Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
LORD JAY
OF EWELME
22 JULY 2008
Q20 Mr Walker: Finally, do you envisage
being lunched by the great and the good over the coming years
as they try and bend your ear in their favour?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I am very
conscious, having read the various good practice documents, that
I have to declare to the Commission anybody with whom I have had
contact. I hope people will recognise that declaring such a contact
means I will play a smaller role than would otherwise have been
the case in the decision, and therefore it would not be in people's
interests to wine and dine and lobby.
Q21 Chairman: You have also had plenty
of good lunches with the great and the good over the years, so
you are probably immune to all of that, are you not?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I think I
can withstand that.
Q22 Julie Morgan: We have had a brief
discussion about diversity; what about women in the House of Lords?
How do you see the position of women there now?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I think it
is much better than it was—better, I think, statistically
than in the House of Commons—but not as good as it should
be; but what does strike me is the very active role that women
play in all parties in the House of Lords, including in the cross-benches.
Q23 Julie Morgan: What would you
plan to do to increase the number?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I think there
is a broader issue there of increasing the number of under-represented
groups in the House of Lords. That is something clearly I would
want to discuss with my fellow commissioners, if I were appointed
to the job and when the new Commission is in place. I would hope
we could see this as a task for the Commission as a whole, and
I would want to explore ideas such as identifying where gaps are,
having some kind of outreach activities so members of the Commission
could be responsible for groups which we felt were under-representative
to try and make contact with those groups to see whether we could
enlarge the pool of applicants to the Lords. In doing that of
course, we would need to keep in mind that we are talking about
a comparatively small number of appointments over the next few
years. One has to be careful as well to try and shift the balance
a little bit but without raising expectations that there are going
to be a large number of appointments.
Q24 Julie Morgan: One of the things
that probably inhibits everyone, and women, from thinking of themselves
as being a member of the House of Lords is that it seems very
distant and you will be the face of the House of Lords, and you
are not one of the traditionally under-represented groups. How
are you going to tackle that?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: First of all,
I would be very keen to have a public role in talking about the
House of Lords and talking about the role of the Appointments
Commission, and trying to encourage a broader diversity of applicants
myself. Again, I think this would be something for the Commission
as a whole. I would hope that the public face of the Commission
could, in a sense, be the other commissioners too. I would hope
that the new Commission will be, as the present one is, properly
representative and, therefore, be in a good position to do that.
I completely agree with you about the image of the House of Lords.
I gave a talk recently at a university and noticed when it was
my turn to speak everybody went out. I asked the convenor why
and she said, "Well, the students came up to me and said,
`Why would we want to listen to some old peer?'" I think
there is quite an important issue here about the image of the
Lords as a whole.
Q25 Julie Morgan: You have had experience
in the Foreign Office of trying to recruit more women. Could you
tell us a bit about that?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes, I was
very keen to increase the proportion of women and the proportion
of ethnic minorities applying to join the Foreign Office, because
it was clear to me that there was huge pools of talent which for
some reason did not feel comfortable about applying. In the Foreign
Office, we instituted a really quite systematic process of outreach
to universities, to schools particularly those in areas where
we knew there would be large numbers of ethnic minorities at school
or living, to get across a different view and to encourage people
to apply. We also appointed what we called "ambassadors"
to different regions of Britain from the ethnic minority communities
so that we had, as it were, somebody in each of the regions and
nations of Britain whose job it was to try to interest people,
explain to them what the Foreign Office was, and interest them
in the work that we did; to try and break down the barrier against
joining what was seen to be a bastion of the Establishment.
Q26 Julie Morgan: Would you see yourself
following that pattern?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes, it is
something I would want to talk again to the Commissioners about.
I am conscious too that there are the resource issues. The Commission
at the moment is quite small; the support is quite small; so one
must be very careful about putting forward some ambitious thinking
which could not then be put into practice. I think that is something
I would want to talk to them about.
Q27 Julie Morgan: Do you think people
would ever see it was a place for them while it is still called
the "House of Lords"?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I think changing
the name and making very clear the distinction between the honour
and the work of the Lords is a really important step to take,
as early as possible actually, because I think it is a disincentive.
Q28 Paul Flynn: One of the disappointments
last time, with the first appointment of what became known as
the "people's peers", is that the Commission tended
to appoint people who were like themselves. There was a large
number of knights there, and also there were some very distinguished
people there. One of the reasons given for this, was that it was
very difficult to find someone "who was a bus conductor or
a waitress who would have the self-confidence to stand up in the
House of Lords and make a speech". Do you think the Commission
under you would go to the trouble of finding such people? Do you
think it is worthwhile doing it?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I think it
is important that people should be able to make a contribution
to the work of the House of Lords; but I would hope there would
be no group that would feel that it was in some way excluded from
applying. I am sure the new Commission will want to look again
at the criteria, to see whether the criteria seemed right for
where we have got to now in the process of reform in the light
of the lessons we have learned over the last eight years or so
of the Commission's existence, to see whether some changes could
be made. One of the criteria I have in front of me is "significant
achievement". It seems to me that one might be looking at
not just significant achievement but at significant promise. There
may be some groups for whom "significant achievement"
is quite a difficult thing to have got.
Q29 Paul Flynn: You have welcomed
this initiative of pre-appointment hearings. One of the people
who gave evidence, one of the Americans, told us we would be mad
going down this road of having pre-appointment hearings; and the
reason he gave was that virtually everything that is said by anyone
in their past can be brought up because of the ease of finding
it through Google. People with perfectly good reputations and
distinguished records were often publicly destroyed by raising
indiscretions or small matters from their past. You would disagree
with that presumably if you welcome these hearings?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I believe
that this kind of hearing is an entirely right and proper thing
to have for certain public appointments. If you are going to have
a public appointment, at least certain public appointments, then
it is right that you should have a public hearing before that.
I think it is particularly appropriate in this case because this
is an appointment which is particularly important to Parliament,
and to both Houses of Parliament, and it seems to me particularly
appropriate.
Q30 Paul Flynn: It would be our duty
to draw to your attention the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee
in 2006 that was critical of your work. It was reported by a group
of consultants, Collinson Grant, who said that, "People are
frustrated and impeded in the execution of critical tasks by the
weaknesses of the organisation, yet are unwilling to tackle the
root causes that are entrenched in and reinforced by the established
culture. The entire organisation needs to be challenged and reformed,
but the leadership [which was you, I believe] lacks the skills
needed and the will to upset the status quo". Do you have
any comment?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: It was precisely
because we were conscious of the need for reform that we asked
the consultants to come and do the report they did. The mistake
may have been to say, "We want you to make a hard-hitting
report", because that is what we needed. I think this is
a comment more on the difficulty of governance in an age of open
information, than it was at the time on the Foreign Office, which
was quite early on in my time there.
Q31 Paul Flynn: The Foreign Affairs
Committee concluded " ... that Sir Michael is part of the
problem. Under his stewardship, the report was originally suppressed.
It criticised the management he was supposed to lead", and
it goes on to make other criticisms. Is that fair?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: No, it was
not suppressed. I think if you look at the time you will find
it was voted through by two to one in a committee of 12, that
particular sentence. I was very glad I had the full support of
the Foreign Secretary; and indeed some MPs who wrote to The
Times commenting on that. I am entirely comfortable for that
sort of thing to be read out in a Committee of this kind. It did
not bother me much then, and it does not bother me now.
Q32 Paul Flynn: The other one that
does intrigue this Committee, and intrigues all of us, is the
attraction of the House of Lords and why people want to go to
the House of Lords. It appears from the original group who were
appointmented that many of them played very little part in the
work of the Lords; but others proved to be very effective peers.
To try to separate the attraction of being called a Lord—the
pageantry that goes with it, the status that goes with it—and
the job, as a Legislature, that people should be doing, do you
see this as a difficulty? You are trying to sift out those who
see the superficial attractions of being called "Lord",
going around in ermine and all the rest of it, rather than people
who would make a serious contribution to legislation?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes, I do.
That is why I said a little while ago that I think it would be
good if those two things could be separated out. I think this
is an area too where the new Commission I am sure would want to
look at the criteria. I think at the moment the criteria talk
about having time available to play a full part. I personally
would like to see that strengthened a bit and have a commitment
to play a full part. I think it is very important, particularly
as we move towards a process of reform that the people, whether
they are appointed or whether they are party nominees, do play
full part in the activities of the House of Lords.
Q33 Paul Flynn: If we look at the
party nominees, there is one political party, Plaid Cymru, that
has held an election to choose their nominee for the House of
Lords. Other parties tend to pick the party hacks, the ones who
have been loyal to whatever is the ruling wing of the party of
their day. Would you see it as your role to balance those who
have served the party loyally and are getting there as a reward
for their loyal services, against those who had taken an independent
line in parties and would have no chance of being nominated by
their own party? I am thinking of characters and people in the
House of all parties who would be in that category. Would you
regard it as your role to balance the party hacks with people
who might have an original and independent contribution to make?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: No, the question
of nominees from parties is the responsibility, as I understand
it, of the parties. The role of the Commission, as I said to the
Chairman earlier on, which is not straightforward, is to try to
judge the propriety of those who are put forward. I do not at
the moment see it as a problem. It is not an issue I have thought
about in the last 48 hours or so. It is clearly something you
might want to think about, but I have not thought about that point
yet and I would not, on the face of it, see it as a role for the
Commission to try to right that balance.
Q34 Paul Flynn: Just to follow up
on Julie's comment, I believe that under your stewardship at the
Foreign Office there was a great increase in the number of women.
It has been obvious to us as parliamentarians how, over the years,
it has been traditionally a male-based Foreign Service and there
has been a profound change?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: Yes, there
was change. That was a question I was talking to Julie Morgan
about. Yes, I felt when I joined the Foreign Office that it was
too male; that we were losing out on a huge pool of talent coming
in; and that at the top we were not getting that kind of diversity
that makes a real difference to the governance of any organisation.
I find that now in my business as well, and it was something I
was very keen to change and I worked quite hard with others to
do that. I think it has made a difference and I am glad that is
recognised, Mr Flynn.
Q35 Paul Rowen: You mentioned you
feel that this job is very important for Parliament, yet you report
to the Prime Minister. Do you think that is the appropriate route
that your decision should go through?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I would feel
more comfortable if the Commission were on a statutory basis than
as an NDPB reporting to the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister.
I know this is an issue which is being discussed. I think it is
more appropriate for a body that appoints an important proportion
of our Legislature that it should be on a statutory basis.
Q36 Paul Rowen: Have you had discussions
with the Cabinet Secretary about that?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I have told
him that that is my view in the interview we had earlier on, but
it is not something I have pursued further than that. I have not
yet had conversations with anybody, other than a very short conversation
with the present chairman.
Q37 Paul Rowen: Clearly the last
Commission did stand up to the Prime Minister in the sense of
all the cash for peerages issue came about as the result of the
Commission's refusal to nod through certain appointments. Are
you confident that in your role, particularly as in your previous
roles you have represented very much the Establishment, you are
able to do that?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I am confident
that I would be able to do that. I am confident that the Commission
as a whole would see the real importance of doing that and would
do it. To be honest I think that the prospect of appearing fairly
regularly before this Committee will be an added incentive for
doing that.
Q38 Paul Rowen: Can I take you back
to an article that appeared in The Sunday Times on 14 December
2003 entitled "Whistleblower reveals secrets of honours list".
This described the minutes of the main Honours Committee, which
included senior civil servants presumably including yourself.
One of the comments that is made about these minutes, which were
never supposed to be made public, is that an insider said "civil
servants were expected to undertake `political searches' when
checking biographical details of potential candidates to ensure
that they were not `anti-Blair, anti-Labour or had views which
opposed the government or the Queen'". Is that true?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I was unaware
of that. I do not remember that particular article. I was on the
Honours Committee at that stage. I was not conscious of that.
That is the first time I have heard that suggested and I do not
remember that article. That was, I think, just before the Honours
Committee system was revised substantially to reduce the role
of civil servants on it. It was a good reform.
Q39 Paul Rowen: Taking that on board,
what other changes would you like to see to the operation of the
Commission to ensure that it is robust, it is independent, and
it is able to go about its duties of bringing about appointments
which are representative of the diversity of the UK?
Lord Jay of Ewelme: I think on
the question of the diversity—and I distinguish between
proper representation of the diversity of the UK, and we have
already talked about some of the measures which I would want to
discuss with the Commission, with a view to having outreach to
groups which you might think were under-represented to ensure
that the pool of applicants is widened. As far as the robustness
is concerned, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think
it is a question of when we get, as the Chairman said, a "dodgy"
proposal, we make clear that that is a dodgy proposal.
| 
