Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER 2009
RT HON
LORD ADONIS,
PROFESSOR LORD
DARZI OF
DENHAM KBE AND
ADMIRAL LORD
WEST OF
SPITHEAD GCB, DSC
Q80 Chairman:
Finally from me, looking at Lord Darzi and Lord West really, did
it occur to you at all that one reason why Prime Ministers might
like people like you on the ticket, a First Sea Lord, a distinguished
surgeon, is to give a bit of glitter to the administration?
Lord Darzi of Denham: I do not
think that was in any way the motive of such an appointment.
Q81 Chairman:
No, but did it occur to you that that could be a motive?
Lord Darzi of Denham: No, not
at the time, and certainly not subsequently. What was important
for me, being a surgeon working in the NHS, is the credibility
in engaging the near enough 60,000 people that I engaged in the
process of the review. We were speaking the same language and
we were trying to really see how reform ... The whole purpose
of reform changed, where government became the strategic adviser,
empowering the consumer and allowing the professionals to exercise
their skills and professionalism.
Lord West of Spithead: If I may
say on that, that did cross my mind because, of course, it does
add a certain glitter and it would be stupid to think that might
not be the case. That was one of the factors that I was weighing
up when I was in two minds about not doing it. That is why I made
certain that I was convinced myself that the Prime Minister did
feel that the security and safety of the nation was the primary
concern that he had, and when I had convinced myself that was
the case and he had shown me that threat, I was happy to move
forward. Of course it adds glitter to the thing; it would be silly
to pretend it did not. I could see that there is that as well.
Q82 Chairman:
I do not want you to think, Andrew, that the glitter question
does not apply to you.
Lord Adonis: I added no glitter,
apart from my name, which is very exotic.
Q83 Mr Walker:
You talk about your reluctance to accept a peerage. I have to
say, it sounds like a dreadful job to me: no elections, no constituents,
legislating for life once you finish being a minister. Who would
want that? Seriously, given your reluctance to take on this awesome
burden, do you think a future Prime Minister, for example, David
Cameron, will struggle to find talented people who want to become
peers? If that is the case, would it not be better to get rid
of this peerage nonsense and actually allow people to become ministers
who do not have to take a seat in the House of Lords, move more
towards the American system, where we have the separation of powers,
for example, so David Cameron or Gordon Brown is free to pick
from a talented pool of 60 million people? You, Lord West, would
come and serve for three years. You might even be paid more than
you are paid now—indeed, I hope so—and then, at the
end of three years, when you have either had enough of Gordon
Brown or he has had enough of you, or you want to go and earn
more money, you can say, "Thanks very much. I have served
my country once again. Now I will retire back to private life."
Would that not be a good idea? Lord Adonis, you have never been
slow in coming forward.
Lord Adonis: Do I think that would
be a worthwhile reform? My personal view is yes, I would support
such a reform. I think it would be thoroughly worthwhile to make
it possible to bring people into government who are not Members
of either House, provided they are properly accountable. There
would need to be proper arrangements in place in this House and
in the House of Lords for them to be questioned. I would support
that but I am also a constitutional historian who knows that this
mediaeval constitution of ours changes very slowly and I think
it would take a huge effort to bring about such a change. I imagine
that the Commons collectively and the Lords collectively would
be opposed because of course it would breach the closed shop in
both cases.
Q84 Mr Walker:
Lord West, what about an idea being proposed by my leader, that
Lords if we could not make the constitutional leap, people come
into the Lords, serve for three or four years as a sort of acting
peer, and then, having finished serving, they would leave the
Lords and go back to private life? Do you think that is something
that is worth considering?
Lord West of Spithead: I think
it is probably worth considering, yes. I have to say, you talk
about legislating for life—I do not intend sitting doing
political work constantly when I finish doing the job I have.
Q85 Mr Walker:
But you will be a crossbencher?
Lord West of Spithead: I will
of course be in the Lords, so one has some involvement. One of
the things I have found very attractive about the Lords is, although
difficult if you are a minister, on any subject you talk about,
one of certainly this country's greatest experts, sometimes the
world's greatest expert, is there to fire questions at you. In
the Lords you cannot shout "Ya, boo, you lot were rubbish
last time." You actually have to answer the question. So
it is quite tricky, and that is one of the strengths of it. I
think the fact that one knew one was going into that chamber and
would be in that chamber and how much you got involved in politics
thereafter, I think that has an attraction. It is not the ultimate
attraction.
Q86 Mr Walker:
I would be hugely attracted to it, to be honest.
Lord West of Spithead: That does
have an attraction and you have to make things attract because,
as I say, actually, people step in from outside and although money
might not be the driver, if you have always been in public service,
although we are adequately paid, you suddenly discover how much
money you can make elsewhere, and not doing that is quite a—
Q87 Mr Walker:
You did that for 14 months.
Lord West of Spithead: Exactly!
Q88 Mr Walker:
You said you got your last packet and 14 months later you were
in the Lords, but in between that you were earning fortunes.
Lord West of Spithead: My income
went up dramatically, yes, and I had to give up all that.
Q89 Mr Walker:
In the area of defence?
Lord West of Spithead: No, in
a number of areas.
Q90 Mr Walker:
Lord Darzi?
Lord Darzi of Denham: I would
have taken that offer if it was on the table when this was discussed
in June but I have to point out in retrospect—because I
have left now and I can say what I want to say—being in
Parliament, the parliamentary experience, was a very valuable
thing to do. I took three bills through Parliament. For me, the
learning experience, standing on my feet, debating something—and
you may call me an expert but I am not an expert in everything
in healthcare—standing up, defending what I am trying to
do, being held accountable in the chamber ... I was called in
three times to the Health Select Committee on my own to defend
what I was doing. That is what makes democracy in this country.
Do not lose that. I would not do away with that accountability.
That I think would have a negative impact. There is a bit of a
paradox in the questioning because the Chairman clearly said what
gives you the power if you are unelected. I think the accountability
in the chamber and also in the Health Select Committee was what
kept me, the steer. I enjoyed that, I defended it, and it gave
me all the opportunities I needed. In the future, in the next
20, 30 years, whether I am going to be a contributor in debates,
I will certainly be there for health debates. I think it is interesting;
when I was in the chamber, when I look at the peers who were debating
on my Bill, most of them, if I could just say, most of the ones
who made some significant contribution to the Bill and improved
the health of the Bill were previous and ex-ministers in the last
20 years. That is very important because that experience was very
valuable to me in the chamber, but I also consulted many ex-ministers
outside the chamber.
Mr Walker: A 15-second question. I think
actually the three of you are very talented and you have been
huge successes. Would you serve in a Conservative government if
you were asked to by David Cameron?
Chairman: Who are you looking at?
Q91 Mr Walker:
All of them. Lord West?
Lord West of Spithead: The yes-no
answer is rather difficult. I have to say, probably because I
am a military officer, I feel a sense of loyalty, and as I was
asked to come in, I think that would be disloyal. However, if
there was something that was actually, I felt, crucial to the
security and safety of my nation, I would do a job and I would
not care, almost, who I did it for.
Q92 Mr Walker:
We would be lucky to have you. Lord Adonis?
Lord Adonis: No.
Q93 Mr Walker:
Oh, come on! Lord Darzi?
Lord Darzi of Denham: I have done
my bit as a minister but I am always there to assure the NHS's
values and principles—that is what brought me in. I was
not recruited for my political experience and expertise. I have
none. However, I could tell you that medical politics is sometimes
more vicious than politics in Whitehall! I was brought in to really
deal with the values and principles of the NHS, and I would advise
anyone in relation to the principles and values and how we keep
the NHS going, but I am not pursuing a political career. I have
no real interest in doing that and I have been frank about that
from day one.
Q94 Chairman:
Fortunately, Charles will be available to Mr Cameron, so all will
be well. Just on one aspect of that exchange, what I would quite
like to know is whether when you had that initial discussion about
becoming a minister anybody told you what being a minister was
all about.
Lord Darzi of Denham: No. I could
just tell you also, if I appointed someone in my department, for
the first three months, I would sit down and tell them exactly
how it works. To be fair, my private office did a lot to get me
on the level as far as the policy-making in the department but
no-one took me to the side to say what it means to be a minister.
To be fair, my views about politics and politicians and ministers
and what they do completely changed, because they make a huge
amount of sacrifices.
Q95 Chairman:
What you say about accountability is interesting. When we had
Digby Jones in front of us, who does not, I think, count as one
of the conspicuous success stories of the Government, his line
was, "I do not want to do all these boring ministerial things.
I do not want to give evidence to committees. I do not want to
take bills through the Commons. I want to be off selling the country
in trade missions, that kind of thing." If nobody explains
what the grinding work of being a minister is in terms of this
political accountability, it is a funny thing to sign up to, is
it not?
Lord West of Spithead: It was
an enormous failure. You are absolutely right. It was like doing
an A-level a night on some of these things, which were not to
do with security. When I find I am answering questions on female
genital mutilation, drug testing on gorillas, this is something
I had not quite expected to do. It has been very good for my brain.
I can actually learn poetry again now, that is not quite what
I expected, I have to say, and it is a very broad spread. I think
I am probably a better person for it at the end of it, because
one has to get to grips with all of that and that is good.
Lord Darzi of Denham: I think
the success of a minister is to convert yourself from being an
expert into a generalist. A lot of what I did in the chamber was
a more generalist thing and I thought that was very useful, bringing
an expert view into a generalist debate.
Lord Adonis: On the issue of accountability,
if as a minister you are not prepared to be fully accountable
to Parliament, you have no place in being a minister. A good part
of the job of being a minister is to explain the policy of the
Government to Parliament, to answer questions and to engage in
a constant dialogue. I think it was Attlee who said that democracy
is government by discussion. Unless you have ministers who are
constantly prepared to discuss, including in Parliament, you have
no democracy. You asked what was the most surprising aspect of
being a minister. I had been an adviser before so I had some idea
of what the job of a minister was. What most surprised me on reflection,
looking back at it over the last four years, was the impact that
public exposure has on your life. As an adviser I had been occasionally
in the news. I had not realised that you become public property
when you become a minister. The first day I was a minister I had
a bank of cameras outside my house, because it was an appointment
of some transient controversy. Nothing really prepares you for
that, except, I think, possibly being an MP. I think actually
being an MP in terms of the public exposure probably prepares
you for that side of being a minister quite well. There are very
few other professions where you get the degree of public exposure
and, at times, controversy, which prepares you for that side of
being a minister. I know from some of my colleagues who have gone
into the House of Lords and become ministers that that can become
quite an issue. They suddenly become public figures to an extent
that they had not realised would happen when they became ministers.
Q96 Chairman:
Yes. That cannot be true of Lord Mandelson, can it?
Lord Adonis: He had had quite
a lot of experience before.
Q97 Julie Morgan:
Following on from Charles's questions, do you think to be a successful
minister you should be a member of the same party as the governing
party, or at least have sympathy with the views of the governing
party?
Lord West of Spithead: I do not
think you have to be a member of that party. Clearly, you have
to take the government whip. It would be wrong to be a minister
and not take the government whip, I think. I think you have to
have sympathy. I think it would be impossible if every fibre of
your being was against things that were their policy. I cannot
see how that could work but I do not believe you have to be a
member of the party and fully tied into it all, but I think you
have to have a sympathy for it. If you are the opposite, I just
do not think you could do it. I do not think you could be a minister
of the government.
Q98 Julie Morgan:
So did you join the Labour Party?
Lord West of Spithead: I am not
a member of the Labour Party, no.
Q99 Julie Morgan:
From your responses, you would feel from a sense of duty that
you would be able to serve under a Conservative government?
Lord West of Spithead: No, I said
I would not do it because I am a loyal sort of chap and I have
worked for Gordon, but I said if in the future at some stage there
was something where I felt and people thought they needed me to
do something for the security of my nation, then certainly, as
I think I did two and a bit years ago, I would do it, possibly—my
wife might not let me but we would see.
Lord Adonis: You have to be completely
in sympathy with the ideology of the government to be a successful
minister. Parties are broad churches and you often have members
of parties that form governments who are not in sympathy with
the predominant ideological stance being taken by the head of
the government but you could not be a successful minister if you
were not, and indeed, it would be a bizarre act on the part of
the Prime Minister to appoint as a minister somebody who was not
broadly in sympathy with the policy of the government.
| 
