| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated, we have committed ourselves to such a Bill and we shall bring it forward as soon as legislative time permits.
Perhaps I may take up the noble Lord's point and refer back to a comment by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. By and large, the relationships between special advisers and civil servants work well. There is no legislation in the world that will make relations good. One should be realistic about that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord deal with the other question put by my noble friend Lord McNally, which he has so far not answered; namely, what was the propriety of the Secretary of State expressing the opinion that Mr Sixsmith should not be employed in any other government department, and how was that compatible with the ministerial code of conduct?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend made it clear in his Statement:
- "Ultimately, I was not in a position to block any arrangement about his future employment elsewhere in the Civil Service".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps we should hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, first and then the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Waddington, I believe that there has been a gratuitous omission from the Statement by the Secretary of State. He said that no e-mail was received by Jo Moore. That is true. But there was an e-mail, and the terms of e-mail related to the inadvisability of news being released on the day of Princess Margaret's funeral. Therefore, they were very similar in nature. Does the Minister agree that, not only was it sensitive of Martin Sixsmith, but it was entirely responsible, in the light of what happened after the events of 11th September, to give such a warning?
Secondly, on television on Sunday the Secretary of State said unequivocally:
- "I had absolutely nothing to do with, and no discussions about, Mr Sixsmith's departure".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, as to the e-mail, I hope I made it clear in answering the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that there was indeed an e-mail—not in the terms set out in the Statement by my right honourable friend. I also made it clear that it was sent by Martin Sixsmith to the Secretary of State. I did not say, "but it was copied to Jo Moore as well". The question that the noble Baroness is asking is: do you agree that the actual, real e-mail was an appropriate e-mail to send? I have absolutely no complaint about the real e-mail that was sent. Perhaps I may make it clear that what my right honourable friend is saying in his Statement is that the e-mail that was not sent was the e-mail purported to be quoted by the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Minister is not giving any explanation as to why the Secretary of State is concealing in his Statement that there was an e-mail
in almost identical terms which was quite properly sent by Mr Sixsmith, and very appropriately sent by him to the Secretary of State.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think for one moment that the Secretary of State is seeking to conceal the existence of that other e-mail, which is well known. As to the second question, I think have already answered it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord McNally relating to the accusation against a small group of civil servants undermining and disrupting the work of the department. I have been around these premises for 32 years. Never before have I heard such an accusation made by any Minister against any group of civil servants or any individual civil servant. It is a very serious accusation and an allegation against individuals who do not yet have any opportunity to reply for themselves. I understand from the Minister's remarks that an inquiry will take place. When it is complete, will those civil servants be named outside the protection of parliamentary privilege so that they will have some redress?
Does the Minister agree that, if what the Secretary of State for Transport said is true, it constitutes in reality a conspiracy—I use the word advisedly—by a group of employees in a department of state against that department and against one of Her Majesty's Ministers? That is a very serious matter. I hope that it will be treated as such by the Government.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Statement said:
- "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 . . . 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".
Lord Borrie: My Lords, may I seek to—
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have taken the 20 minutes allowed. However, this is an important
matter and I have the sense that the House would like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. That must then be the last speaker. We are expending the time.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for coming in as the 12th man in place of him.
Is the Minister aware that I entirely agree with the general issues of grave concern voiced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally? No Civil Service Act, however desirable, will make up for the determination of Ministers to maintain standards of integrity and acceptance of the ethos of public service as Ministers in previous governments have done, and which, I am afraid, are slipping today.
The Statement is about Mr Sixsmith. May I ask a simple question? If Mr Sixsmith did nothing wrong, why was he asked to resign?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sorry to keep coming back to the view of Sir Richard Mottram, but—
Lord Lawson of Blaby: You are sheltering behind it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I am not sheltering behind it. Sir Richard Mottram is a civil servant respected on all sides of the House. He said:
- "It was clear to me that the 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".
Employment Bill
Second Reading debate resumed.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I shall try to bring your Lordships' minds back to the Second Reading of the Employment Bill, after the exciting minutes that we have spent on the other matter. For those of your Lordships who would like to remain, my contribution will focus mainly on Parts 2 and 3.
I recall giving evidence in the 1950s with others from the Society of Labour Lawyers to the Franks committee on tribunals and inquiries. I was then—and still to a degree am—an enthusiast for tribunals as an alternative to the ordinary courts in settling disputes, especially in specialised areas such as social security and employment.
In 1957, the Franks report accepted that tribunals were likely to be cheaper than the courts, more readily accessible, more expeditious and freer from technicality. That probably sounds a bit idealistic today. Over the intervening 40 to 50 years tribunals have tended to become ever more like the ordinary
courts, with their formalities and detailed procedures and, above all, because to a large extent they have, to put it crudely, been taken over by lawyers. When employers at employment tribunals are represented by a lawyer, it is natural that the employee feels disadvantaged if he is not represented by a lawyer as well, even though tribunal chairmen invariably try to assist the unrepresented employee to put his case.
In view of that, it is not surprising that the Government are rightly concerned at the growing numbers and consequent cost to everybody concerned of employment tribunal cases. Indeed the issue might have been dealt with a few years ago in earlier legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested. Parts 2 and 3 have been designed to increase the cost disincentives on those who bring broadly unjustified claims and to require internal procedures to be used fully before an approach may be made to a tribunal. I am aware of the argument—which we shall no doubt hear deployed in due course by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton—that the Government may have exaggerated the case for the changes by talking up abuse by employees of the employment tribunal system—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page