| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Martin Sixsmith
4.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in another place. The Statement is as follows:
-
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Mr Martin Sixsmith from the post of Director of Communications in my department.
"On 14th February the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror reported that my special adviser Jo Moore had sought to schedule an announcement on the day of the funeral of Princess Margaret.
"Both papers reported that an e-mail had been sent from Martin Sixsmith to Jo Moore in the following terms: 'Dear Jo, there is no way I will allow this Department to make any substantive announcements next Friday. Princess Margaret is being buried on that day. I will absolutely not allow anything else to be.'
"In fact no such e-mail was sent from Martin Sixsmith to Jo Moore. Nevertheless the Daily Mirror reported yesterday Martin Sixsmith apparently told the reporter concerned on 14th February 'every aspect of your story is correct. I'm happy with it.'
"On the morning of 14th February the Prime Minister's official spokesman briefed the Lobby on the allegations contained in the Express and the Mirror using an explanation that had been agreed with Martin Sixsmith.
"Subsequently that lunchtime and into the afternoon it seems that one or more officials from my department began to brief the press that the line used by the Prime Minister's official spokesman was incorrect. At least one official appears to have spoken on this basis saying he was ringing on behalf of Martin Sixsmith.
"So what we had was a concerted attempt by a very small number of civil servants in the press office to undermine the department. I should stress that only a very small number were involved and their actions are being investigated. The vast majority work in a very good, committed and dedicated manner.
"On the morning of Friday 15th February I met with my Permanent Secretary, Sir Richard Mottram, to discuss the situation. Sir Richard told me that in his view the positions of both Martin Sixsmith and Jo Moore had become untenable. He felt that the best thing for the department would be if they both left their posts because relationships within the department and with its Ministers had broken down. He recommended that we should seek their resignations. I agreed with Sir Richard's recommendation. I said that I would talk to Jo Moore and Sir Richard said he would talk to Martin Sixsmith.
"We were clear that the department could not carry on with the communications department in the state that it was. As I made clear on the Dimbleby programme at the weekend, I believed both should go.
"Jo Moore agreed to resign. Mr Sixsmith agreed to resign. I announced the resignations. The details of the events that day are set out by Sir Richard Mottram in his statement of yesterday.
"Since then, there have been a number of meetings and discussions involving Mr Sixsmith in an attempt to resolve the detailed terms of his departure. I have not been directly involved in those negotiations. I have not met or spoken to Mr Sixsmith since his resignation and the detail of these discussions has been conducted by Sir Richard Mottram.
"I made it clear to Sir Richard Mottram, however, that in my view, and this view is strengthened by the events of recent days, Mr Sixsmith should not be given a job elsewhere in government. Ultimately, I was not in a position to block any arrangement about his future employment elsewhere in the Civil Service, and I accepted that discussions between Sir Richard Mottram and Mr Sixsmith would continue. Those discussions focused on him either getting another job in government or being compensated according to the terms of his contract.
"It was because in the end this decision about his future, beyond leaving my department, was not for me to take that I sought to make clear on the Dimbleby programme that I was not personally involved in the discussions with Mr Sixsmith on an alternative Civil Service job. But if my answers on the programme gave the impression that I did not put forward a view, or make clear my views to others inside and outside the department, that is obviously something I regret and I welcome this opportunity in the House to clarify matters.
"It is true that I was not personally involved in the negotiations. It is also true, however, that I believed Mr Sixsmith should not be given another job. I did not see the Dimbleby programme as the suitable place for detailed discussion about a personnel issue. Indeed, it is with some regret that I stand here now, making clear what my views of Mr Sixsmith are.
"I should emphasise that this is not an argument between elected politicians and civil servants. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear the dedication, professionalism and political impartiality of the British Civil Service is one of the country's greatest assets. I wholly endorse that view.
"My department, like every other, is staffed by dedicated and hardworking people who impartially serve governments of any colour. What is at issue here is whether one or two unnamed officials, acting quite contrary to the traditions and ethos of the Civil Service, can be allowed to disrupt and undermine the vital work of a Department of State. I do not believe they can.
"I will not allow this issue to distract myself, my ministerial team or the department from delivering on the challenging agenda ahead of us. Long after this issue is forgotten people will judge us by what really matters. I will not shy away from taking the tough decisions—whether in relation to Railtrack, reforming local government finance or making sure none of our regions is left behind.
"What matters to the people of our country is seeing improvements to our transport system; once again valuing local government; providing decent homes for our people; regeneration of our communities. That is what we are committed to do as a Government. And that is what I am delivering and will continue to deliver as Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions".
4.19 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, throughout the country passengers are waiting for trains on the railways and the Tube, planes are diverted because of the inadequacy of the half-privatised air traffic control system, and motorists are stuck in ever-longer traffic jams. That is the daily reality of the Government's total failure with transport after five years in office.
I must of course thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for repeating the Statement. Is he not ashamed and embarrassed to come to the House with a Statement about the office politics of the department that is supposed to be sorting on that mess? So much for an integrated transport policy. The Secretary of State cannot even run an integrated private office.
To restore morale in the department, will the Minister express full confidence in Sir Richard Mottram and in the career civil servants in the department? Will he accept publicly that it was a gross error not to have dismissed Jo Moore after her appalling behaviour on 11th September? In view of the comments about Mr. Sixsmith, can the Minister assure the House that Ms Moore will never again be appointed to any public post in this Government?
I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord six questions. Who took the decision to remove Mr Sixsmith from his post? Who decided, at what time, and by what means, that the announcement of the resignations would be made? Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what Mr Sixsmith did wrong to be sacked from the Department of Transport?
On Sunday, the Secretary of State said:
- "I had absolutely nothing to do with and no discussions about Mr Sixsmith's departure. Personnel matters are dealt with not by me but by the permanent secretary".
- "It was clear to me that this situation could not continue and that Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith should both leave their posts, because relationships within the department and with its Ministers had broken down. I discussed this with Mr Byers. He agreed with my proposal"?
Why did the Secretary of State say on 15th February that Mr Sixsmith had resigned when it is quite clear that he had not resigned? Was he misled by the Permanent Secretary? How did he get it wrong? Mr Martin Sixsmith said again today that he did not resign. If he is not telling the truth, where is the letter of resignation? Are the Government and the noble and learned Lord saying that Mr Sixsmith is now not telling the truth?
In the Statement, the Secretary of State says that Mr Sixsmith should not be given a job elsewhere in government. The Secretary of State has sought to end a civil servant's career. He denied it originally but has now admitted it. Is not this gross interference in the management of the Civil Service and, indeed, all the codes that go with it?
Too often the Government seem to believe that if the cause is just or a Minister needs a boost, any spin will do. They cannot conceive that it may be time to apologise or that they may be wrong. The reality is that there is now a shadow over the reputation and the functioning of the department that cannot be removed until the Secretary of State shows the sense of honour that he has so far not shown and steps down. We have been led too often into his world of half truths and
conflicting statements. Remember Rover and BMW; Railtrack and the chairman's meeting; the rail regulator; Mr Bob Kiley, the London Transport commissioner; and now Mr Sixsmith and Sir Richard Mottram. Is it not astonishing how many people the Secretary of State meets who seem to misrepresent afterwards what he says to them? He is obsessed with spin and presentation. Indeed, two years ago he was reprimanded by the Trade and Industry Select Committee for this very thing.The Secretary of State has become incapable any longer of effective management or of carrying the loyalty of his department. He is now part of the problem; he cannot be the solution. If the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, stays, who will invest in London Underground? Who will finance rail investment? Who will lend more money to NATS? Would he not be more respected if he stepped aside and gave the country what it needs—a new Minister to work with the Civil Service and to deliver results on our roads and railways?
4.33 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has raised a number of detailed questions about the minutiae of this affair. In some ways, this may well play into the Government's hands because they would like to ring-fence this issue in the minutiae of who said what to whom. I should like to go further and probe the Minister about the Government's views on a wider philosophy.
In the Statement, the Secretary of State says that,
- "people will judge us by what really matters".
Before I do so, I should like to question a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. It is extraordinary that in his Statement the Secretary of State confirmed that he gave the view that Mr Sixsmith was not suitable for transfer to another department. That surely is outside the code of conduct for Ministers and is not proper behaviour. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can confirm that Ministers are not expected to interfere in personnel matters in that direct way.
The Secretary of State also said that, as well as Mr Sixsmith, there were at work in the department,
- "unnamed officials, acting quite contrary to the traditions and ethos of the Civil Service".
Is the Minister aware that outside the Downing Street bunker—if he is, he must be the only one—everyone now believes that the department needs a fresh start under a fresh Minister? The Government can send Mr Byers wherever they like, but that department needs a new start.
Does the Minister agree that this is not only a matter of a single Minister and an individual civil servant? The Labour Party had 18 years to think about it, and has had five years to practise it. Yet it has got its relationship with the career Civil Service into a terrible mess. There is something about this present mess that goes to the very heart of government—for instance, the way in which the Prime Minister handles his Cabinet and his special advisers in No. 10; the way in which he lets loose the Downing Street press machine and the lack of guidance to the press offices in individual departments. There is a need for the Government to clearly state, and underpin with action, the Northcote-Trevelyan principles which have stood us in good stead for 150 years.
Do the Government believe that there is a genuine conflict between the purely information role of press officers and their wider political propaganda role? What does the Minister think of Mr Charlie Whelan's suggestion that all press officer posts should be political appointments so that the role they play within government is clear? Will the Government introduce a Civil Service Bill? If not, what is the reason for delay?
Does the Minister agree that in these past four or five years, by the way they have allowed their special advisers to act the Government have missed a wonderful opportunity to reform our system of administration to enable us to bring in outside experience—including outside political experience—to the betterment of government?
Does he agree that there is also a responsibility on the senior civil servants—the so-called mandarins—to protect the Northcote-Trevelyan principles? They should be able to say, "No, Minister" as well as, "Yes, Minister". If a Minister and a government go beyond those principles, they should have the courage to resign.
In some ways it is not appropriate that a transport Minister should be answering these questions because this is not about transport policy but about governance and probity in government. We are lucky in this House because the Minister responding is well known not only as a departmental Minister but as one of the Prime Minister's close confidants, a man to whom he listens. Will he tell the Prime Minister that this is not a matter to be dealt with by bluster and braggadocio, but by looking at the crisis of confidence that really and genuinely exists in our Civil Service at the moment and acting on it? If the Prime Minister
does not, he will deserve the contempt, and ultimately the punishment, of the electorate for failing in one of his most fundamental duties.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |