Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
LORD STEVENSON
OF CODDENHAM
CBE, RT HON
LORD HURD
OF WESTWELL
CH, CBE AND MRS
ANGELA SARKIS
CBE
16 MAY 2006
Q100 Chairman: From your answer I
take it that there have been issues that you have flagged up but
the issues have been satisfactorily addressed so there have been
no outstanding ones in relation to the names. Could I ask Lord
Hurd, because you have been involved in the Political Honours
Scrutiny Committee that has now been absorbed into the Appointments
Commission, and I think one of the interesting questions is, here
we have had an Honours Scrutiny Committee since the horrors of
Lloyd George; we know that there is a very strong correlation
between the giving of money to political parties and the receipt
of honours, and yet we have not, through the Political Honours
Scrutiny Committee over all those years, had the kind of cases
that we have seen this year. What has been happening?
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My memory
does not quite go back to the terrors of Lloyd George. No, the
Honours Scrutiny Committee was doing basically the same job as
has been described, that is to say, it was receiving names through
the Prime Minister from the party leaders, it was making checks,
it was getting certificates from the Chief Whip in those days,
it was considering the results of those checks and it was advising
the Prime Minister. The differences are that the present Commission
has independent members—we were just the three nominees
of the parties, one of whom was the chairman—and it operates
in a considerably more thorough and in my view satisfactory way,
which is one reason why we on the Honours Scrutiny Committee,
as it were, willed our own destruction; we asked really that we
should be wound up and the job should be transferred to the body
which has been created and is doing similar work, and that was
accepted in Hayden Phillips' report and accepted by the Prime
Minister. So we were doing the same job. Of course, the main difference
is that there were not leaks. The answer to your question is that
there were; we had our moments. We had our cases, and our advice
was taken, and neither the advice nor the difficulty was leaked,
and therefore the individuals concerned were not embarrassed.
Could I just add a point possibly on the Patel point? It has worried
us all that not just Dr Patel but others have been put in a very
difficult position. They or their wives or friends have read their
name in the newspaper, and it emerges there are difficulties and
they do not appear on the final list. It would be very hard to
imagine us, I think, getting into the kind of discussion which
Dr Patel clearly wants and felt he was entitled to because of
the leak. As the Chairman has explained, we have to exercise our
judgment in the area of propriety and credibility, whether somebody
is going to by their presence in the Lords lift the proceedings
or diminish them or whatever. This is very difficult to discuss
with the people concerned. There are plenty of honourable, law-abiding,
good people walking the streets who any commission might say there
are lots of things they would be good at but being a member of
the House of Lords is not actually one of them, but to explain
all that in the presence of lawyers and comings and goings is
almost impossible. I think that is likely to remain a confidential
business. It is actually in everybody's interests.
Q101 Chairman: Just so we are clear
about the history, under the previous Honours Scrutiny Committee
there were occasions when that Committee advised against certain
names, were there?
Lord Hurd of Westwell: Sometimes
it is a matter of timing. The question of tax residency is a classic
case. That situation can be changed by the individual. So advice
which may be cogent at one point on that may change. But there
were certainly moments when the old committee, in my time, and
no doubt back through the decades, did give advice against the
immediate appearance of somebody on that list.
Q102 Chairman: Did the Prime Minister
of the day always take the advice that you gave?
Lord Hurd of Westwell: In my time,
yes.
Q103 Chairman: This relates now to
what you do. As you say, the Prime Minister takes the decision.
You only advise. If the Prime Minister says, "That is all
very interesting advice but nevertheless, I am going to carry
on," what happens then?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: It
has not happened, Chairman, and it is rather hypothetical. We
would have to consider our position, with the options of presumably
resigning or going public, or if we thought it was very marginal,
perhaps not, but it has not happened, and the Prime Minister has
said in public that it is his intention to take our advice.
Q104 Chairman: Surely, the Commission
needs to have a position on what would happen. You have suggested
that you might resign, you have suggested that you might go public.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
think this is clear. One is dealing with this on a case by case
basis and I think you have to look at an actual example and the
terms of our advice and the strength of our advice, because, just
being very hypothetical, you could imagine advice where we thought,
"We don't agree with him but we can see why his position
is not wholly unreasonable." There might be other advice
where we had a very strong view against and we would be in a different
position and perhaps consider more radical options, but it is
hypothetical; it has not happened.
Q105 Chairman: Let me just ask one
further question—it has been referred to already by Lord
Hurd—which is on the criteria that you use. Looking at these,
you talk about there being two really. One is good standing in
the community and the other is that the person should be a credible
nominee. These are very difficult judgments to make, are they
not?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Very.
Q106 Chairman: If the Prime Minister
puts forward a completely undistinguished party hack, then presumably
this goes through on the nod, does it?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
did make the distinction in my introductory remarks between the
non-party political peers and the political list. The non-party
political peers, we make the judgment as to their suitability.
For the party-political peers, the parties make the judgment as
to their suitability and we are concerned only with their propriety,
and I have defined how we interpret it. So I would not want to
get involved in discussing party hacks and "on the nod"
but in principle, if the Prime Minister's list contains someone
who his party or someone in another party judges as suitable,
and if we then judge that they pass our propriety test, we would
recommend them.
Q107 Chairman: If the party leader
puts forward a name of someone who is distinguished only by their
lack of distinction, they are in every ordinary sense credible
nominees, but they are not contaminated by donation, then they
go through on the nod, do they not?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: We
would consider them properly, vetting them for propriety, and
if they pass the test, yes. We do not have a brief to check them
for suitability or parliamentary talents or legislative talent.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: It is not
just donations. Our test goes wider than donations.
Q108 Chairman: Yes, they are not
in trouble with the tax authorities and they have not fallen foul
of the regulators and all that, but apart from that, they have
done nothing to distinguish themselves in life, they will sail
through, but if someone has given some money, you will start looking
at them.
Mrs Sarkis: We are only a part
of the process. The parties have to take responsibility themselves
for the quality and the standard and suitability of the names
they are putting forward. We have to really emphasize, we receive
a list of names with the accompanying paperwork, and that is our
part in the whole process. So we do not have a role in looking
in advance as we do with our own nominees. That is a totally different
ball game. The public record is there, which suggests that we
have been successful in how we have looked at our own independent
nominees, in that we have been incredibly careful to vet them
very carefully.
Q109 Chairman: If a party leader
says to an MP "You give up your seat to us and we will put
you in the Lords,"—I am told this happens, and has
happened regularly for years—does this come to your attention?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No.
Mrs Sarkis: It is a matter for
them.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: It
is outwith our brief. Our brief is to vet the political list for
propriety.
Q110 Chairman: So people can sell
their seat, but they cannot donate money without being scrutinised
by you.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: It
is your language, Chairman. It is reasonable to conjecture that
if we found that, in some sense of the word "sold",
someone had sold their seat, it would be reasonable for this Commission
to look at that under the propriety test, but as a general proposition,
going back—and you are describing someone who I am sure
does not exist, some very straightforward, undistinguished, completely
honourable MP, but who in your judgment, in this hypothetical
state, might not be someone who would contribute a great deal
to the House of Lords—having checked that that person passed
our propriety tests, that would be it. We do not have a brief
to assess people for what I call suitability.
Q111 Mr Prentice: If an academic
were to look at this matter and to find that almost every retiring
MP who announced the retirement once the whistle had been blown
for a General Election found themselves magically in the House
of Lords, you would want to look at this?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
think you raise a very interesting scenario.
Q112 Mr Prentice: This is not rocket
science. You are the man responsible for all this and I am saying
that you would want to look at this if someone gave you the figures.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
go back: our brief with the political list is to test for propriety,
to vet for propriety, and therefore, to the extent that someone
showed us something which was prima facie improper and
therefore would mean that that person or those people might be
thought to be going to diminish the reputation of the House by
going there, yes, we would.
Q113 Grant Shapps: Can you remind
us how members of your Commission are made up, other than the
political members, how you are actually appointed? This question
could be to Angela Sarkis.
Mrs Sarkis: There were originally
seven members of the Commission. There are now six because one
has stepped down early through other pressures of work. The political
nominations . . .
Q114 Grant Shapps: Those I understand.
I am interested in the so-called independents.
Mrs Sarkis: We were appointed
through open competition. The jobs were advertised. We applied
for those jobs and went through the normal process of application.
Q115 Grant Shapps: The Prime Minister
plays what role in that?
Mrs Sarkis: It was his office
who actually did the recruitment.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: To
be very precise—and I do not quite know who within government
did it—there was a rather intimidating interview panel chaired
by the then Head of the Civil Service, Sir Richard Wilson. I imagine
that panel then made a recommendation to the Prime Minister but
that was exactly what happened, and there were head-hunters, you
will not be surprised to hear.
Q116 Grant Shapps: The answer, as
I understand it, is that you are in fact appointed by the Prime
Minister but via that panel.
Mrs Sarkis: That is correct.
Q117 Grant Shapps: So in a sense,
we do have the Prime Minister's own people to an extent sitting
on a committee to decide on appointments which quite often will
come via the Prime Minister. So there is a little bit of a circular
connection here, is there not?
Mrs Sarkis: No, I do not accept
that at all. We are certainly not the Prime Minister's people.
We are incredibly independent individuals. I can give you my assurance
of that. But that apart, we recognise and take that role very,
very seriously, being independent on this Commission. We know
the importance of the work. We have already been discussing the
significance of what we do. We need to ensure that the independent
people are bringing an independent view and an independent perspective,
which at times will be different to the political appointees.
Q118 Grant Shapps: Nonetheless, we
must accept that the Prime Minister must have liked you at the
point that he appointed you, otherwise there would be no point
in him having appointed you.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Does
the Prime Minister know you?
Mrs Sarkis: No, he does not.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
see where you are driving to. I just do not think it is right
actually. It was very remote from the Prime Minister. The Head
of the Civil Service did it. It was unbelievably post-Nolanesque
proper, and we have operated very independently and we have no
complaints.
Q119 Grant Shapps: Thanks to this
leak in fact we have seen the demonstration of your independence.
It just occurred to me that might be in the same way that members
go to the House of Lords, politically appointed, and then end
up being terribly independent because they are there for the rest
of their lives. Do you consider that there is ever a sense of
civic virtue in giving money to political parties?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Gosh!
Can I say I think the issue as to the ethics, the civic virtue
or whatever the expression was you used to the Cabinet Secretary
earlier on, is not a matter for this Commission. We have a narrow
job that starts when we receive the names from Number 10 and send
the advice in. We might individually have our own views about
the funding of political parties, but as a Commission we do not.
| 
