Sir Nigel Wicks - Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life

Question: Can you explain why the committee was set up?

Sir Nigel Wicks: The committee was set up in 1994 by the then prime minister John Major. If you cast your mind back, in 1994 there were lots of stories under the big heading of "sleaze".

The stories were of various sorts, one was "cash for questions" in parliament, the so-called paid advocacy, where it was alleged that MPs were being given money in order to ask questions for particular commercial interests, which is against the parliamentary rules. Some members of parliament did resign as a result of that.

There were also suggestions about packing public boards, public appointments, with people who were particularly friendly to the then governing party. And there was clearly a particular public concern about that.

John Major announced that he would establish our Committee with the terms of reference it still has - subject to one addition - to look at questions of public concern and make recommendations in the wake of this.

We always have been 10 people - three political appointees, appointed by the prime minister on the recommendation of the leaders of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party and seven independents.

The first two chairs were legal people. There was a judge from the House of Lords, Lord Nolan, the second was a very distinguished barrister and QC, Lord Neill.

Both my two predecessors did a three-year term, I am likewise doing a three year term and will conclude my term in February.

Question: The committee has been around for 10 years, its various recommendations have been taken up by government or not. Is British politics now demonstrably cleaner?

Sir Nigel Wicks: First of all when you use the word 'cleaner' we need to be precise. I think in certain areas standards of conduct in public life are high. But let me first make a general point about this country. It is perhaps not a fashionable thing to say, but we are lucky in that standards in conduct in public life are by international standards - and I mean developed OECD countries - are high.

They are part of the brand of this country - good standards of public life - but it is something that every generation has to earn. You cannot rely on the credit in the bank that the previous generation has.

On Parliament, things have undoubtedly improved. I mentioned earlier the problems they had in 1994 with sleaze. There have been some problems in parliament. MPs have had to have some investigation. Certain MPs are, to use a phrase that was given to us in a report not so long ago "there are always one or two bad apples".

On the whole I think standards in the House have risen. We do not get issues relating to paid advocacy. And that has been dealt with. The issues that arise now relate to expenses and they relate to declaration of interests.

However, having said all of this it is with considerable regret that as I am coming to the end of my three years as chairman of the committee there does seem to be, despite what I say, a lack of trust in public office holders.

There have been various studies which try to measure that. We in the Committee are doing a very rigorous survey.

There is a good deal of both anecdotal and some survey evidence that trust in public institutions, public office holders has, in recent years, diminished somewhat. There are lots of reasons "why" put forward, but it is very difficult to say "why". I hope the research we are doing will throw some light on it.

Question: Do you think cases such as the removal of Elizabeth Filkin as parliamentary standards commissioner because she was policing people who don't actually want to be policed still gives the impression that MPs want to settle their own affairs internally?

Sir Nigel Wicks: One of the reasons we carried out our eighth report, which was into standards of conduct in the House of Commons, was as a result of what happened when Elizabeth Filkin finished her first term of office. We did a very thorough examination of that and we came up with a series of recommendations which were aimed at strengthening the procedures and arrangements of the House of Commons to address the very point you are making.

The full House of Commons accepted some of the recommendations exactly as we recommended and other recommendations they accepted if not the exact recommendation then they suggested another way of getting to the objective of the recommendation.

To deal with the particular point which related to Elizabeth Filkin's appointment, I was extremely pleased that one of the points we recommended was that the commissioner should be appointed for a fixed non-renewable term. So there was no question of reappointment - it helps your independence. They accepted it.

Another recommendation we made, was that the select committee, which is now chaired by Sir George Young, should have no PPSs, who do have a relationship with a government minister, on it.

I think the most crucial of all recommendations which was accepted, that no single party should have a majority in that committee.

So I think that, as people including MPs said to us in evidence, while that particular episode that you referred to was not handled in the best way, since then the House of Commons has taken steps to improve its procedures.

Question: The recent controversy surrounding Oliver Letwin, again for the first time in a while raised the issue of potential conflict of interest, given that today he could be Shadow Chancellor and a merchant banker, tomorrow he could be the Chancellor, making decisions that could affect the merchant bank, from whose employ he has just left. Is that one area where you would like to see further work done?

Sir Nigel Wicks: If you look at out terms of reference, our terms of reference cover public office holders.

They cover Members of Parliament in their capacity as Members of Parliament. But they do not cover front-bench spokesmen for the opposition, because they are not paid. So it doesn't actually technically come within our terms of reference.

Now I am not going to comment on Oliver Letwin's position, we don't actually ever comment on individual cases.

But I will say that there is, and I think this is perhaps the biggest incentive for people to have good standards of conduct, public opinion.

This brings in the role of newspapers and the media, I have got a quote that was given to us in our very first report, sometimes the media get it wrong, sometimes they are a nuisance, but they are absolutely essential if we are going to maintain high standards.

Question: Looking to the wider issue of the civil service, one of the fundamental principles that your committee established was openness, and during your time chairing this committee, have you found the Downing Street machine to be displaying that principle at all times?

Sir Nigel Wicks: When we did our ninth report on special advisers, civil servants and ministers I had to say I was disappointed that the special advisers in Downing Street weren't willing to come and give us evidence like everybody else.

They offered us a private off-the-record briefing. I was disappointed with that. I don't think in the end it hindered the recommendations that we came to. But I was certainly disappointed.

Question: How would you characterise the boundaries between ministers, civil servants, special advisers and parliament? Would you say they are now less clear than hitherto they have been?

Sir Nigel Wicks: The answer to that must be clearly in some respects yes. I think the relationship with parliament is a different matter and the relationship of ministers and civil servants and ministers and special advisers and special advisers and civil servants. I think the boundaries of these relationships are in some ways less clear than they were once.

Question: Does that mean that the civil service is now more party political?

Sir Nigel Wicks: I don't think it is more party political, and I am glad that you put the word "party" in because the civil service has to be political because you are working in a political environment. But you must be totally independent of party and you must be totally loyal to the government of the day but not the governing party of the day. But, no, I don't think the senior civil service has been party politicised.

If you go back, and I am sure I could find you quotations, under the Conservative government, made by Labour Party spokesman, that the senior civil service had been politicised then and I don't believe it to have been so.

But there are risks and this is why my Committee is so strong on maintaining the existing system for the recruitment of people to the senior civil service, on merit. Here, where ministers can be involved in the process, but the decision on the choice of entrants is a matter for independent civil service commissioners.

That I believe is crucial. If that goes and you give ministers, say, a choice of three people, that is a big step, could be a big step, towards politicisation and certainly it would create the impression of politicisation.

Question: That presumably is what, in a modern democracy, a minister would want. They would want somebody in a senior position who could do their bidding in a policy and a political way.

Sir Nigel Wicks: I disagree with you. Unless you change the whole basis of the way the civil service operates. If you want to change the whole basis of the way the civil service operates, which is, as I have described it, independent of party, loyalty to the government of the day. I think with such an important change you should go to parliament to get it changed in statute.

I disagree with what you say, though. I don't think ministers should have that power, because if you did have a change of government does that mean the top three ranks of civil service just leave because they were party affiliated to the old government? You get then a new lot, you have to regroup and recruit.

That does happen in some jurisdictions. It happens in the United States. But it is a totally different system you have in the United States.

There is another reason. I think it is the job of a civil servant to accommodate himself or herself to the minister. It is not the job of the minister to accommodate himself or herself to the civil servant. It is up to the civil servant to make themselves acceptable and get the chemistry right. The burden is on the civil servant to do that.

Now if you have a minister choose civil servants from open competitions, different ministers in the same government may have different choices. I give you a government department in the last year that had three Cabinet ministers - which is the Department for International Development, an excellent department, a really good department.

That department has had three very different ministers. Now, say, the permanent secretary is chosen by the first minister, because she thought he was just the sort of person that you would like, and you get a different minister in - would you change it? You can't work like that. If you do it is, in my view, a recipe for inefficiency, as well creating distrust.

When a civil servant gives advice to a minister, that advice must be absolutely frank, impartial, it must reflect all points of view, and I think if you are chosen by a minister on party political grounds there is a real risk that that will not happen.

Question: Would you say that the Government Information and Communications Service is one apart from the Civil Service?

Sir Nigel Wicks: With the exception of Number 10 Downing Street, which is different I know that, I worked there for six years.

You are dealing with government information which has to be impartial of politics. It must not mislead. If you want to put out a party political message there is a perfectly easy way, a good way, of doing that and that is through the party headquarters.

Question: But what should the public therefore read into the fact, that in terms of Heads of GICS departments, right throughout Whitehall, almost - bar perhaps two departments - those heads have changed. And there does seem to be that powerful sense now that a sympathetic, middle ranking journalist would do very well to apply for senior posts within that body?

Sir Nigel Wicks: Let's go back to 1997 and when we took evidence and there was a fair consensus among the evidence that by 1997, for various reasons, the government information service was not performing as it well and effectively might. To use the modern phrase it needed a bit of a makeover. That clearly might have meant some personnel changes.

We recommended in our ninth report that when you make recruitments into the government information service, there ought to be a special scrutiny to make sure that the values of the civil service, in terms of party political independence, must be maintained. I would be disappointed if I believed there was wholesale party politicisation of the government information service.

I would be disappointed for the general reasons I have explained to you but I would also think it would be not effective. That is not to say for one moment that just because you have been active in a party politics or campaigning or a trade union you should automatically be disqualified. That would be wrong. But you should know that when you come in and accept the Queen's shilling to be a civil servant, you do actually take on a higher responsibility because you are a public official and you are not a party political official.

Question: Do you think that is what they think, however?

Sir Nigel Wicks: I don't know. But the test is, this is the test that you have to put to people, is, look, "if there is a change of government would you be willing to work for a different government". I am not going to give you names. I can think of people who have come from a trade union background, who have joined the civil service and who are fine civil servants in the way that I have just said to you.

But there is tension, which is impossible to manage, if you are a party politician, even at a local level, and a civil servant. You can't do it.

Question: Your committee suggested that the number of special advisers should be capped. Isn't that an entirely arbitrary way to deal with the problem?

Sir Nigel Wicks: It is one way but we suggested that the cap should be done by parliament. The fact that it is done by parliament gives it political legitimacy. If you think what special advisers are. We suggested a different status, but at the moment they are defined as temporary civil servants.

But there is a clear illogicality about that because they do not have two of the defining characteristics of a civil servant. One defining characteristic is that you are appointed on merit, a special adviser is appointed by the wish of his minister. And the second defining characteristic is that they don't have party political affiliations and a special adviser does.

They are in a sense in a very particular position in the constitution and because they are in this particular position , we do not want them to have the formal status of civil servants, we think that that is something that should be blessed by parliament and the limit should be placed by parliament.

But there is part of a more general point here which I might make. At the moment the civil service is constituted by Order in Council. An Order in Council is effectively decree law. It is made by the Executive going to the Privy Council and it has the effect of an act of Parliament, but it is made, if I want to be dismissive, at the whim of government - and that also applies to special advisers.

Something as important as the civil service - it is a massive institution, it is a very important institution of state - should be constituted by Act of Parliament. We are, after all, a parliamentary democracy.

Question: Would you say special advisers run contrary to a parliamentary democracy and that is why they need to be capped?

Sir Nigel Wicks: I would not say they run contrary to the system of parliamentary democracy. I am in favour of special advisers. I do think they have a role. I have worked with Labour and Conservative special advisers. My point is that an institution such as the civil service and the special advisers play such a key part in our constitutional arrangements that they should be regulated by an Act of Parliament and not by decree law.

Question: Let's say there was a general election in 18 months time, my anticipation would be that you would see a lot more people who we believe to be civil servants, particularly in Downing Street, leaving, there would be a much bigger turnover. Is that something that you would anticipate as well?

Sir Nigel Wicks: I am not so sure. A former colleague of mine, Jeremy Heywood is leaving. I am not at all whether the rest would move.

My advice strongly to any incoming prime minister is don't envisage a much bigger than usual turnover. I have worked inside Downing Street for six years, I have never been there when there was a change in government from one party to another. But my advice certainly to a prime minister in those circumstances is certainly 'you will need the cadre of permanent officials there because they have experience, they will give you absolutely full loyalty'.

Question: Moving on to the lessons that can be learned from the Kelly affair, isn't one of the things that came out of that is that when a politician's back is against the wall, they don't reach for the Manual on the Seven Principles in Public Life, they just go for what a politician will go for, which is the easy option, the get myself out of trouble option?

Sir Nigel Wicks: I am not going to comment on the details of the Kelly affair. We in this Committee will await the outcome of Lord Hutton's inquiry and see whether there are any issues which arise out of Lord Hutton's report which are relevant to the work of the Committee.

But taking your question in a general sense, I think the wise politician will not do what you say. And I will give you evidence in support of that and it is the establishment of this Committee.

Back in 1994 there was a lot of disquiet and it would have been possible for the then prime minister to sweep it under the carpet. He didn't, he set up the Committee. And he asked the Committee, under the chairmanship of a distinguished Law Lords to look at the issues and come up with considered reports.

So I think a wise politician would do the very opposite of what you say. There was a good deal of press comment earlier in 2003 relating to the award by the Department of Health of a contract for smallpox vaccine. The allegation was that a substantial shareholder in the company which got the contract had been a substantial donor to the Labour Party. There were a lot of allegations of that sort in the press.

Subsequently the National Audit Office did an investigation, and it's on their website, and they found there was no evidence to support such allegations at all. There were some improvements which could be made to the Department of Health procurement practices, but on the allegations, there was no evidence to support them.

My point is two-fold. Openness and transparency helps create trust and helps deal with issues. If something has gone wrong, it's much better to have an open inquiry and then say something went wrong than just go wrong again. It was rather disappointing to see that very considerable publicity had been made relating to the earlier allegations, but very little publicity to the findings of the National Audit Office that there was nothing in those allegations.

Question: Couldn't that almost be an argument saying that too much openness could be a bad thing, because it is open to misinterpretation, that people will now not give money to political parties, because the minute that they do then perhaps an irresponsible press, it may be, will then suddenly look for conflicts of interest that aren't there?

Sir Nigel Wicks: There is a balance to be drawn here but I have to say I draw the balance clearly on openness. And this again comes out in some earlier recommendation of this Committee. The Electoral Commission was formed as a direct result of a recommendation from this Committee. I'm all in favour of openness. If there is not openness people think you have got something to hide. Even if you have got nothing to hide, they mistrust you. Openness and transparency is clearly the best way forward, but there is a real risk as you referred to.

Question: Looking to the quango state, the appointed state, do you think the Committee has been as successful in making sure that it is not biased in favour of political appointees on to the various 1,000 or so, 2,000 - whichever figure you believe - public bodies?

Sir Nigel Wicks: We are just about to have a tenth inquiry and it will be dealing with the issue of proportionality. Our recommendations have produced various procedures and we want to check that the implementation of those procedures is actually producing effective outcomes and not more red tape and not more bureaucratic practices. As part of looking at that the question you put to me is one we will look at. How effective, how efficient, is the work of the arrangements for recruiting people to public boards. One of the strengths of our system is the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Frichie, who does an excellent job in trying to ensure that the best people are put forward for public office. But we will be examining to see whether there can be any improvements.

I sometimes wonder, and this is certainly not any criticism of Dame Rennie's work, whether we cannot improve, or whether government departments cannot improve, cannot make their procedures more professional for finding people for public appointments.

I know it is easy to say it in my position, but I have a feeling that out there are people who would like, if asked, if they can be found, who would be ready to serve on public boards. But these are issues that we will be looking at in our tenth inquiry, because it is an absolutely crucial issue.

Question: Looking back over the period since you became chairman it seems that perhaps the relationship with government has been terser than perhaps your predecessors encountered. Thinking about it, one of the thoughts was perhaps because you were a civil servant, you were a career mandarin, so therefore you were coming to it from your own perspective. How would you characterise it?

Sir Nigel Wicks: This is an independent committee and an independent committee has to act in an independent way. Maybe I have a robust style of debate. But I spent the last 12 years in part of the Treasury which was dealing with international financial negotiations. During those 12 years I found that if I wanted to defend my country's interests which I had to do on a day to day basis, and I find that if I want to push forward the work of my committee, I will take a robust attitude.

The prime minister appointed me. The prime minister asked me to do a job of work which is set out in the terms of reference of our Committee and I will do everything I can to deliver what he asked me to do.

Most of the people in at least the senior echelons of the civil service I have known and worked with for several years. But I am totally independent of them. I have a good relationship, but you have to make your point known, and if you don't make your point known you won't be listened to.

Question: And are you disappointed that key elements of recommendations you have come up with have not been adopted by government?

Sir Nigel Wicks: Going back to the House of Commons I'm very pleased at the House of Commons' reaction to our eighth report. It is really forward looking. There are some recommendations of our ninth report, to do with special advisers, ministers and civil servants, which were accepted. But there are certain key elements, core recommendations, which have not been accepted. However what I firmly believe is that in the end the substance of our recommendations will be accepted, maybe not in the exact form, but the substance.

And there are two ways to do it. You can either do it now, by looking at the recommendations and implementing them. The government have not chosen to follow this route, look at them and accept them - either as we have recommended or implement the substance in another way.

Or, you can let events push you in the direction of accepting them when they are, in a sense, dragged out of you. And I think that would be a great, great pity.

Question: And do you think we will see a Civil Service Bill in this parliament? Two Labour governments had the commitment to do so, but there is still no Bill.

Sir Nigel Wicks: One doesn't know how long this parliament is going to last. But just assuming there is going to be one more session after this. I would say that in the next three sessions of parliament, excluding this one that's the following one, the one after that and the one after that, that we will have a civil service bill.

But what is key is that that civil service bill is well debated beforehand. It should rest on a firm consensus. That doesn't mean it should be a waffly compromise, it means a firm basis. So what I would hope would happen within this session is that there is a big debate on what the elements should be.

And Tony Wright, the chairman of the Commons public administration committee, is in my view very expertly stimulating such a debate.. And then I hope the government would produce their own bill, in a draft, and then you have a debate on that. One possibility is such a bill would go before a joint committee, they would take evidence, and then maybe in the first session of the next parliament, we would then have a bill, which I hope would go through fairly quickly on the basis it rests on a firm platform of consensus.

Question: Given the scale of reforms that the government have put through on a whole variety of different areas, is it fair to say that they initially didn't accept, or still don't accept, the importance of Civil Service legislation?

Sir Nigel Wicks: Well someone said to us, in fact someone who was a special adviser and had worked in Downing Street, and I think he now works back in Downing Street, he said one of the problems, when he gave us evidence to our ninth report, is that the Civil Service Bill doesn't have a champion. You have a champion always for an education bill, you have a champion if you want an asylum bill, the home secretary, but there is no real champion for a civil service bill.

And therefore there is a tendency for it to be squeezed out. Personally I think the champion for a civil service bill should be the prime minister. I think it is the prime minister who is in overall charge of government. I think he should be the person who should champion such a bill.

I hope in the light of events that have happened, the Hutton Report may say something on this. I do not know, maybe it will go up in the priorities. I don't ask for a great thick tome, I think if it was a thick tome it would be a mistake, I don't think it should be over-prescriptive.

But if we did have a Civil Service Bill which rested on a firm platform of consensus, I think it could be a big step in restoring some of the public trust in public institutions, particularly in central government, which by all accounts seems to have fallen away recently.