| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
"as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year",
and may, in exceptional circumstances-
Angela E. Smith: Cases; my apologies. It may,
"in exceptional cases, prepare a report at any other time about any matter relating to the carrying out of its functions."
Amendment 55, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), would delete the phrase "in exceptional cases". Although I think the amendment is unnecessary, we agree about what this provision should mean for the commission. The legislation gives the commission powers to prepare and lay before Parliament a report, in addition to an annual report,
about any matter relating to the carrying out of its functions. This reflects the system practice.
Members have asked why the word "exceptional" has been used. The commission has produced an annual report each year since 1855. It covers activities undertaken during the year in upholding the principle that selection for appointment to the civil service must be on merit and on the basis of fair and open competition. The report also covers its other work, such as its role in promoting the core values of the civil service as set out in the civil service code, and a summary of finances during that year.
Since 1855, the commission has never produced an additional report, so by definition, it would be "exceptional" if it were to do so. However, the provision is there in the legislation should it wish to do so. So "exceptional" is a statement of fact, in that to produce an additional report would be exceptional. However, it should be within the power of the commissioners to take that decision if they feel they want to produce another report.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment. The points that he made are covered, in that, if the commissioners want to produce a further report, they are entirely able to do so under the legislation.
Dr. Tony Wright: It is really very difficult to keep a straight face, Sir Nicholas. What is really disappointing is that when the process of this Bill began, all the Front Benchers were saying, "Of course we will be open to amendments. This Bill is not fixed in stone, and we will bring it forward in a spirit of taking sensible amendments." Indeed, when the Cabinet Secretary was in front of our Committee just last week, the same was said when we raised a similar issue with him, so I am afraid there is a mismatch here with the spirit in which we all engaged upon this Bill. There is a genuine desire across the House to get the Bill done. It is rooted in a political consensus, so it is very difficult to understand why the Government want to insist on something that, as the Minister has just described it, is completely unnecessary.
Given that we simply want the commission to be able to make a report if, in certain circumstances, it wants to do so, why on earth would we want to stop it? The commission itself would do that only if it thought the occasion warranted it. We have reached a level of absurdity, and I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister in a spirit of comradeship that resistance is not necessary at this point.
Angela E. Smith: I shall be brief. My hon. Friend talks of our resisting his amendment, but all I am saying to him is that the points that he has raised are covered in the legislation. There is nothing in the legislation to stop the commissioners, at any time, producing another report if they wish to do so. What he suggests is already covered, so the amendment is unnecessary.
8.30 pm
Dr. Wright: In the spirit of not only co-operation and not being difficult, but total mystery, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
David Howarth: I wish to raise two points and ask two questions about the schedule. Both points relate to the independence of the commission and both were raised by either the Joint Committee or the Public Administration Committee in their deliberations on the Bill. The first point is about the power of the Government-in this case, presumably the Minister for the Civil Service-over the commission's budget. Can this Minister explain what the procedure will be for setting the commission's budget? Will the Government of the day-the Minister for the Civil Service, in particular-have the power to set conditions on the way in which that budget is spent or to limit the content of the commission's activities using a budgetary mechanism? If that is the case-some concern was expressed on this point by the two Committees-that will, of itself, undermine the commission's independence.
The second point relates to the appointment of the first commissioner, which is obviously an important matter. I understand that the Bill says that the first commissioner is appointed by the Government, after consultation with various other people. A proposal was made-I believe by the Public Administration Committee-that as that was not enough to ensure the independence of the first commissioner, the appointment should be subject to the agreement of someone outside government; one suggestion was that the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition should be required in order to ensure the complete independence of the first commissioner. I have not heard from the Government as to why they rejected that particular proposal, and I wish to ensure that the Civil Service Commission should be as independent as possible.
Angela E. Smith: Schedule 1 contains provisions relating to the membership of the new Civil Service Commission-the hon. Gentleman mentioned that-and the other issues relating to the appointments that I referred to a moment ago. He asked about the commission's financial independence. Provisions provide for the commission to publish and lay before Parliament an annual report, as has been discussed. As now, that can include a summary of information on the funding of the commission. That is an obvious vehicle for the commission to bring forward any concerns that it might have about the adequacy of its funding or any comments that it wishes to make on the funding. Indeed, an exceptional or special report could be prepared to address those particular concerns.
David Howarth: I thank the Minister for that assurance, although I am not sure that it is enough to ensure the independence of the commission, especially if it will get into trouble for complaining about conditions governing its own budget or, at the very least, be worried about whether making a complaint would make the problem of its budget worse the following year.
Angela E. Smith:
It is embarrassing to see so much cynicism in just one hon. Member. The report is to be made to Parliament and it will be for Parliament to make a judgment on whether it thought the funding was adequate. I do not think that Parliament would wish to take action against the commission in any way at all; I think that Parliament would expect the commission to make a response on the adequacy of its funding. Obviously, the Government are bringing this forward, making sure that there is full independence for the
commission and putting it into statute, so they want the commission to be an independent body and to function well. I can, thus, allay the hon. Gentleman's fears on that account.
The provisions in the Bill do not, in any way, affect the commissioner's access to the Public Administration Committee. That is an important and influential safeguard for the commissioner's role in regulating the Executive. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Joint Committee recommended two amendments to the draft Bill's schedule in respect of commissioners. The first was for a requirement that the commissioners should be appointed on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition. The second was that compensation for loss of office should be extended to all commissioners, rather than just the first commissioner. The Government accepted both those recommendations, and the published schedule to the Bill incorporates those amendments. In addition, the Minister for the Civil Service must consult the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the relevant Opposition leaders.
Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): I beg to move amendment 48, in page 3, line 7, at end add-
'(6) The Minister for the Civil Service shall delegate the appointment and approval of senior civil servants to senior posts in the Scottish Executive to the Head of the Home Civil Service, acting on advice of the Civil Service Commission.'.
This is a simple and modest amendment that seeks to transfer the appointment of senior civil servants from London to Edinburgh. May I start by giving a bit of the context before I get into the meat of the amendment? This is not the preferred position of the Scottish National party. We would, quite obviously, prefer to see a properly devolved civil service accountable to Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament, much like those that we observe in normal legislatures around the world-in normal, self-respecting Parliaments. That is what we seek in terms of a civil service for Scotland, but it is not what we intend to seek when it comes to the appointments of senior civil servants. We would prefer that decision to be made by the First Minister of Scotland, and we would see him as responsible for making those key appointments. That is what happens in any self-respecting normal Parliament or legislature throughout the world. That is what we would preferably seek in order to try to ensure that we had the proper deal and arrangements for Scotland.
Through amendment 48, I am putting forward the agreed position of the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal party, as agreed with the Calman commission. I am prepared to set aside our preferred option-what we would ideally like to see-so that progress can be made. This is important. Progress can be made, and sometimes it is important for us to set aside our preferred and ideal options so that we can move forward to consensus. Sir Nicholas, you know me well enough to know that I always try to be as helpful as possible in such cases. This evening I am trying to be helpful, constructive and positive so that we can make progress on this serious key issue.
I do not want the Front Benchers from all the political parties to get up and thank me for tabling this amendment. That is not necessary; I am not looking for it, and I would feel a little embarrassed if they did so, so perhaps they can restrain themselves and remain seated while I make the rest of my speech. However, I expect to secure from the Front Benchers of all the Calman parties their overwhelming and enthusiastic support. I expect to see them and their right hon. and hon. Friends going through the Lobby, overwhelmingly backing their position. I expect that, because it is their agreed position, as agreed with the Calman commission. There can be no excuse whatsoever for a failure to support my amendment this evening. I am looking forward not just to support but to enthusiastic support.
The only thing that surprises me is that it has been left to me, a humble Scottish National party Member, to table an amendment on the agreed position of the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal party. I thought that when we had an opportunity to make progress on some of the very important Calman recommendations, there would almost have been a race. I thought that the Labour and Conservative Whips Offices would have tried to outdo each other in a stampede to be the first to the Public Bill Office to table this amendment. But we have not heard a peep from them, and it is left to a humble Back Bencher from the Scottish National party to get to his feet and try to ensure that we get some progress on this matter-to try to advance the agreed position of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties. I find it a bit odd that it is left to me to do this task, but I look forward to their support.
The Minister will know that there will be precious few opportunities to introduce some of the Calman recommendations in the next few months. Parliamentary time is tight and we have here an ideal opportunity to ensure that one of the key proposals of the Calman commission is introduced. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there could possibly be any reluctance to support this modest but important amendment, which is in line with Labour, Conservative and Liberal party policy.
I tried to frame the amendment as closely as possible to what was suggested in recommendation 4.21 of the Calman report. My amendment reads:
"The Minister for the Civil Service shall delegate the appointment and approval of senior civil servants to senior posts in the Scottish Executive to the Head of the Home Civil Service, acting on advice of the Civil Service Commission".
The Calman commission's recommendation 4.21 states:
"The responsibility for appointing, or approving appointments of, senior civil servants to senior posts in the Scottish Government should be delegated by the Prime Minister to the Head of the Home Civil Service, acting on the advice of the UK Civil Service Commissioners."
I do not want the Minister to say that I am trying to twist or misinterpret what was suggested about her position in relation to the Calman commission. That is not my intention: I have been as helpful as I can be by framing the amendment so that it is as close as possible to the commission's original wording. The only difference that I can see is that this Government cannot get their head around the fact that Scotland has a Government, rather than an Executive.
Mrs. Laing: I am puzzled as to why the hon. Gentleman is supporting the Calman commission this evening, instead of putting forward the position of the Scottish National party.
Pete Wishart: I know that the hon. Lady listens to every word that I say, and I am saying that I am prepared to set our ideal position aside so that we can make progress. The amendment would be at least a start to transferring some decisions on the civil service from London to Edinburgh. I am hoping to enlist her support in getting it through, although the crucial difference between the Calman process and the Scottish Government's national conversation is that we trust the people of Scotland to make the choice. We are prepared to take our proposal to the Scottish people, but the hon. Lady rejects that. When the Conservatives come to contest the next election, they might find that there is a heavy price to pay in Scotland for their failure to allow the people there to have a choice.
The amendment represents the agreed position of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties, all of which have the opportunity to support it this evening. What happens if they do not? That is a key question. Is Sir Kenneth wasting his time? Is he sitting in Glasgow university wondering what will happen to the rest of his recommendations? This evening, with this key piece of legislation, there is an opportunity for the House to enact one of his recommendations, but he will be observing our debate and wondering, "What on earth is going to happen to the rest of them?" What will parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament who are keen to see progress made and more powers devolved make of their colleagues in Westminster rejecting this proposal?
Stewart Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP): No Labour Members are even here. Where are they? Our party has a better turn-out.
Pete Wishart: My hon. Friend asks where the Labour Members are. Looking at the deserted Labour Back Benches, I am wondering the same thing. No Scottish Labour Member is present, with the honourable exception of the Parliamentary Private Secretary sitting behind the Minister.
Where is the Scottish Secretary? I though that this was his big idea. The Calman commission was supposed the vehicle for looking at devolution 10 years on. Here is a chance for the right hon. Gentleman to get one of his key proposals through, but he is not even here.
That is appalling, Sir Nicholas. I am sure that when you look at all the empty Benches, you are wondering what on earth Scottish Labour Members are doing. I am also sure that the people of Glasgow, North-East are looking at what is going on this evening. They will see that whereas my hon. Friends sitting next to me and I are ready to debate and consider an important recommendation for Scotland, not one Scottish Labour Member is present on the Government Back Benches. The people in Glasgow, North-East will be looking very carefully at who represents the Scottish interest best in this House.
What happens if the amendment is rejected? I believe that it will mean that the work of Calman commission is not worth the paper that it is written on. That will be very closely observed-but in the spirit of my helpful contribution, I will make the Minister a deal. I am sure
that she will stand up and say that the amendment is not suitable for this Bill, and so on. However, if she can give me a cast-iron commitment and guarantee that a specific piece of legislation will be introduced in the next few months to get this proposal through, I will not have to go through with the appalling prospect of embarrassing Labour Members by asking them to vote against their own measure. That is my contract with her this evening.
I do not want to be so cruel- [ Interruption. ] My colleagues are egging me on, but I believe that I owe it to Labour Members to give them an opportunity to try to put this matter right. The Minister can do that on their behalf but, if she does not say what I want to hear, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, as I have a genuine question. He is right to point out that no Government Back Benchers are present to ask questions on behalf of those who are puzzled by the amendment, so in their absence I shall try to do so.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the Calman commission. I understand the conclusions of Sir Kenneth Calman and his colleagues, and I have some sympathy with them. However, it is difficult to see how the amendment will transfer the power to which the hon. Gentleman refers from London to Edinburgh. I understand that he is saying that the amendment is only a step in the right direction. It would take power away from institutions in London, but it does not say specifically that power will rest in Edinburgh.
8.45 pm
Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady has obviously never looked at the amendment. It seeks to achieve the transfer of the appointment of senior civil servants from London to the home civil service in Edinburgh. It is the start of a process. That is the hon. Lady's position, too. It is what her party agreed in the Calman commission. It is her party's position, as well as the position of the Labour party and of the Liberals.
I have heard from a sedentary position the assurance that the Liberals will support the amendment, and I thank them for that. It is now a matter for the Minister. She can either assure me without equivocation that she intends to introduce a separate piece of legislation to achieve the aim of the amendment, or we will have to go through the ridiculous, almost grotesque spectacle of Labour Members voting against their own policy. It is up to the Minister.
David Howarth: I am not sure whether I can speak on behalf of the old Liberal party, of which I used to be a member, but I can certainly speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I would urge Liberal Democrat Members to support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |