Clause
2
Code
of
conduct
Mrs.
Lait:
I beg to move amendment No. 240, in
clause 2, page 1, line 10, leave
out ‘Commission must’ and insert ‘Secretary of
State may by order’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 241, in
clause 2, page 1, leave out lines 16 and
17.
No. 242, in
clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave
out ‘Commission’ and insert ‘Secretary of
State’.
No.
243, in
clause 3, page 2, line 11, at
end insert ‘in accordance with the
code’.
Mrs.
Lait:
The Minister will be pleased to know that they are
probing amendments. It is ironic that, at questions in the House this
afternoon, the matter of the Greater London
authority’s code of conduct arose, because the query behind the
amendment is why the commission is writing its own code of conduct and
it is not being written by the Secretary of State. What came out of
today’s parliamentary questions in the reference to the GLA was
that the Assembly wrote their own code of conduct. The question that
was asked was, “Why is there no code of conduct for political
advisers?”
John
Healey:
As I was responsible for answering that question,
I was following it particularly closely. It was not
actually about the code of conduct for the GLA, but about the discharge
of its scrutiny functions and the statutory basis on which it conducts
them. That is something in which her hon. Friend the Member for Bromley
and Chislehurst is obviously expert, having been a member of the GLA
for some time, as he remains. I thought that his points about the
shortcomings of the GLA’s role in carrying out its proper
function of scrutiny were well made. He obviously made them from a
particular position of
expertise.
Mrs.
Lait:
Indeed, he made them from a great position of
expertise and we will rely on that long after he ceases to be a member
of the Greater London authority, following the London elections.
However, because of the question that he raised and that the Minister
responded to, the subject of the code of conduct emerged from that
exchange. That reinforced my interest in why the code is being written
by the commission. If I can put it in a somewhat more theoretical
context, the commission is made up of people of various expertise, we
hope, having extracted that from the Minister in today’s
debate.
We have not
really debated, but we have expressed concerns about conflicts of
interest. While I would not, in any way, shape or form, impugn the
honour of any commissioners, the chairman or the staff of the
commission, who would probably draft the code of conduct, I would like
to know whether the Minister has any concerns about the code. Will it
too be open to scrutiny and legal challenge should the commission make
a decision that is unpopular? Will it be reassuring to those who might
be concerned about the commission’s conduct in a particular
inquiry that the Secretary of State had signed off or been a signatory
to, or had developed the code along with the commission? If the
Minister can reassure me along those lines, I am absolutely certain
that we shall withdraw the
amendment.
Dan
Rogerson:
We seem to have made little progress, although
we had a useful debate on the previous clause. The Minister sought to
establish that one of the major
virtues of the commission is that it will be independent and that all
the political decisions and framework will be set by the Secretary of
State in advance of it taking any action. If that particular poisoned
chalice is handed to the commission, it might undermine its
independence from the start. The amendments are therefore sensible and
certainly have my
support.
Mr.
Curry:
On a point of information, does each of the
existing quangos usually set its own rules of conduct? The Housing and
Regeneration Bill is being discussed in the Committee Room next door.
It establishes a successor to the Housing Corporation and English
Partnership—that sort of thing. I have already referred to the
Food Standards Agency. Alternatively, does a standard set of rules of
conduct apply to all quangos? It would make sense to have
standardisation across the piece to apply to those who serve on such
bodies.
John
Healey:
Although I understand the broad concerns that
underpin the amendment, it is not appropriate or necessary. I point the
hon. Member for Beckenham to subsection (2)(b). The importance of that
provision is that it allows the Secretary of State to direct the
commission to include specific or additional matters within the code of
conduct that it produces. Beyond that, as an independent body, it is
better that
the commission has responsibility for its own code of conduct. Like any
public body, it would be expected to follow best practice in drafting
the code as well as keeping it under
review.
As a Minister
who would potentially have to consider such matters, I am not
instinctively someone who is attracted by the idea that everything
should be specified from the centre. In this case, it is better that,
as an independent body, the commission sets its own code of conduct
with the ability for Ministers to specify certain things that may need
to be taken into account, if necessary. With the scrutiny arrangements
that the House will put in place, it might be expected that Parliament
will play an active role if questions about the content or compliance
with the code of conduct were asked. I urge members of the Committee
not to substitute the responsibility and role of the commission under
clause 2 with yet another duty of a Secretary of State or a
Minister.
Mrs.
Lait:
We may look at the issue further, but I accept the
Minister’s reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clauses
2, 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Watts.]
Adjourned
accordingly at six minutes to Seven o’clock until Thursday 17
January at Nine
o’clock.
| 
