they hold. In this case, because records were handled so badly and deleted, a national intelligence system could not have identified the concerns. Sir Michael therefore concludes that the police need clearer, more soundly based rules, for recording, retaining and reviewing, as well as deleting information.

Before the inquiry was established, the Data Protection Act 1998 was criticised as a contributory factor. While it is no doubt complex, it embodies important principles. Sir Michael concludes that the loss of intelligence cannot be blamed on the Act. He does not believe that radical revisions are necessary. It is crucial that rules on managing information are clearly understood. I am therefore introducing, by the end of this year, a statutory code of practice on police information handling. All 43 forces will deal with intelligence information in the same way. This will be backed up by detailed operational guidance. Effective training, management and inspection will ensure that it is fully understood and consistently applied.

The code of practice will link closely to the police national intelligence model. This sets out how forces should collect and handle intelligence. It is already providing a more consistent structure. The code will ensure that all forces are required to make the most effective use of this structure. Those few forces still not operating this model must do so now.

But those recommendations apply substantially beyond policing. The report recommends that social services should routinely notify the police when a crime against a child is committed or suspected. Sir Michael concludes that that is not always the case. The social services database needs to hold details of all alleged sexual offenders involved with named children, and should be easily searchable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is working urgently on that. The Department will shortly receive a serious case review report from Sir Christopher Kelly on other specific lessons for social services.

Sir Michael has highlighted the importance of robust selection and recruitment. He has recommended that those recruiting staff in schools must be properly trained in safeguarding children. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Children have agreed that selection panels should contain at least one panel member properly trained in that work. Sir Michael also calls for stronger, more consistent vetting and a new system for registering those working with children and vulnerable adults.We will therefore urgently consider his recommendation that a register be created to bring together all the relevant information
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1187
 
held on individuals in a way that is easily accessible. We need to consider how that fits with and enhances the service already provided by the Criminal Records Bureau. We will also need to make the link to proposals for identity cards.

Let me now turn to concerns about the two forces involved in this tragic incident. Sir Michael highlights deficiencies by Cambridgeshire on the checks into Ian Huntley's suitability. Sir Ronnie Flanagan's parallel report for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary into the investigation, which is being published today, also highlights concerns about processes and the actions of individuals. However, Ian Huntley is behind bars. Cambridgeshire acted effectively to achieve that. It also asked the Metropolitan police to review its procedures at the time of the investigation. Failings were neither systemic nor corporate. I should also add that mistakes have been fully acknowledged and actions have been taken to ensure they do not recur.

But much graver concerns are raised about the senior management of Humberside. There were, to quote the report, "very serious failings", some of which the chief constable only became aware of when hearing evidence to the inquiry. Sir Michael finds the lack of awareness of the scale of those failings over such a long period of time to be "deeply shocking". It is Sir Michael's view that the

"final responsibility for these serious failures rests with Chief Constable David Westwood".

It is difficult to disagree with that. Paragraph 2.94 could not be clearer. It says of Mr Westwood that

"he was chief constable from March 1999 and, as such, became ultimately responsible for information management and IT systems. The wide-ranging and systemic failures . . . existed in March 1999 and therefore predated him becoming Chief Constable. However, they were not identified and continued for a considerable period thereafter. Chief Constable Westwood must take personal responsibility for the continuation of those failures. From 1 September 1997, he had been Deputy Chief Constable, the second most senior officer on the force".

The role of any chief constable has to be one in which the public have confidence. In the face of serious criticism, it is my responsibility as Home Secretary to question whether people in Humberside can continue to have that confidence. Mindful of our duty of care, I asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, to discuss Sir Michael's findings with the chief constable yesterday. The strength of the report's criticism of him has led me to conclude that, using the powers available to me under the Police Act 1996, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002, I should require Humberside police authority to suspend Mr. Westwood as chief constable forthwith.

I have also invited the police authority to consider what steps it should take, having regard to its statutory duty under section 6 of the 1996 Act to maintain an efficient and effective force. I have asked it to report to me by 6 July. I also asked Sir Keith to ensure that the professional judgment of Her Majesty's inspectorate is available to the police authority. When I receive the authority's report I will decide whether to initiate the process that could lead to the retirement or resignation of the chief constable.

Finally, let me repeat my thanks to Sir Michael for his work. I believe he is right to suggest the discipline of reconvening his inquiry in six months.
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1188
 

Mr. Speaker, we know that this must, once again, be a terrible time for the families of Jessica and Holly. We owe it to them to make substantial progress as rapidly as possible in ensuring that these failures are not repeated ever again. I commend Sir Michael's report to the House.

---