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

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly before the winding-up speeches. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for allowing me to do so. I should have been sad not to be here to represent those Members of your Lordships’ House who have had long service in the public service of government. I add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on his introduction of the Bill and, if I may say so, on the skill with which he has drafted it. That is no greater than I would have expected of him, but it still needs to be recorded and recognised. When we come to consider the Bill in Committee, if we are allowed to do so, I hope that we shall look closely at the arrangements proposed for declaration of war or committal of British troops to war and for ratification of treaties. Clearly, in the Iraqi situation, there was a lot of parliamentary debate and, in the event, there was a parliamentary vote. However, there may still be circumstances in which the Government must go to war or declare war without there being a chance to seek parliamentary approval before doing so. The Bill makes provision for that; we shall need to consider whether that provision is adequate. On treaties, it is important that when the Government sign a treaty they commit the nation to the provisions of the treaty. There should be an understanding among the other signatories to the treaty that that commitment is given in good faith and will be honoured. We need to ensure that provision is made for that. As regards the Civil Service parts of the Bill, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I am entirely happy that civil servants should be required to act with honesty, integrity, impartiality and objectivity and that it should be a ministerial duty to uphold the independence and impartiality of the Civil Service. Indeed, I would go further: Ministers should be required to respect those qualities. I also strongly support what is proposed for special advisers and what has been said on that subject in previous speeches. I shall not discuss the other parts of the Bill, because it is my duty to be brief. I shall say only that the need for such a Bill stems from a gradually increasing lack of trust in government. We have seen that lack of trust again this past week. I was relieved when the decision about the Secretary Of State for Culture, Media and Sport was taken openly and advisedly by the Prime Minister, not by the Cabinet Secretary. It seems right that Prime Minister accepts the responsibility. If there were trust in the Government’s willingness to observe the principles that underlie this Bill, we would not need legislation. If we try to tie up the Government with increasing regulation, whether by monitoring, by Parliament, by parliamentary committees or non-parliamentary bodies, governments will always be tempted to see whether they can find some way around it and do what they want to do that escapes the definitions in the Bill. That is why I have not been an enthusiast for a Civil Service Bill, although I recognise that my successors, other than the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, have been. If a government were, on appointment, to issue a White Paper that committed them not only to the principles but to some of the details of the Bill, and that could be regarded as what was sometimes called a solemn and binding declaration of governmental purpose, and if that purpose were ratified and endorsed by the Opposition of the day and when that Opposition came into government, I for my part should be content to live with that and spare the need for legislation, because it would put responsibility where it belongs and would lay the foundations for an improvement in the trust that Parliament and the public have in the government of the day.