The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Government greatly appreciate the work carried out by Sir Nigel Wicks and the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its report Defining the Boundaries within the Executive published in April. As I made clear in my Answer to a related Question on 29th April, the Government are giving careful consideration to the committee's report and will respond in due course.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say when we will get a Civil Service Act? Are we going to get it in this Session or even in the next? Is he aware that some special advisers have been bringing pressure to bear on civil servants which has limited their impartiality? That impartiality lies at the root of the Civil Service operation, as emphasised by the Fulton committee on the Civil Service and repeated many times since. Does my noble friend accept the recommendation of the Wicks committee that it is not right for special advisers to be temporary civil servants? They need to be defined as a category of government servant distinct from the Civil Service.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we await the imminent release of the issues and questions document from the Public Administration Select Committee which has been promised. We also await the review being conducted by Robert Phillis and his group, which is a radical and free-standing review into the organisation of the Government's information services. We are also committed to replying to Sir Nigel Wicks, whose report arrived less than two months ago. So there are a number of inquiries and reviews still in progress. The Government look forward to their decisions being informed by them.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do not resile from any commitment to Civil Service legislation. However, I am responsible for the Better Regulation Task Force, an independent body which constantly insists that departments should look for alternatives to legislation, such as codes or guidance. Many of the suggestions put forward by noble Lords and others might be dealt with through other forms of legislation, including codes of conduct for special advisers or ceilings on the number of special advisers which could be dealt with through amendments to Orders in Council.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, has my noble friend read the report of the interview given by Sir Andrew Turnbull in the Financial Times on 14th May in which he said that the Civil Service is now achieving better results than in 1997? Does he agree with Sir Andrew that Whitehall can push ahead with improvements only if it creates an effective working partnership with other parts of the public and private sectors?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in my two years at the Cabinet Office I have certainly been very impressed by the commitment to reform of, first, Sir Richard Wilson, and now Sir Andrew Turnbull. There is no doubt that the Civil Service is engaged in a thorough process of reform. I am not suggesting that that process started in 1997it has been in train for many years nowbut it is designed to uphold the impartiality, integrity and honesty to which my noble friend alluded in his opening Question.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, the Minister referred to Sir Nigel Wicks, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I was his predecessor. We made a recommendation in 2000 that there should be a Civil Service Act, to which the Government replied:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, those with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, will not be surprised by the ministerial answer that we cannot anticipate what might appear in a forthcoming legislative programme. Nor will he be surprised to hear that governments have changing priorities which press down on every Session of Parliament. If changes can be taken forward outside of primary legislation, I recommend, as a matter of good practice, that the Government should adopt that approach, informed of course by the reviews and reports that we have in hand.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it will come as no surprise to many of us that the Government are developing new priorities so far as concerns a Civil Service Act? As the noble Lord, Lord Neill, pointed out, the Government's pledge is more than six years old and has been contained in several reports already, including the report of the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, into the public service, on which I served in 1997. In these dying days of his role as Minister, is the noble Lord content to rest on committee inquiry after committee inquiry, or will he not say now that it would be better to have a draft Civil Service Bill, which could be published and debated, on which he could join us from the radical Back Benches, as soon as possible, to campaign for its implementation?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I certainly hope that this is the last time I have to reply to questions on the future of the Civil Service. However, we have a very active Public Administration Select Committee, under the very able chairmanship of Tony Wright, which has promised to give us guidance on this issue. I understand it will be publishing a report within the next day or two although I cannot anticipate the contents. In response to an earlier request by the Select Committee we set up the review under Bob Phillis which we hope will be reporting in the autumn on reform of the Government's information services and on the role of special advisers in relation to that.
We have put a great deal of work in train. Given the longevity of this great debate on the nature of the British Civil Service, I ask the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to wait a little longer. From the Back Benches, I shall be very happy perhaps to nod approvingly at what he says.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the Minister's opening words that the Government were considering the report and would in due course reply are hardly original. They make us all feel very comfortable with the exceedingly familiar. However, would it not be possible to describe such inertia in slightly different words?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I found it easier in my previous profession as a journalist to be more ambitious with language than one is allowed to be as a Minister. My original Answer was not meant to be entirely soporific. I wanted to point out that we were considering a report which had been 18 months in the making and which we received less than two months ago. To repeat what I said: we shall give it very serious consideration. It is a very full piece of work and will sit alongside the other work being carried out by Bob Phillis and by the Public Administration Select Committee.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have long-standing concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Reports of the development of uranium enrichment facilities heighten those concerns. The Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) visited Iran in February this year. His report, presented in March, was discussed at the Board of Governors of the IAEA meeting that month. Further discussion of Iran's nuclear programme is scheduled for the next governors' meeting in June. The UK will play an active role in highlighting our concerns at that meeting.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe that all in this Chamber recognise that there are real concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons programme. Does she agree that to pursue this multilaterally through the International Atomic Energy Agency is the right way forward? Apparently exaggerated estimates of what is going on, put about by exiled groups in Washington, strike some of us as alarmist and perhaps sound a note of familiarity with what we have been suffering as regards Iraq in the past year. Does the Minister recognise, too, that proposals floated in the press and elsewhere in Washington that unilateral bombing by either American or Israeli fighters to take out the facilities would be something which Her Majesty's Government would immediately condemn?
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page