Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
LORD STEVENSON
OF CODDENHAM
CBE AND RT
HON LORD
HURD OF
WESTWELL CH CBE
11 OCTOBER 2007
Q200 Paul Flynn: No, but—
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No,
you have asked a perfectly reasonable question and I will give
you a perfectly reasonable answer. I do not think anyone does.
There are 42 people whom we have recommended to the Queen who
were ennobled. While there is a small number of them who have
gone there less than others, and, with no exceptions, those small
number are all people who are or have been at the height of their
working lives, we have said from the beginning—it is clearly
on our website—that in an effort to get people with a lot
to contribute, we may get people at the height of their careers
who will go there less often than others, but the vast majority
of them go there a great deal. I think that if you were to read
any major debate in the Lords or any major piece of legislation
in recent times you would see that the peers from the Appointments
Commission are making a great difference to what is going on and
I will make you aware that one of the people we have put there
is now a convenor of the crossbenches. They are making a huge
impact.
Paul Flynn: Of the people you have selected,
if you look at the politicians that come up, I think we all know.
I remember sitting in a group of people just before the nominations
were selected last year and I think we managed to pick exactly
the number of people who were going to be appointed, and they
were going to be appointed for loyalty, good service. We would
also pick the very distinguished parliamentarians who were retiring
at a young age who would never be appointed. I am tempted to mention
some of their names.
Mr Liddell-Grainger: Please do. Go on!
Q201 Paul Flynn: A distinguished
member of one of these select committees, who was a robust, very
able, independently minded man, still a young man and still with
a great deal to contribute but never will he get nominated to
the Lords because he occasionally has an independent streak. Yet
he is someone who could make a great contribution—and, as
it proved, he made a great contribution. There are at least half
a dozen who come to mind immediately from the last Parliament.
Do you think it would be your role to put them in the Lords and
to balance the excessive credit given to party blind loyalty in
the nominations you get, where you tend to get the party hacks,
the voting fodder.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
would not express the view as Chairman of the Commission. We have
a precise, quite narrow, small role to play. We have discussed
in and around that in, I think, the discussion with the Chair
and Jenny Willott. There is a perfectly feasible suggestion that
I have heard along the lines that you are saying, that the Commission's
remit and powers could be widened to help in that direction. It
is not for us to suggest it.
Q202 Paul Flynn: They would be included
in people's peers.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Citizen
Flynn, we do not have people's peers. If the powers of the Commission,
either on a statutory basis or the independent basis that it is
at the moment, were widened to nominate political peers, no doubt
it would make nominations.
Q203 Paul Flynn: But you know you
are getting the party hacks from both sides. You are not getting
the characters—
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
would not admit any such thing.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: We can
nominate people who belong to a party but we have to find people
who are politically independent. That is our main job. We cannot
go and comb through the backbenches and suddenly discover and
christen them independent and put them in as crossbench peers.
It would be absurd.
Paul Flynn: Thank you.
Q204 Chairman: Although you did acknowledge
in your earlier remarks that there was a category issue here that
you thought needed to be attended to.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Yes,
but not by us.
Q205 Chairman: Not by you.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: No, there
is, absolutely.
Q206 Paul Rowen: In the light of
the last 12 months, should the Honours (Prevention of Abuse) Act
1925 be abandoned? Does it serve any useful purpose in your view?
Lord Hurd of Westwell: I think
it does. It is a longstop.
Q207 Paul Rowen: It clearly did not
work. We have had a very expensive police inquiry.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: I do not
think that is necessarily the fault of the Act.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Just
to be quite clear, we did what we did. We of course assisted the
police in any way they wanted, but we are not lawyers, we are
not making legal judgments. I wish I could answer your question
but I cannot.
Q208 Paul Rowen: Have you had any
discussions with the Prime Minister or party leaders about modifications
to the system?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No.
Q209 Paul Rowen: Would you welcome
the opportunity to?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: In
a sense, it is not ours to reason why and say. If we are asked
questions—as indeed some of you have asked questions—about
our personal views, or it would be possible for the Prime Minister
to ask for the Commission's views on something, we have given
evidence to august bodies like this but I do not think it is for
us to take the initiative. We would always respond to people asking
questions.
Q210 Paul Rowen: Would you prefer
to see the Commission on a statutory basis?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Yes.
When Douglas and I were here before with Angela Sarkis, we all
said that it should be statutory.
Q211 Paul Rowen: Are you vetting
the former Prime Minister's list at the moment?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: There
is not one, as far as I know. The Chairman threw a very fast ball
at me the last time I was in front of you, when at least I told
the truth and said (a) I did not know and (b) I hoped we were.
We took your recommendation on board and it has been confirmed
that if there was to be one we would vet it.
Q212 Mr Prentice: Do you expect there
to be a Blair resignation honours list?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I
have no idea.
Q213 Mr Prentice: Because, Lord Hurd,
you said earlier that this whole process that we have gone through
has alerted party leaders that they really ought to be more careful
about the names that they put forward.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: We are
not in Mr Blair's confidence in this matter.
Q214 Mr Prentice: It is kind of unusual,
though, is it not? All these months after standing down, there
is still no honours list.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: It is not
compulsory.
Q215 Mr Prentice: Okay. Can I stick
with you for a moment and go back to Paul's question about the
1925 Act. Do you think it is possible ever to secure a conviction
under the 1925 Act, given that you have to show an explicit agreement
between the two parties: the person who bribes and the person
who has accepted the bribe, I suppose.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: Clearly
you could write a novel in which this happened.
Q216 Mr Prentice: You probably will!
Lord Hurd of Westwell: It could
conceivably happen.
Q217 Mr Prentice: It is a straightforward
question, is it not?
Lord Hurd of Westwell: I have
said that.
Q218 Mr Prentice: We have the report
from the CPS telling the world why there was not going to be a
prosecution, we have taken our own legal advice and the 1925 Act
is, in my view, flawed because it is virtually impossible to secure
a conviction, given that you have to establish an explicit agreement.
I am reminded of The Godfather film, when Marlon Brando
speaks to some person who has come to him for a remedy and the
Godfather says, "This time I will help you. And maybe at
sometime in the future you may be able to do a little service
for me". It is a kind of a nod and a wink, is it not?
Lord Hurd of Westwell: I suspect,
Mr Prentice, you would be hard pressed to draft in legislative
form a criminal offence which covers that. But, anyway, the Act
is the Act. The Act was produced in response to a particular situation
in the twenties and you could conceive of circumstances in which
a prosecution could be brought.
Q219 Mr Prentice: Are you telling
us that we have to live with the 1925 Act? This is a question
to both of you. Are you telling us that in view of what we have
been through there is not a better legislative remedy, perhaps
by looking afresh at the whole law of corruption and so on, or
do we have to stick with this 1925 Act.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: It
is for you to decide.
| 
