Constitutional Reform (Prerogative Powers and Civil Service etc.) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for his extremely generous good wishes to Sir Menzies Campbell, which I shall give to him when I see him in Harrogate later today. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, will be aware than an earlier Ming dynasty was particularly rich and successful. We look forward to similar success. On the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I can do no better than draw the House’s attention to the spread of speakers today. Often when an initiative is taken by noble Lords on one Bench, noble Lords on other Benches are conspicuously absent. The spread of speakers today is very interesting. There are four from the Labour Party, four from the Conservatives, three from the Cross Benches and three from the Liberal Democrats. If you consider the experience of Law Officers, Cabinet Ministers, Permanent Under-Secretaries and Chairmen of the Civil Service Commission, you will see that an extremely rich galaxy of talent and experience is put at the disposal of the House today. In addition, there are one or two speakers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and me, whose main claim to fame is that we were once special advisers. When I first came to this House, I served on the Select Committee on the public service chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and on the Select Committee on freedom of information. However, the battle honour of which I am most proud is that I was also a member of the Cook-Maclennan committee that looked at constitutional reform—the joint committee of Labour and Liberal Democrats before the 1997 election. I am extremely pleased that my noble friend Lord Maclennan will sum up from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The other thing that I am pleased about is that the author of a statement which I often quote has already spoken today. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, who famously said that the two great gifts bequeathed by the 20th century to the 21st in Britain were the BBC and the Civil Service. We may still have to battle for the integrity of both. Today we are concentrating on the Civil Service. It is worth remembering the circumstances of Cook-Maclennan. It was a shared analysis by both Labour and Liberal Democrats that our system of government needed radical reform if it was to be fit for purpose in the 21st century. It was the Cook-Maclennan report which gave the radical impulse to the first term of new Labour government after 1997: the Human Rights Act; freedom of information; devolved government for London, Wales and Scotland; PR in devolved government and Europe; the first stages of Lords reform; and the Jenkins commission on voting reform for Westminster. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches still see Cook-Maclennan as work in progress. By contrast, one gets the impression that the Government now see constitutional reform as a damage limitation exercise. Indeed, it is doubtful whether we would see either the Human Rights Act or the Freedom of Information Act passed today. There is no indication that the Government share either the sense of urgency or the radical impulses which motivated Cook-Maclennan and were reinforced by the recent Power report under the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—another voice we miss today. The concern that motivated Cook-Maclennan, and is reinforced by the Power commission, is of a dangerous disconnect between government and governed. Turnout at elections and levels of public apathy and cynicism, particularly among the young, have reached dangerous levels. Democracies need participating democrats to make them work. Governance at all levels needs the respect and confidence of the governed, yet the Prime Minister in particular seems to be cocooned in a world of unreality. I make no comment about the Jowell affair; I have great respect for the Minister concerned. I say only this. I remember that Hugh Dalton quit ministerial office because some budget secrets appeared in the stop press of a London newspaper. When I was at university, we were told that Sir Thomas Dugdale took ministerial responsibility for the Crichel Down affair—an action of his own department of which he was not aware. Today the ministerial code lies in tatters and there is no public confidence in the Prime Minister’s stewardship of these matters. Is it any wonder? Advice on key matters affecting probity in governance from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Electoral Commission and respected Select Committees of Parliament are rejected or ignored. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to the cavalier way in which the Attorney-General’s advice was first secret and then made public when politically expedient. Last night we had the pre-spin of what the Secretary of the Cabinet had said on the Jowell affair. Mr Geoff Hoon even appeared on television explicitly saying that the Secretary of the Cabinet had exonerated Ms Jowell, when in fact his report said no such thing. The whole matter—as has gone on for years—had been pre-leaked and spun to the press with no idea of a statement to Parliament. We have had internal inquiries followed by exoneration, which give an impression of ultimate responsibility in government that would not pass muster as oversight of a parish council. There are some good people in the Labour Party and there are still some radical impulses on the Government Benches. But there really is a stench of decay about the Blair administration and its obsession with wealth and celebrity, and pelf and place, which frankly makes one weep. As for the culture of secrecy, rather than being banished from Whitehall, it is safe and well and sitting in the back of various ministerial limos. Hence the need for this Bill, which should have graced the Queen’s Speech of a third term Labour Government. Like other Lester initiatives before it, I have every confidence that one day it will see the light of day as the law of the land. As my noble friend Lord Lester has made clear, the proposals on the Royal Prerogatives have nothing to do with the powers of the Queen and a great deal to do with the anachronisms and loopholes being used as a fig leaf by Ministers to protect certain of their actions from full parliamentary scrutiny. A number of Members more expert than I am have talked about war powers, which I will not dwell on for too long. Getting responsibility for war powers, as a number of Members have said, is not the end of the matter. It will always be difficult to assess these matters. Again looking to history, we see that Sir Anthony Nutting, who was right about Suez, had his ministerial career ended, whereas Selwyn Lloyd, who misled Parliament, ended up as Speaker. History has some strange stories to tell. The powers given by this Bill on prerogatives, war making and treaties are all welcomed by those who want to see powers of scrutiny and accountability extended. Unlike my noble friend Lord Lester, I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on the Bench. I am sure that we will hear how eager the Government are to have a Civil Service Bill, in spite of the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, has indicated, all the news from the Downing Street sofa is that we will get one over the Prime Minister’s dead body. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is the Trevor Bailey of Front-Bench politics. He is a man who can keep his end up and stay at the crease for days on end without scoring or even attempting a run. What worries me is the body language of the Prime Minister. There are the same vibes as those that used to come from time to time from Mrs Thatcher, as she was then—if only he could get more of his private sector chums into government, with a get-up-and-go, can-do approach, all would be well. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, referred to the programme of reform that is now under way. We all welcome attempts to bring greater efficiency and productivity into the public services. We welcome the Government’s initiatives to deliver greater diversity to all levels of the Civil Service, not least to permanent secretary level. I was struck by a statement made by Anne-Marie Lawlor, the director of the leadership and development strategy for the Civil Service, who said:"““We know that graduates want to come and work for us because they think we are a good employer, but most importantly they want to make a positive difference to society””." My heart rejoiced at reading that. Some nine years ago, the Select Committee on which I served under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, concluded that in the British Civil Service there was a distinctive public service ethos, which was massively in the public interest to nurture and preserve. That is the gift that the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, talked about, which has as its roots the Northcote-Trevelyan principles of political neutrality and appointment and promotion on merit. Like Prime Ministers before him, the Prime Minister pulls on the levers of power and nothing happens. So in his frustration he packs Downing Street with special advisers staffing a variety of Orwellian delivery units. Across the board, despite some of today’s criticisms, most special advisers operate much as they have done since 1974. It is in No. 10 that their powers have been extended, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed out in his evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The need for the protections contained in this Bill comes from the No. 10 experience. The role given to Alastair Campbell must never be repeated, combining political propaganda with government information as it did. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, that there are problems from long periods of one-party government. In the opposite direction from special advisers, I believe that neither the noble Lord, Lord Powell, nor Bernard Ingham served the public interest by remaining in their position as civil servants throughout the Thatcher administration. It is wrong when civil servants merge and morph into political appointments. We know that Ministers like to keep friendly faces around them, but it does not help the independence of the Civil Service. We welcome the initiatives on diversity as well as the strengthening of the Civil Service Code under Gus O’Donnell, but we still want the protections of the public service ethos that the Bill would provide. I welcome the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, of having a Joint Committee to carry matters forward. I sniff the whiff of reform in the air. As has been said, Mr Cameron has established his task forces and Gordon Brown stirs like an old grizzly from his winter slumber. The Power report reawakens the spirit of Cook-Maclennan and Ming Campbell is willing to lead the Liberal Democrats from the front as thunderers for reform. Such a mood of broad consensus comes but rarely. Will Mr Blair, ensconced in his winter palace, hear it? I do not know. I hope that today’s debate and the granting of a Second Reading to the Bill will be a timely wake-up call to him and that we can move forward to a rich and constructive Committee stage.