20 Mar 2007 : Column 1135
House of Lords
Tuesday, 20 March 2007.
The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
Royal Assent
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act,
Clerk of the Parliaments: Retirement of Paul Hayter
2.35 pm
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, it is my duty to notify your Lordships that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, Paul Hayter:
I would be grateful if you could inform the House that I have asked the Prime Minister to inform Her Majesty The Queen of my intention to retire from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from Saturday 3rd November 2007, the eve of my 65th birthday. The Prime Minister has confirmed that Her Majesty has been informed.
By November I shall have served the House of Lords for more than 43 years, including nearly 4Â1/2 years as Clerk of the Parliaments. During my career the House has been transformed, and I am glad to have been able to help that transformation. The small hereditary House which existed in 1964 has become a successful and energetic second Chamber, and it is supported by staff who have similarly grown in number and professionalism. We are proud to contribute to the effectiveness of Parliament and I hope that, in any further reforms, the undoubted strengths of the House of Lords will be reinforced.
The mutual respect and friendship of Members and staff have made the House of Lords a very happy place in which to work, and I count myself lucky to have enjoyed such a privilege. Please convey to all Members of the House my thanks for their friendship and support over the years”.
Following receipt of Mr Hayter's letter, I have consulted the party leaders in the House, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers and the Lord Speaker, and it has been agreed by us all that a successor to Mr Hayter should be appointed following a trawl among the staff of this House and the staff of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Parliamentary Service for the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. This decision follows closely the practice adopted last time for appointment to this very senior post. The timetable for the trawl should mean that the recommendation of a successor to Mr Hayter can be made to Her Majesty during May.
20 Mar 2007 : Column 1136
I am sure that it will be the wish of the House, in due course, to pay tribute to the services of Paul Hayter. I am advised that the proper manner of doing this is for me to table a Motion recording our appreciation of his service nearer the time of his retirement.
Civil Servants: Employment in Private Sector
2.38 pm
Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What are the restrictions on civil servants taking employment in the private sector following termination of their service in areas where they have had experience during their service.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, civil servants are required to act in accordance with the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments set out in the Civil Service Management Code. The rules apply for two years after civil servants have left the service.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that it would be naive to think that the public service and private enterprise have not come closer together? There is nothing wrong intrinsically in that, but public perceptions are such that they require safeguards to be put in place, as they have been; the code suggests two years, as he says. Is he happy that two years is enough? I am not suggesting that there is a problem, but it could arise and the Government could well be criticised if it were later found that two years was too short a time.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it will be recognised that quite a number of the applications occur for taking up appointment over a shorter period. When criticism has been advanced, it has been over that factor. Most often, that criticism has been readily refuted. I do not think that there have been any cases where civil servants close to the end of the two-year period have sought an appointment and then received criticism for doing so.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, very senior officials, such as Treasury Permanent Secretaries or Cabinet Secretaries, have broad experience in almost every department of state, as we have learnt today if we did not already know. Given that broad experience, no one is suggesting for a minute, I hope, that there is anything wrong in their taking up appointments. Who devised the rules? Was it the Cabinet Secretary? What is the penalty if they are breached?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend will recognise that Ministers are responsible for the application of the rules. He is right that very senior members of the Civil Service are likely to be much in demand because of the wealth of their experience. He will recognise that they have to be approved by the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. Its members include the noble and
20 Mar 2007 : Column 1137
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does that apply at all levels? Will the Minister define “employment”? Does it mean paid employment, or would people be entitled to take up work with a charity or some similar organisation that might be unpaid but might use the information that they acquired in their post?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the arrangements vary according to the level of post that the individual has held in the Civil Service. As the noble Baroness would rightly recognise, the arrangements that apply for former Cabinet Secretaries are not going to apply to a clerk in the Department for Transport, for example. However, the concept is the same. It must be clear that, as my noble friend Lord Barnett indicated, because of the obvious advantage that might accrue to a private enterprise as the result of the experience of an individual in the public service, safeguards are there under the code to which all civil servants subscribe and which is part of their conditions of service.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged my interest as a member of the committee. Have the Government received, and will they reply to, the report on ethical regulation from the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration? Secondly, will the Government give consideration to the possibility that it might assist members of the Civil Service to find highly appropriate work in the private sector if they were directly to employ across the board the services of executive recruitment companies?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an interesting point from a very important source. Of course, I acknowledge that the Select Committee on Public Administration in the other place is doing very important work on these issues. The Government will respond to its recommendations in due course. That serious work has been going on for a considerable period of time. That committee is there to be concerned about the whole range of ethical standards in public life and probity. Its recommendations will require significant consideration by the Government.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, do the rules apply to political advisers, who may have the same sort of inside information?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, specials advisers certainly come within the framework of these rules as well. Their case is slightly different, in that they are finally vetted not by Ministers, but by the head of the Home Civil Service, for obvious reasons. However, political advisers are civil servants of a special kind, and they fit within the broad parameters of the arrangements that I have described.
20 Mar 2007 : Column 1138
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the Minister’s reference to the Civil Service Management Code prompts the question when we might expect to see the Civil Service Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thought that that question might arise. It is the first time that it has been directed at me. I am in a position of saying, “Not yet”.
Railways: Parliamentary Scrutiny
2.46 pm
Baroness Scott of Needham Market asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the 2004 White Paper The Future of Rail set out the Government’s view that it should be for Ministers, accountable to Parliament and to the electorate, to set the national strategy for the railways. A structure for the industry based on that principle has since been delivered through the provisions of the Railway Act 2005, and no further changes are planned.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, in recent months a number of Written Questions tabled by noble Lords have met with the reply from the Government, “Write to Network Rail”. Does the Minister accept that, with £5 billion of public money going into Network Rail every year, robust parliamentary scrutiny of its operations is essential to provide transparency for taxpayers and railway users?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness’s second point. Some of the responses to which she referred relate purely to operational matters. It is quite right that those references are made, because I am sure that noble Lords will receive a far more accurate response on operational detail.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a group of us spent a lot of time discussing this issue with the former Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher and that she was warned in many of those sessions? The Government ought not, therefore, to be terribly frightened; the proposal did not come from them in the first instance, which is unusual. Do they not now agree that the decision to privatise the entire railway system was a major mistake and that such a measure is unknown in almost every other European passenger railway system of any size, yet we continue with it and everyone hears the complaints? Is it not high time that we had a serious examination? A long time has passed; there is a lot of experience. Perhaps the Government could start the examination with a survey of what passengers think of the current system.
20 Mar 2007 : Column 1139
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord’s important and compelling statement about rail privatisation is absolutely right. I am sure that it will not have escaped the notice of most Members of your Lordships’ House that the Opposition themselves have begun to apologise for what they did to the rail network. We have a system of parliamentary accountability; it was our Government who ensured that it was maintained. Indeed, the legislation that followed the 2004 White Paper brought more issues back under parliamentary scrutiny so that the rail network could be held properly to account through Ministers.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in summer 2005 the Department for Transport established an internal rail group to work in partnership with industry on the department’s new responsibilities to achieve the following objectives: to secure delivery of improved operational financial performance and appropriate rail passenger services at an acceptable price; to deliver a robust, affordable and sustainable strategy for the development of the railway; and to ensure that cost-effective and timely delivery on major rail projects was achieved. Have any of those objectives been met?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, my Lords, we are meeting our objectives for the rail network. There is the largest number of rail passengers since before the Beeching closures. We have rapidly rising investment and greater confidence in the rail network. We are doing extremely well given the current structure.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, has the Minister seen reports today that South West Trains is planning to take about a fifth of its seats out of commuter trains and to charge passengers 20 per cent more to use trains arriving in London between 10 am and 12.49 pm? Have the Government given their blessing to this robbery?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the operator, South West Trains is entitled to vary fares that are unregulated, although the majority of fares are regulated. I am sure that the Rail Minister will take up some of those issues directly with South West Trains.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the governance structure of Network Rail is being considered and whether that will involve trying to align the interests of passengers, train operating companies and Network Rail so that the huge bonuses earned by its directors will be the result of satisfying people?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the confidence of the travelling public in the rail network is higher than it has been for some time. As I said at the outset, we have no immediate plans to change the industry structure that has been agreed. By and large, the structure is working well, although noble Lords are right to highlight the problems.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, is there any truth in the rumours in today’s press that the Government agreed to the South West Trains increases, or certainly that
20 Mar 2007 : Column 1140
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Absolutely not, my Lords. We see continued growth in passenger numbers on the rail network. We anticipate a 30 per cent growth over the next few years, and there has been a 40 per cent growth since 1997. It is not true that the department secretly agreed the South West Trains increases. Stagecoach proposed increases in some fares in its franchise bid but they were related to unregulated fares, which are not for the department or the Government to approve or disapprove.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marsh’s words are music to my ears. I was grateful for the Minister’s comments and hope that the same common sense will prevail about the Post Office.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall disclaim overall responsibility for the Post Office. I am glad that the noble Lord is heartened by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, will the 1,000 new carriages announced by the Department for Transport for delivery by 2014 be purchased and leased out to the train operating companies by the Department for Transport or by Network Rail?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have those details in my brief, so I had better write to the noble Earl to ensure that he gets an accurate response.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, what guidance would the Government give to the rail companies on the colossal difference between first-class and economy fares? For example, from Llandudno Junction the ordinary first-class fare is £310, whereas the economy fare is £67. There is such a disparity.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not familiar with Llandudno Junction, but perhaps I ought to be. Obviously, I will need to replan my holiday schedule. First-class and economy fares are matters for the operating company. The department regulates some fares, particularly for season tickets and savers, which account for approximately 75 per cent of all rail travel. I am sure that market forces must have a bearing on all other fares.
Olympic Stadium
2.54 pm
Lord Addington asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What plans they have for the use of the Olympic stadium following completion of the London Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012.
20 Mar 2007 : Column 1141
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Olympic board is committed to delivering on its commitment to have a sustainable athletics and community sports-for-all concept for the Olympic stadium in legacy. The “living stadium” concept, with a mixed-sport offering, combined with commercial, school and community use, is the most compelling option to delivering the legacy ambition. The Olympic board has now commissioned further detailed work on the concept.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that we must ensure that as many facilities as possible have a future use and that we do not again end up subsiding very rich sports, such as football? Those facilities should have a sporting legacy.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an important point. It is very much in line with the thinking of the authority. The capacity of the stadium will be reduced, from the 80,000 that is necessary for the opening and closing ceremonies of the Games and for the Olympic Games themselves, to 25,000 for athletics and other sports, so that it can be more readily used by the community, schools and others who wish to participate in sport. The stadium is only one of five sports facilities that will be permanently in place as a legacy from the Games.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, has the budget and the design of the stadium been agreed, signed off and approved yet?
Lord Davies of Oldham: No, my Lords, not yet. Negotiations are still going on with McAlpine, the main contractor. All the participants in the construction have an exceptional record of producing stadia to time and on budget. They were responsible for the Olympic Games stadium in Sydney, among other achievements. We have not yet finalised the budget.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, besides the main stadium and other sporting facilities that the Minister has mentioned, which will remain in situ, a number are being designed specifically so that at the end of the Games they can be dismantled and taken to other parts of the country so that people across Britain will be able to use and enjoy them.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Part of our ambition is that the Games will involve the whole of the United Kingdom and not just London, although London is the site of the Games and the winning-bid city. The Games will be played in various forms right across the country. The most important legacy of all from the Games will be increasing the sporting participation of young people in the wide range of sports that the Olympics Games represent, wherever they might live in the United Kingdom.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |