| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Kelvin Hopkins:
I do not wish to speak for too long, although I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. This issue has been drawn to our attention by some former heads of the civil service who have been before the Select Committee. They reminded us that back in the days of the Wilson Governments, and perhaps those of the Callaghan Governments, there was a remarkable range of views within Cabinet. It stretched from Tony Benn and Barbara Castle, on one side, to Roy Jenkins
and Shirley Williams, on the other, with several others in between. Within such Cabinets a real debate on policy took place, representing a spectrum of opinion. I am sure that the same was true of the Conservative party in times gone by, but our party certainly had genuine debate in Cabinet.
It has also been pointed out that in times past the Cabinet would, typically, see some 200 policy papers a year-that is four a week, on average. Cabinet would debate those papers and reach some kind of consensus on them. I understand that in one of the more recent years, two policy papers went to the Cabinet. Considering two papers compared with 200 represents a change. I like to think that we should have a genuine debate in Cabinet, with strands of opinion, whichever party is in power-that should certainly happen when my party is in power. Those strands should represent the broad range of opinion within the large parties in our, essentially, two-party system-I apologise to the Liberal Democrats.
That form of government was better than what we have had in more recent years-we might have avoided some mistakes, on all sides, had we had it. Special advisers should be replaced by ministerial advisers; we should have advisers giving advice to Ministers, not giving orders to civil servants.
The Second Deputy Chairman: May I just advise the Committee that it would seem sensible to take clause 15 stand part with this group of amendments? I have received representations about that and, as it is closely related, it would seem a sensible thing to do.
Mrs. Laing: It is pleasure to agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) has just said. [Interruption.] I hope that I am not doing him any harm in doing so. It is sad that the idea of the special adviser was first invented to assist Ministers and civil servants, so that such a person could play a hybrid role between the civil servant and the political office and political duties of the Minister.
I do not think that this is declaring an interest, but I should say that I was a special adviser from 1990 to 1994. I recall very well the mostly unwritten code that we observed carefully. There was no question in those days of special advisers telling civil servants what to do. I know that the Lord Chancellor would agree with my comments-were he in the Chamber-and those of the hon. Member for Luton, North, because he was one of the first special advisers when he worked for the then Mrs. Barbara Castle. He undertook that position with the same distinction that he has shown since, and there was no doubt whatsoever as to what special advisers did.
What is sad is the fact that, as the hon. Member for Luton, North described, the Government decided in 1997 to change the role of special advisers and almost overnight increased their number from 38 to 70 and more. More importantly, they changed their role and allowed special advisers to give instructions to civil servants, thereby undermining the position of civil servants. It is a pity that we cannot have a full debate on that this evening. We have only five minutes left and I shall curtail my remarks so that others will have an opportunity to speak, but I would have liked a full debate on that very issue. The fact that I cannot demonstrates that what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said when we debated the
programme motion earlier this evening has proven to be totally correct. We could have gone on debating this tomorrow, because it is a very important matter.
Mrs. Laing: Before the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) makes his speech-and I shall give way to him in a second-may I say that I entirely agree with his amendments 22 to 25, on restricted duties?
David Howarth: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. In fact, I was simply going to ask her whether she would support amendment 22 in the Lobby. It lays down the principle that she was talking about, which is that civil servants should not be instructed by special advisers for precisely the reasons that she gave and because it undermines the proper relationship between political appointees and the civil service. If she is of that opinion, I would like to test the opinion of the Committee on that amendment.
Mrs. Laing: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not think that it is necessary for the matter to be tested in the Lobby, but in principle I agree entirely with what he has to say.
It is sad that the once noble role of special adviser-a person who served the civil service, Ministers, Parliament and therefore the people very well-has been so badly undermined by this Government over the past 12 years. I note that the Minister disagrees, but I hope that she will tell us right now that that balance will be redressed so that special advisers can go back to being proper special advisers again.
Dr. Tony Wright: I shall be extremely brief. It is unfortunate-in fact, that is hardly the word-that we have reached a part of the Bill that has some real meat in it and there is simply no time to discuss it. I hope that the Government will say how we can deal with the rest of the Bill, because at the moment the Committee will be unable to do so. Over the years, we have had endless arguments about special advisers, and we do not need to repeat them now. Let us hope that we have got it out of our system, but surely we must agree that we have to know what special advisers can and cannot do. In a Bill that sets down the core values of our system of our government, we need to say on the face of it what special advisers can and cannot do. Surely we have to test the will of the Committee on that.
David Howarth: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and I think that the way to test that opinion is to press amendment 22 to a vote, so I shall ask you, Sir Michael, if we can do that in due course.
I should also mention very briefly new clause 15, which would at least require the Government to say what the limits on the numbers of special advisers should be. At the moment the Bill, as drafted, would allow thousands of special advisers to be appointed, which would entirely undermine the senior civil service and introduce an entirely different system of government.
Angela E. Smith:
I am grateful to hon. Members for keeping their comments short so that I have time to respond. First, on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), I have every sympathy with what he is trying to achieve but think that his amendments achieve the opposite, as they
blur the line. The term "special advisers" is understood. I take the same view as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing); it is a noble profession that allows political support and advice to be given to Ministers while maintaining the integrity and impartiality of civil servants. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North will withdraw his amendment. I have every sympathy with his intention, but I do not think that his amendments will achieve what he wants.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), may I say that I think that there is a lot of force to his point about the need for us to be clear about what special advisers can and cannot do? He has already mentioned the debate that has been had and it is widely agreed that Ministers need advice and assistance. That is an important role to fulfil, and the first act of the Prime Minister in 2007 was to remove the position-
10 pm
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Chairman put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D) , That the amendment be made .
The Chairman then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
Amendment made: 36, page 4, line 35, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert-
'(2) For this purpose, the Minister may publish separate codes of conduct covering special advisers who serve the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly Government.
(3) Before publishing a code (or any revision of a code) under subsection (2), the Minister must consult the First Minister for Scotland or the First Minister for Wales (as the case may be).
(4) In this Chapter "special advisers code" means a code of conduct published under this section as it is in force for the time being.
(5) The Minister for the Civil Service must lay any special advisers code before Parliament.
(6) The First Minister for Scotland must lay before the Scottish Parliament any special advisers code under subsection (2) that covers special advisers who serve the Scottish Executive.
(7) The First Minister for Wales must lay before the National Assembly for Wales any special advisers code under subsection (2) that covers special advisers who serve the Welsh Assembly Government.
(8) A special advisers code forms part of the terms and conditions of service of any special adviser covered by the code.'.-( Mary Creagh. )
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 37, page 8, line 7, leave out '8(7)' and insert '8(8)'.
38, page 8, line 22, leave out '8(7)' and insert '8(8)'.
39, page 8, line 35, leave out '8(7)' and insert '8(8)'.- (Mary Creagh.)
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment made: 40, page 9, line 38, leave out '8(3)' and insert '8(4)'.- (Mary Creagh.)
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
'(1) Section 3 of the Act of Settlement (which, subject to exceptions, prevents persons born outside the United Kingdom from holding certain offices) does not prevent any person from being employed or holding office in a civil capacity under the Crown.
(2) In the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 (c. 92), omit section 6 (which, subject to exceptions, prevents the appointment of aliens to posts in the Civil Service).'.- (Mark Tami.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
'(1) Rules may be made imposing requirements as to nationality which must be satisfied by a person employed or holding office in a civil capacity under the Crown in a reserved post.
(2) A post is a reserved post if-
(a) it is a post in any of the security and intelligence services, or
(b) it is within subsection (3) or (4), and a Minister of the Crown has determined that it is necessary for requirements as to nationality to be satisfied in relation to the post.
(3) The posts within this subsection are-
(a) posts in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service and posts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and
(b) posts in the Defence Intelligence Staff.
(4) The posts within this subsection are posts whose functions are concerned with-
(a) access to intelligence information received directly or indirectly from any of the security and intelligence services,
(b) access to other information which, if disclosed without authority or otherwise misused, might damage the interests of national security,
(c) access to other information which, if disclosed without authority or otherwise misused, might be prejudicial to the interests of the United Kingdom or the safety of its citizens, or
(d) border control or decisions about immigration.
(5) A determination under subsection (2)(b) may relate to a particular post or posts, or to posts falling within a description specified in the determination.
(6) In this section "the security and intelligence services" means-
(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, and
(c) the Government Communications Headquarters.
(a) impose requirements as to nationality which must be satisfied in the case of persons connected with a person who must satisfy requirements imposed under subsection (1), and
(b) provide that any requirement imposed under paragraph (a) may be treated as satisfied if a connected person has or had substantial ties with the United Kingdom.
(8) For the purposes of this section the following are connected with a person-
(a) any parent or deceased parent of the person,
(b) any spouse or civil partner of the person,
(c) any person living together with the person as if they were spouses or civil partners, or
(d) any parent of a person within paragraph (b) or (c).
(9) The rules are to be made by a Minister of the Crown.
(10) The rules may include provision-
(a) exempting persons of a description specified in the rules (and persons connected with them) who were first employed, or first held office, in the post in question before a specified date, and
(b) allowing the granting of exemptions by the appropriate person.
(11) In subsection (10)(b) "the appropriate person" means-
(a) in the case of posts in the Security Service, the Director-General of the Security Service or a person nominated by the Director-General of the Security Service,
(b) in the case of posts in the Secret Intelligence Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service or a person nominated by the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service,
(c) in the case of posts in the Government Communications Headquarters, the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters or a person nominated by the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters, and
(d) otherwise, a Minister of the Crown.
(a) section 75(5)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (rules relating to nationality etc. of persons employed in service of Crown), and
(b) Article 71(5)(b) of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/869 (N.I. 6)) (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland),
to the implementation of rules include the grant of (or refusal to grant) exemptions under subsection (10)(b).
(13) The power of a Minister of the Crown to make rules under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(14) A statutory instrument containing rules under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(15) Nothing in this section limits any power to impose a requirement which is not a requirement as to nationality even if the ability of a person to satisfy the requirement may be affected by the nationality of the person or any other person.'.- (Mark Tami.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
'The Schedule [Crown employment: repeals and revocations] has effect.'.- (Mark Tami.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |