| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): I am grateful to noble Lords who have given me the benefit of their views, not least in the exchange between the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, about the terms of reference, which I will not address at the moment, because we will have amendments later looking precisely at the issues that both noble Lords feel are important. It would take far too much of the Committee's time to do that now, but they are important issues. I only mention that because they will come up later.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, began by talking about the two shifts that concern him, from Parliament to the Executive and from chairmen to Ministers. I will try to address some of the issues that have been raised in that context. We have had three different parts of the debate: one about the role of
18 Jan 2005 : Column GC202
Parliament; the other about the relationship between the Chairman and the Minister, which will come up in later amendments; and one about the specific issues surrounding ministerial misconduct.
Let me begin my remarks by making it absolutely clear what the 1921 Act does and does not do. There were quite a number of misconceptions about that in what noble Lords said. I hope that once I have explained it, it will lead people in the direction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, in saying that the Act should not continue.
Lord Ackner: Can I be forgiven for saying that we are having some difficulty in hearing at this end of the Room? The acoustics in this Room are terrible. Will the Minister bear that in mind?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I certainly will bear it in mind, although I do not have the faintest idea what to do about it, other than to turn the volume up. Should I try to move the microphone nearer to me?
Lord Ackner: Yes, that would be an advantage.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will go with that, although if I put it on my notes, I cannot possibly see what I have to say. This shall be a novelty. This is my first day in the Moses Room. My Bills are normally so controversial that they must be debated on the Floor of the House.
I was describing three debates, and the third is about ministerial misconduct. I was talking about what the 1921 Act does and does not do. Crucially, it does not give Parliament a power to set up a statutory inquiry. A Back-Bencher could not use the 1921 Act to do that. It says that where parliamentary resolutions are passed, and an inquiry is appointed by the Secretary of State or the monarch, the inquiry can be given the powers and privileges of the 1921 Act. My submission is initially therefore that preserving the Act does not achieve what Members of the Committee seek to achieve, in terms of either the involvement of Parliament or the ambitions in other ways.
Frankly, the provision does not oblige the Secretary of State to do anything other than—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, described—in moral pressure, what is right and proper in times of great concern. He mentioned Bloody Sunday and Aberfan as two such instances. It is also true that many other inquiries born of terrible tragedies, not least that chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the death of Victoria Climbié, were not set up under that Act. We must take away the misconception that the Bill is replacing something that was better. It was not. It would not have done what Members of the Committee believe that it would have done.
As I indicated at Second Reading, a lot of other legislation has grown up over the years that has overtaken the 1921 Act, which is used very rarely. We talked about the 30 inquiries that have taken place over the past 14 or 15 years, of which only four were set up under the 1921 Act. Some inquiries—again, the Climbié inquiry is an example—were set up using more than one Act. The purpose that lies behind the Bill
18 Jan 2005 : Column GC203
above everything else is to simplify a very complicated existing framework, and to create a single effective framework. What we are setting out to achieve will not only do the job of the 1921 Act, but—in relation to some issues to do with the choosing of a panel or with costs—do so in a more effective way.
The powers and privileges given to inquiries under the 1921 Act are all available in some comparable form to inquiries under the Bill. The only notable difference—it deals with the question—is around resolutions in Parliament. I indicated that those resolutions do not do what Members of the Committee thought that they might. I undertook at Second Reading, and shall be interested during Committee, to listen very carefully to noble Lords. I want to consider further ways to strengthen parliamentary involvement in the process, and look forward to debates in Committee on that. I make a commitment to consider that very carefully. I have heard the strength of feeling and recognise what Members of the Committee are saying to me.
My first submission is that the 1921 Act should go because it does not do what the Committee is looking for. I commit to considering that the critical point about the role of Parliament be looked at again, both in Committee and beyond.
With Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was trying to retain the procedure on the misconduct of a government department or Minister. I hope that he will accept that it would not do what he wanted. As I said, the 1921 Act does not do what Members of the Committee want it to do, so we would not be giving additional powers to Parliament or Ministers. It would only allow some inquiries to carry on as they were before. That would be less effective than the way that we are considering for the future.
Lord Kingsland: If the Minister is right about that, how will we investigate ministerial misconduct? Clearly the procedures in the Bill do not help us, because those are initiated by Ministers. A Minister is highly unlikely to initiate a procedure to investigate himself; and most unlikely to initiate a procedure to investigate his Cabinet colleagues. Where is the procedure in the Bill, in terms of both initiation and substance, that will enable the country to investigate ministerial misdemeanours?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall address the points but, so far as this Government are concerned, if there have been any allegations of misconduct, inquiries of one kind or another have been undertaken. The noble Lord may not like them or their outcome; none the less, the Government have striven to make sure that there is proper conduct by Ministers. Nothing in the Bill prevents Parliament wishing to introduce additional procedures if it so wished.
If I might, I will continue with the issues around what the noble Lord is proposing. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, can then consider whether he wants to propose alternative suggestions or proposals, or pursue those that he has. The purpose of this Bill,
18 Jan 2005 : Column GC204
which is set out clearly in Clause 1, which comes from the 1921 Act background, is to allow inquiries into events. Events are different to issues. It is specifically designed to look at what might happen and to investigate how best we ensure that we gain public confidence that those events could not happen again. It is possible that in the work of an inquiry that along the way one might discover misconduct by a person, a department or a Minister, but we should not prejudge it.
One of the issues with what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seeks to do in his submission to the Committee is quite difficult, because if one looks at some of the big inquiries that have taken place, it is difficult on occasion to say that a department has been guilty of misconduct, but it is possible that that conclusion might be reached in the course of an inquiry. It is important that noble Lords are aware that the purpose of an inquiry is to look at the event and to look at the process that led to the event, and not to assume that the event is around misconduct. That is important in this context.
It is also difficult, when one looks at the events, to consider what might be misconduct. It might be by omission, perhaps by not giving an organisation or agency funded by the department sufficient resources. Is that misconduct by omission? Also, looking at some of the issues that have arisen, for example, around foot-and-mouth disease or BSE, it is important that we do not prejudge. There is a question mark generally around inquiries into events about whether one is able to distinguish at the outset that the issue is about misconduct. Most times that is not possible at the outset. Very often, the circumstances might not fall into that.
Noble Lords have talked about the processes available and how Parliament operates. I agree with much of what has been said in Committee today about the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about the use of Cross-Benchers. With the best will in the world, and with all respect to our noble and very eminent Cross-Benchers, this is not the role for them. They play an important part in the legislative life of Parliament and in enforcing and enhancing our debates. It is not their role to be put in a position of cross-examining and determining the conduct of elected Ministers in another place.
This morning, I appeared before a Select Committee, so my view of Select Committees is substantially different to all those that have been put forward thus far. As a Minister, appearing before a Select Committee is one of the most important and critical things that I undertake, and I do so with enormous gravity. I work very hard; it is like doing a PhD on your feet. I feel extraordinarily held to account by the Select Committee process. I am mindful—I have appeared twice before this Select Committee and several times before others—and I wait with bated breath for their reports on whether I am able to do my job as efficiently and effectively as I might.
I put a plea in to noble Lords who perhaps have not appeared before a Select Committee recently, or ever, that Ministers take the work of the Select Committees
18 Jan 2005 : Column GC205
incredibly seriously. They do, as I understand it, have powers equivalent to those of the US Senate. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, feels passionately about the issue of misconduct, and it is important to remember that procedures are in place already that could be invoked if Parliament so chose.
Other noble Lords have talked about trying to get parliamentary resolution in both Houses on misconduct issues. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, is not cynical; I think he is accurate that there is an inevitability about the Government of the day having a majority in the House of Commons, but not, certainly in this Government's case, in the House of Lords. I am not sure where that takes us in terms of a rational and sensible way to approach this. One looks at the code of conduct for Ministers, and all the issues around how Ministers are expected to behave, which is taken seriously. The confidence of the Prime Minister and the country are important and are not to be considered lightly.
As I have indicated, within this Bill there is nothing to stop Parliament, if it so wished, looking at additional procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, put forward an interesting idea. I think it is unworkable but that is not to say I do not understand the point that the noble Lord seeks to reach.
I touch on Amendments Nos. 3, 65 and 66. As I have already indicated, there is an issue about the role of Parliament. I indicated why we think the 1921 Act does not achieve what noble Lords would hope it did. I hope that noble Lords, in thinking about this, will be mindful of what I have already indicated about the role of Parliament. I hope that, as we continue to debate the Bill today and tomorrow, we have the opportunity to think through how that might operate to ensure that those issues are effectively dealt with.
On the issue of ministerial misconduct, the Bill is concerned with events and, in looking at events, one cannot necessarily indicate at the beginning that ministerial or government departmental misconduct is involved, although that might emerge in the course of an inquiry. I am reconciled to considering what the parliamentary issues might be. It is for Parliament to consider whether additional procedures are needed. However, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I urge great caution regarding the proposals that have been put forward thus far. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |