---

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that what people are most concerned about in this country are the problems of transport and that we should be concentrating on seeking to resolve them. That is what my right honourable friend in another place is seeking to do. He asked me to express full confidence in Sir Richard Mottram and I do so without hesitation. He asked me to express full confidence in the Civil Service in my department and I do so without hesitation. Speaking personally, as regards the particular areas with which I am concerned in my department, which are housing, planning regeneration and other matters, the quality of service I have been provided with from the Civil Service has been second to none and the relationship between Ministers and the Civil Service has also been second to none. I believe that we should get this matter into perspective.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked six questions, which I shall try to answer. I did not quite get down the sixth because he veered between question and abuse. It was quite difficult to determine what was the question and what was the abuse. The first question was: who took the decision that Martin Sixsmith should resign? Perhaps I may read from the personal statement made by Sir Richard Mottram yesterday. He said,

"On Friday, February 15, 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. We agreed he would talk to Jo Moore and I would talk to Mr Sixsmith".

He then describes his discussion with Mr Sixsmith and the statement continues:

"He"—

that is Mr Sixsmith—

"agreed that he was willing to resign on three conditions: that Jo Moore should also resign; that he and I agreed the terms in which his resignation would be presented in a manner which did not blame him; and that he needed to understand the financial terms under which he would leave, although he said these were unlikely to be a difficulty for him."

Sir Richard then describes Mr Sixsmith going to the hospital appointment and said,

"I agreed that he would take up his hospital appointment, which he told me he could do and return to the department by 3.30 pm. At this stage"—

and these are the words of Sir Richard Mottram—

"I informed the Secretary of State and the Cabinet Secretary that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign".

My right honourable friend in the other place agreed with the contents of the statement in his Statement in the other place. Sir Richard continued:

"Because he failed to return to the department for some two hours after the time we had agreed, the detailed terms of his resignation had not been finalised nor put in writing by the time it was announced together with that of Jo Moore—earlier than had been planned because of a leak— at 4.45 p.m. on the Friday. The

26 Feb 2002 : Column 1348

terms of the Secretary of State's announcement were discussed with me. They did not attribute any blame to Mr Sixsmith and were consistent with the discussion I had had with Mr Sixsmith on his second condition".

Those are the circumstances of Mr Sixsmith's resignation, as set out by Sir Richard Mottram. The statement sets out clearly how the decision was taken.

The second question from the noble Viscount was: who took the decision on the timing when the resignation was announced? The announcement was made by the Secretary of State at 4.45 p.m., as Sir Richard Mottram's statement makes clear. That was discussed with Sir Richard. The third question was: as it has been said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has nothing to do with personnel, why did he get involved in the decision about Martin Sixsmith going? Again, I refer to the statement made by Sir Richard Mottram. It was he who came to the conclusion that,

"the situation could not continue".

He discussed it with Mr Byers and,

"He agreed with my proposal".

That is how the Minister became involved, and it was made absolutely clear at all stages by Mr Byers that that was his involvement.

The fourth question was: was the Secretary of State misled by the Permanent Secretary? What the Secretary of State announced at 4.45 p.m. was that Mr Sixsmith and Ms Moore had resigned. Sir Richard Mottram says in his statement,

" At this stage"—

which is 3.30 in the afternoon of Friday—

"I informed the Secretary of State and the Cabinet Secretary that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign".

It was on that basis that the Secretary of State made his Statement at 4.45 p.m..

The fifth question was: where is the letter of resignation? As Sir Richard Mottram's statement makes clear, there is no letter of resignation because there were still three issues to be resolved. As I say, I could not grasp the sixth question because of the mixture of abuse and question. If the noble Viscount would like to repeat it, I shall be more than happy to try to answer it.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has offered me the opportunity to repeat the question and I am grateful. Mr Sixsmith has repeatedly said, and said today, that he did not resign. Is the Minister saying that Mr Sixsmith is not telling the truth?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that that is a slightly disingenuous question, if I may say so with the greatest respect.

Sir Richard Mottram's statement makes it absolutely clear that there was a discussion about resignation. Noble Lords must draw their own conclusions as lawyers as regards this matter. The detail has been set out of all the facts; namely—and I quote,

"He agreed that he was willing to resign on three conditions".

26 Feb 2002 : Column 1349

Then Sir Richard sets them out. Those are the facts.

As regards the noble Lord, Lord McNally, he, perhaps with some sense, moves away from the minutiae of the issue and asks whether it does not indicate a malaise. The malaise that he seeks to identify is the relationship between Ministers and the special advisers on the one hand, and the Civil Service on the other. I most emphatically reject the suggestion that it is indicative of any sort of generalised malaise. Of course, it is plain from these events that there has been a problem in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to the press office, but that is not a problem that spreads across to Ministers and their special advisers and their relationship with civil servants.

My own personal experience has been that relationships between civil servants and Ministers have been good. In the vast majority of cases, special advisers also get on well with civil servants and that can be demonstrated by my own department where the two remaining special advisers have a good relationship with civil servants.

The noble Lord asked whether all press officers should be politicised, as Charlie Whelan suggests. Most emphatically not. The vast majority of government press officers should continue to do their jobs in the best traditions of the British Civil Service.

4.47 p.m.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord make it clear that Martin Sixsmith did not resign and has not resigned? It is clear from the statement from Sir Richard Mottram that Mr Sixsmith said that he was willing to resign on three conditions, which were to be discussed on his return from hospital. They have never been discussed or clarified and therefore there is no evidence of resignation. Can the Minister confirm that that is so?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, noble Lords can continue pressing me as much as they like on this matter. The facts are set out very clearly. If it is the noble Lord's conclusion that Mr Sixsmith has not resigned, then so be it.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that it is his view that the Secretary of State for Transport will be judged, not on this transient issue which the Opposition are using as a sledgehammer, but on the important issues of whether the ideas on transport which he substantially and effectively follows, and which largely he inherited from the Opposition, will be dealt with? Can my noble and learned friend say whether the letter of resignation, which the Opposition continually refer to, is as illusory as the case proposed today?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree entirely with the first part of the question. My right honourable friend in another place will be judged on his success or failure in relation to transport and other issues which are his responsibility and not, as my noble

26 Feb 2002 : Column 1350

friend said, on these transient issues which the noble Viscount described as "office politics". As I have made absolutely clear, my right honourable friend said that there was no letter of resignation.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is not this extraordinary intervention merely the latest phase of a deplorable situation that we have seen developing in a major government department? Is it not high time that the position of special advisers was reviewed, with civil servants being restored to the position that they have enjoyed, to the general admiration of the public, of giving the decisive advice to Ministers, as has been the case since the Trevellyn-Northcote Report, and also of ensuring that information is given impartially?

---