Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition

Debate between Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Young of Cookham

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite right. Our officials were not involved in torture. I take this opportunity of saying that our intelligence and security personnel try to keep us safe, in very difficult and challenging circumstances. None the less, it is right that we hold them to the highest possible standards.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee between 2008 and 2015. With the benefit of hindsight, does the noble Lord consider that it was appropriate to prevent that committee from continuing with its investigations, and that it would have been entirely proper for it to continue an investigation which it had already begun?

National Security Council Leak

Debate between Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. On the first issue that she raised, the 5G decision will be made public in due course and will of course be subject to the usual scrutiny. On the question that she raised about the confidence of our allies, the action that the Prime Minister has taken shows how seriously she takes the leak from the NSC. We are now in touch with our allies to reassure them about the steps we have taken to remain confident in the security of NSC discussions, so that they can continue to have confidence in us.

On the second question, I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister considers the matter closed and the Cabinet Secretary has judged it not necessary to refer the matter to the police. However, Ministers and officials would co-operate should the police want to investigate. The Secretary of State for Defence was dismissed for a breach of the Ministerial Code. I believe that the Prime Minister is entitled to have in her Cabinet colleagues in whose judgment she has confidence and whom she can trust. In this case, that confidence and trust have clearly gone.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question in the other place. I also fully accept his analysis of the role and responsibilities of the National Security Council but he may be over-optimistic in thinking that this matter is closed, not least because of the continuing vehemence of Mr Williamson’s denial and the continuing public expressions of anxiety from our partners in the Five Eyes. The truth is that whoever is responsible for this leak, it is an illustration of the continuing and corrosive effect of the breakdown in Cabinet responsibility in this Government. There are those who now claim that the decision of the Prime Minister is to be regarded as a vindication of her authority. I cannot resist making the observation that it would be rather better for us all if she had exercised that authority more frequently in the last three years.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I have great respect for the noble Lord, but I did not detect a question in what he said, just some comments. Personally, I deplore all leaks, NSC and Cabinet. Colleagues should be free to express their views frankly around the Cabinet table and, once they leave the Cabinet table, should keep quiet. I hope that what happened will re-establish more discipline and collective responsibility for decisions, and that people will respect the confidentiality of what happens in Cabinet.

Bell Pottinger

Debate between Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 7th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As I said, the Government have no contracts with Bell Pottinger. I understand that the registrar is in touch with Bell Pottinger to establish whether or not it is still signed up to the codes of either the PRCA or the other professional body. In the light of those inquiries, the register will then clarify whether it is still signed up to those principles. As the legislation stands, you can be removed from the register only if you stop doing public relations business. You cannot be removed from the register for the sort of activities that we have been talking about.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

Does not a rather wider consideration arise out of these matters? While Bell Pottinger might have suffered reputationally and financially from its behaviour, the fact that it is a British company, albeit operating in a foreign country, may well have an effect on the extent to which, in the febrile atmosphere of South African politics, diplomatic representations may be disregarded.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I have been in touch with our high commissioner in Pretoria this morning. He has made it clear that this has had a very damaging impact on our country’s reputation in South Africa, which is why I have gone out of my way to make it absolutely clear that neither the Government nor indeed the staff of the high commission in South Africa were in any way involved in this contract. The reputation of Bell Pottinger has been seriously impaired. This is a company that seeks to boost the image of other companies but here it is, having a very severe reputational hit of its own. It could perhaps begin to put that right by donating any profits it has made from the contract to some charity in South Africa.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Young of Cookham

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I have nothing to add to what I have just said, apart from this: there will be business questions on Thursday, and at that point I hope to be able to tell the House more about the Government’s proposals.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend have any sense of optimism that, following the announcement he has just made, the Labour party will at last tell us how many days it wants?

[Sir George Young]

I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I am ever optimistic, but, as he will have noticed during the exchanges yesterday, despite repeated requests, the Opposition were never able to put a figure on the number of days that they would have found adequate.

Code of Conduct

Debate between Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Young of Cookham

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I welcome the chance to intervene briefly in this interesting debate, and I commend the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) for his speech in moving the motion and for his work on the Committee on Standards and Privileges during his time as Chair, including his work in producing the two reports we are considering today. The House will have noted what he said in response to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

I also commend the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, for his work as commissioner. His term of office concludes at the end of this year, and it is possible that this will be the last debate on the work of his office, in general terms, during it. He has faced a work load that neither he nor anyone else could have foreseen when he was first appointed, he has discharged his responsibilities conscientiously and effectively and been a source of wisdom and good sense for the Committee on Standards and Privileges and its successive Chairs. I say that with added conviction as the Chair at the time of his appointment.

The review of the code that the commissioner has carried out reflects the experience he has gathered during his term. The overwhelming majority of the changes he has proposed represent sensible changes, improving the clarity and structure of the code without affecting its overall scope and meaning. In particular, the changes help to distinguish the aspirational parts of the code from the adjudicable part.

I want briefly to touch on four areas that have attracted particular interest, namely the application of the code to hon. Members’ private lives, the code in relation to constituency responsibilities, personal responsibility for the use of resources, and the principle of equal application to all hon. Members.

On the first matter, the commissioner, the Committee and the House have wrestled, and are wrestling, with the vexed issue of how far the code applies to hon. Members’ private lives, which is the subject of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and others. In my submission to the review, which has already been quoted, I said that the distinction between private and public lives was

“important, even if it is not always clear”.

I noted that an extension to private lives might lead to an infringement of human rights, a point also made in the submission by the chair of Standards for England.

I further pointed out that any such extension

“could also be used to justify intrusive and prurient media interest in Members’ private lives, on the basis that if the House chooses to concern itself with Members’ personal lives—however sparingly—then there should be no limits to the media doing likewise”.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the code must be read as a whole. Has he had time to look at paragraph 18, which provides:

“The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member’s adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code”

and the following sentence, which states:

“Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House”?

If the investigation is into private life, that necessarily means that if a Member refused to answer a question on his or her private life, he or she could be regarded as breaching that part of the code.

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Once an inquiry has been started by the commissioner, Members are obliged to co-operate and if they do not, they will face consequences from the Committee on Standards. That paragraph would then kick in.

The commissioner has concluded that being an hon. Member is a way of life. As he put it, an hon. Member

“is never off duty. Once elected, a serving Member is likely always to be seen as a Member of Parliament, with the duties and obligations that go with that position, wherever they are and whatever they are doing.”

I personally paused at the assertion that I am never off duty, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and other colleagues might have had the same reaction. I think that there are times when I am off duty. The commissioner’s conclusion is that an hon. Member’s conduct in both their private and wider public lives is excluded from the provisions of the code

“unless such conduct significantly damages the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally”.

This is a very high hurdle for investigation, and that approach was endorsed by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

The amendment, if the subject of a complaint related only to the conduct of a Member in his or her private and personal life, would have the effect of providing that it could not be investigated. I am confident that the Members who have proposed the amendment have no wish to argue that Members should be subject to special treatment that is not available to others. The issue at stake is simply whether there would ever be circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the commissioner to undertake an investigation into a matter that did not intersect at all with an hon. Member’s conduct in his or her public capacity. That is a matter for the House and each hon. Member to consider and it is not an issue on which it is appropriate for the Government to take a collective view, although I am personally sympathetic to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne.

The House will also want to reflect on the offer made by the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee to take the House’s concern and address it in the revised guide, which, as I understand it, would leave the code unamended and insert an additional step in the process, in that the Committee would have to agree to the commissioner conducting an inquiry in this particular domain. I am sure that the House will welcome those offers and will want to reflect on them.

Another potential matter of contention is the application of the code to constituency matters. In his memorandum, the commissioner makes it clear that the way an hon. Member handles constituency business should not be adjudicable by the commissioner, and I agree. He suggests that the House would only wish to consider an instance that was

“so serious and blatant as to cause significant damage to the reputation of the House”.

I agree that it is very hard indeed to envisage these criteria being met.

On the third issue, in my submission to the review I supported proposals for redrafting the code in line with recommendations by the Committee on Standards in Public Life

“so that the House has a clear basis to take action against any Member who has abused the IPSA scheme”.

The commissioner proposed to do that by means of a provision that stated that the use of public resources may not confer a political benefit. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has suggested a change, arising from its observation that it is unrealistic to expect that parliamentary activities legitimately funded from the political purse might never confer an indirect political benefit. The new code rightly makes it clear that Members should be clear that the use of public resources must always be in support of their parliamentary duties and should not confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else or confer undue advantage on a political organisation. I agree that that formulation is in line with the original proposals of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which used the phrase “undue advantage”.

Finally, the commissioner considered and rejected a number of proposals that would involve separate rules for hon. Members who were former Ministers or who were Opposition Front Benchers. He did so on the basis of the principle that

“the Code should apply equally to all Members”.

That is a principle that I wholeheartedly support.

The second motion, as the right hon. Member for Rother Valley said, is more straightforward. It seeks the approval of the twenty-first report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which recommends extending the scope of registration to individual staff of all-party groups who hold passes and to transfer the onus of registration from the registered contact of the group to the staff member him or herself. As my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House stated in the debate on all-party groups on 7 February last year, all-party groups can play a valuable role provided they are transparent. That measure seems sensible and does not represent an abdication of responsibility by hon. Members who are officers of all-party groups. Instead, it reflects the proper situation whereby individuals who have the benefits of being a pass holder in this place should personally accept the responsibilities that flow from that.

I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the House coming to a decision on these vexed matters.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Debate between Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Young of Cookham

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Let me make it clear that I support the motion and the thinking that lies behind it, but what will be the role of the trustees between now and 2015, and what will it be after 2015? Will they have any fiduciary responsibility for the new scheme, or will their responsibility be limited to the current scheme?

[Sir George Young]

The trustees will continue to administer the scheme. The chairman of the trustees might want to catch your eye, Mr Speaker. Under our changes, the rules that govern the scheme will no longer be made by the Government or the House; they will be made independently by IPSA. After the process of transfer on 1 April next year, the scheme will continue to be administered by the trustees until such time as IPSA makes any change. If it wants to make changes, it must consult the trustees. The motion indicates that the first change should be an increase in the contribution rate. It then suggests that, along with other public sector schemes, a new scheme, perhaps moving from final salary, should be introduced by 2015, but the scheme will continue to be administered by the trustees, and I pay tribute to the work they do.