20 MAY 2004

RT HON JOHN MAJOR CH

  Q840 Mr Hopkins: If I could just follow that. You were shocked by this lobbying, but is there not another rather more pernicious possibility, that some prime ministers—not yourself, obviously—might deliberately use the honours system to secure political favours, to put their place men in certain areas, to reward donors to one's political party and so on. There are historical examples of this. You say there is lobbying, but you can resist that—you are an honourable man and you obviously did resist it—but others might not and they might deliberately use the system as well. Is that not more worrying?

  Mr Major: I think there is a concern. There were quite a lot of honours to the media in the 60s, 70s and 80s. I dare say you will get on to that later. As far as whether there is undue pressure and whether people respond, of course I just have to make the point that we do have a scrutiny system. Nobody gets a senior honour, particularly a peerage, without going through a particular scrutiny procedure. That scrutiny procedure is expected and I hope is quite rigorous. There have been occasions, I know—and I know again you would not wish me to give illustrations—where the scrutiny committee have objected and either action has been taken or the proposed honour has not gone ahead. So it is not just a question of a prime minister of the day saying, "I like the colour of your eyes, Kelvin. You can be a peer." It does not work that way. Although, of course, as far as working peers are concerned the tendency is changing, because increasingly, with the changing nature of the House of Lords, to a greater extent than hitherto people are expected to be full-time peers, and I do not particularly object to that. So the people who are going into the House of Lords are more likely to be people who have a particular political involvement and therefore may well be closer to senior political figures. But I would make a distinction about the House of Lords that can be misunderstood. To go to the House of Lords is technically not part of the honours system. They are not appointments as honours; they are appointments to a legislature. That is the proper position. People think of them as honours, but they are actually appointments to the legislature because the House of Lords is a working institution. So it is often possible to suggest that the awards have been offered for an unsavoury reason when in fact they have not. As far as donations are concerned, this is a constant problem and has been for all political parties. If someone has made a political donation, that is emphatically not a credible reason for them to go to the House of Lords. Equally, it is not a credible reason for them to be rejected simply because they have tried to help a pretty struggling political system by supporting the party of their choice. For that reason, whenever their name goes to what is now the Stevenson Committee (which used to be the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee years ago) it is accompanied by information from the chief whip of the party concerned which sets out the donations that have been made, so that the Stevenson Committee, when looking at propriety, can, as its predecessor committee did, make a dispassionate judgment at whether the proposal is reward for a donation or whether there is and are other credible reasons for someone to go to the House of Lords. I actually think—and I will say this before you ask me—the innovation of the Stevenson Committee is a good thing, though I think it has several shortcomings that ought to be put right to make it more effective.

  Q841 Mr Hopkins: I will come to my punch-line a little later on. The colour of one's eyes is one thing; but if one could be guaranteed to vote the prime minister's ticket in the House of Lords forever and a day, and one would turn up every day to make sure you vote, and you were to be appointed fairly obviously on those grounds, is that not just prime ministers using the honours system, even within their parties—not cross-party but even within their parties—to secure their own personal political control of the Upper House?

  Mr Major: Whether you are talking about an honours list, a working peers' list—which is where the problem you talk about arises—or not, you really do need merit, because to be a member of the House of Lords ought to be more than being a cipher just walking through the division lobbies. Traditionally, the House of Lords has had people of very high quality go there. It is a fact of life: the breadth of experience in the House of Lords is wider than in the House of Commons and has been so for a very long time. The House of Lords is a different sort of institution. The Commons is the important arm of the constitution legislatively; the House of Lords is a revising chamber and as a revising chamber it ought to have people there who are competent, experienced and able to revise. I personally think there should be very significant changes in the House of Lords in terms of its powers—and I do not mean changing the Parliament Act. I mean, for example, if I could give you, say, two examples. If you take treaties: prime ministers go abroad, they agree treaties, the treaties are agreed, they go through the House of Commons. True of Maastricht; true of Nice; maybe true of the constitution—who can tell? Would it not be a good constitutional innovation to have a constitutional committee in the House of Lords, who could take evidence and bring in external and experienced people to examine the likely content of treaties before the prime minister finally negotiates them, and advise upon them, so the Commons can debate them as well, and then look at those treaties before they go to the House of Commons for ratification, and then in five years again look at those treaties or, indeed, any legislation, to see whether in practice that legislation is working properly. That is one illustration. Also, if you had a parliamentary programme set out for a full parliament and we had enough people actually to draft the legislation a good deal earlier than now—rather than, as is often the case, as it is actually going through the House, when you get 200 amendments on the committee stage—why not have committees in the House of Lords, again taking evidence from people affected, whether business, farming, the armed forces, health or education services, before the bill is actually finally framed and presented to the Commons, so that many of the stupid, silly wrinkles in legislation can be ironed out before the legislation is framed, leaving the House of Commons in a better position to debate the real substance and political merit of the legislation rather than hours of tedious wrangling over minor changes to the legislation. I think there are lots of things the House of Lords could and should do. This is not directly your point but a side issue, so I will stop at that point, but I do think it is very important and it is a very important role and it meets your point, which is why it is relevant, that you need people in the House of Lords of ability not just the capacity to be directed to the right lobby.

  Q842 Mr Hopkins: Indeed. I could ask many more questions building up to my main question, which is: Would it not be sensible to eliminate the political core, the prime minister and other ministers, from the honours system altogether, so that peers are appointed by some independent commission? We would then get rid of this political patronage, with fine people, worthy people of independent mind, who would serve us well in the second chamber, if we have a second chamber at all? I am an abolitionist myself, being an old leftist, but, if we have a second chamber, these worthy people should be there. They are not going to be appointed by prime ministers determined to secure their own political control.

  Mr Major: I will not suggest it might knock your peerage on the head, then.

  Q843 Mr Hopkins: Unlikely.

  Mr Major: I think it is quite difficult to do as far as working peers are concerned. Where you have working peers, they are there as representatives of a political party to sustain a political system, so I think it is very difficult there. As far as people who are cross-benchers who have something to put into the House of Lords, I think it is possible to do that. I am not entirely attracted to it because it does sort of admit the principle of "whosoever is in Downing Street is necessarily going to abuse the system" and that is not my experience. To take a current illustration: the present Prime Minster, of his own volition, put two people into the House of Lords this time: the former Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, and the former Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir John Kerr. Both of those I think are admirable additions to the House of Lords. I have no objection to the Prime Minister doing that sort of thing and I would not wish to take away from him the right to do that. If the Prime Minister had appointed 60 people (or a very large number) and made that a regular habit, then we might begin to look at whether the system was being abused, but I do not think in that case it was. I think two people who fall through the system under the Stevenson Committee at the moment, were actually picked up and put in the House of Lords.

  Mr Hopkins: I would love more time, but I have had more than my fair share.

  Q844 Chairman: On this precise point, before we leave it, when Professor Hennessy came to give evidence to us—and he is a great fan of yours—he liked to claim that he persuaded you to publish the Ministerial Code.

  Mr Major: He did mention it from time to time.

  Q845 Chairman: Yes. But he said, making the case for really getting the prime minister out of the picture, that in fact it is the prime minister's list which really causes all the trouble. He said we should get the prime minister out of the picture but keep what he called "an adventure playground for prime ministers" where they can have their own little list. Is that a proposal that commends itself to you at all?

  Mr Major: The prime minister's list is much misunderstood, so I very much welcome that question. When people refer to the prime minister's list there is presumption that the prime minister sits down, rolls his sleeves up, reaches for a bit of paper and writes down the names of millions of people. It really is not that way at all. The prime minister has constitutional ownership of the list. It is not a list produced personally by the prime minister. There is an honours section in No. 10, not very well staffed—and I do not mean the quality, the quality is admirable; I mean the numbers: there were only, I think, two people in it when I was there. They receive all the nominations for honours that are not in the Queen's list (that is, the Royal Victorian Order) or the Defence Secretary's list or the Foreign Secretary's list. There are four lists, as the Committee will know. They receive all the names and they bind them together in a huge binder. They then go through a quite elaborate committee system, looking at different areas, sport, whatever it may be. That committee, in which the politicians and the prime minister are not involved at all, makes selections. Those selections then come to a main committee, also entirely a non-political committee, who make recommendations. Those recommendations are what is called the "prime minister's list" and it is only when those recommendations are made that they come forward to the prime minister. The prime minister did not actually make that list; he is the constitutional owner of it, because who could be under our present system other than the prime minister? It cannot be the Queen's list because the Queen has her own particular honours. It certainly would be illogical to be the Defence Secretary's or the Foreign Secretary's list, so it is called the prime minister's list. So there is a belief that the prime minister deeply and malevolently interferes into what happens. That was not my experience. I do not think that happened before I was there, it did not happen when I was there, and I have no reason to believe it happens now. So there is a certain misunderstanding about what the prime minister's list actually is. The prime minister has more of a say in peers, in the manner I have just described, working peers in particular, but on the list itself he has constitutional ownership but not practical authorship.

  Q846 Chairman: When you were answering Kelvin just now, you were describing the principle in relation to donations quite properly and clearly, but I do not think you were suggesting that in practice there has been no read across from donations into honours. I do not want to give you a long, long list, but it is pretty clear that under all governments that has happened, is it not?

  Mr Major: I certainly would dispute it, as far as I was concerned. Those people who made donations firstly—I make the obvious point—would have gone to the scrutiny list, but if I think of some of the names you have in mind, they are names who also have done a great deal of other things. They may have been very successful businessmen; they may have been captains of industry; they may have done a huge amount for charity—that is often the case. I cannot recall a single occasion—and I can say this with an absolutely clear conscience—when I put anybody in the House of Lords on the grounds of a party political donation. Moreover, I would go on to say, in 1992, when I had been there 18 months or so, I actually divorced myself from the donation aspect of politics and passed that on to my party chairman so that I was technically unaware. In practice, some people sometimes would say to you, "Great of Joe to hand over £100,000," so there were occasions when I knew people had made donations, but by and large I tried to put it at arm's length. I can only answer for myself but I do not think a great deal of that goes on.

  Q847 Chairman: It was not a question directed at you, it was a general observation about how these things have gone on over the years.

  Mr Major: I cannot answer for other people on that. I would hope that the situation has been safeguarded because people would look not just at the donation and make a judgment on that but at what else the person has done. Of course, the Stevenson Committee, and the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee beforehand, would have received a certificate from the chief whip of the party concerned saying: "This candidate has made these donations" so that when the scrutiny committee looked at the propriety of the nomination—which is their job—they would have before them not only their record in public life and their record in charities but they would have a clear-cut indication of what donations have actually been made. There is a safeguard system. Whether that is accurate is more for this Committee to judge than me.

  Q848 Chairman: You will have noticed in the evidence to us that when the Honours Scrutiny Committee people came here they said they wanted to be abolished because they were so ineffective.

  Mr Major: They should be merged with the Stevenson Committee, providing you put the Stevenson Committee on a statutory basis—which you should do.

  Q849 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Did you give any journalists any honours? Matthew Parris thinks you might have given one—but he was not sure who. We will move on, quickly.

  Mr Major: I cannot remember. It is not the sort of thing one lodges in one's mind.

  Q850 Mr Liddell-Grainger: I just wanted to know if it was Piers Morgan! You did not give any journalists any gongs.

  Mr Major: No mainstream, but there may have been some people in local government who got relatively minor honours, but that would have come through a nomination list entirely separate from Downing Street or the political structure. I am not aware of any, no. I cannot be absolutely certain that there were none, but I do not think so. I thought there were too many unhealthy expectations at the end of the 1980s and I thought there were great difficulties with honours for journalists. But you speak of journalists as though they were a generic whole. I think you need to break them up, in a manner of speaking.

  Mr Hopkins: There you go.

  Q851 Chairman: We are on your side there!

  Mr Major: I meant into different responsibilities: proprietors, editors, political journalists, non-political journalists, because different criteria necessarily apply. I will run through them all if you wish, but only if you press me.

  Q852 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Let's start with editors. What about political sketch writers? Are there any whom you think should get a gong, since we have a fairly good spattering here? One or two should not, maybe.

  Mr Major: I would rather start with proprietors if we are going to run through them all.

  Chairman: If you are going to run through them all, could we run through them briefly.

  Q853 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Very briefly. When it was on your watch, did you feel that it was not your place, or a prime minister's place, to honour somebody for doing a job? although some of them were quite critical of you—to say the least.

  Mr Major: Yes, just once or twice that happened, that is certainly true. People broke away from the pack and did that, I do recall that! I have no objection to journalists getting honours if they are in the political sphere but I actually think it is more proper and clearer and cleaner if they get those honours when they have retired from political journalism. I do think there is a difficulty with honours whilst they are actively engaged in political journalism. I think there is an interaction between the political world and political journalism and I think a decent distance is an attractive constitutional position. I did think honours could be misunderstood. I was not particularly in favour of them—but it was not through hostility to journalists, I promise you, it was because I did not think it was entirely proper. When they have retired, I think it is then entirely proper to look to see if they have any merit, whether they should be rewarded. As far as proprietors were concerned, I did not see any case for honours for proprietors, and, indeed, in my case the largest ones were not British anyway, they were moving between one country and another.

  Q854 Mr Liddell-Grainger: I was going to come on to them, actually.

  Mr Major: So I did not see any case there. The point about editors and political journalists is broadly the same: after they have retired, fine; when they are in office I think it is a little difficult to do. The political system and journalism are too closely intermingled already. Too much of journalism is active on behalf of the political cause already rather than reporting the activities of the politicians. So I was not attracted. I thought they were sticky areas. When they are retired, I am entirely happy. As far as non-political journalism is concerned, I do not think quite the same criteria applies. If you have very distinguished non-political journalists then I think they could go through the system in the normal way at any time because they do not have this interaction with the system.

  Q855 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Just concluding on that part, do you think there should be some sort of mechanism which is not written down but is an understanding for all prime ministers, that journalists should have to retire before . . . Simon Jenkins came before us, and he likes to be called Simon Jenkins and not Sir Simon Jenkins. He is not exactly helpful to any government. Do you think there should be, as you said, a cooling off period? Do you think that should be an understanding?

  Mr Major: My view really is it is better it should not happen while they are still in active journalism. I think it is better for the journalists: it preserves their independence. I think it is better for the politician: they cannot be seen to be attempting to curry favour by offering awards. I just think it is better and cleaner all round. Journalism is unique in the relationship and interaction it has with politicians and I think there are many advantages in that for journalism. I think one disadvantage is that, in my judgment, they are best kept away from the honours system until after they have moved out of that sphere. Once they have moved out of that sphere, fine, I have no objection in honouring people if they merit it.

  Mr Liddell-Grainger: They would not walk you round the garden, bend your ear.

  Q856 Mrs Campbell: When the public nominate people for honours, my understanding is that they still have to be doing the job for which they are nominated.

  Mr Major: I was not aware of that.

  Q857 Mrs Campbell: That is one of the rules. About 20% of those nominated are actually—

  Mr Major: I am surprised if that is honoured fully. I can think of occasions where I have been asked to support an honour now, not when I was prime minister. I am involved in a large number of charities and often the charity nominates someone who has ceased to be their chief executive or whatever and asks me whether I will support the nomination. So here there is a nomination going in for someone no longer doing the job for which they are being nominated. You may well be right. I no longer claim to be up-to-date on every aspect of the way the rules may have changed.

  Q858 Mrs Campbell: Would you think that is a necessary reform; that people should be allowed a bit of breathing space after they have finished?

  Mr Major: Not necessarily, no. I can think of people who have been honoured whilst they have been doing a job for a very long time. The charitable world I know perhaps better than most these days, and I can think of many people there. A very obvious example is Brian Rix, who got his knighthood, I think, when he was still very active indeed in Mencap—and I think it was a very well-received knighthood. There may be occasions when that is right but I think it has to be a subjective judgment rather than an all-embracing rule.

  Q859 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Could I move on to honourable members from Weston-Super-Mare. Loss of honours. British people. There is obviously a fairly high profile case in which the gentleman involved went to prison. Do you think honours should be stripped from people?

  Mr Major: It is a matter for the House of Lords.