Unedited transcript of Standards in Public Life Committee press briefing in
London on Friday, 6 April 2001
From Alice Lewzey for Radio Technical Services
Sir Nigel Wicks
Welcome. I’m glad you are here. Let me say straightaway this is an on the
record press briefing and what I want to do today is after my first meeting
with the Committee which we had on Monday to tell you a little bit about
the approach that the Committee is going to take in the immediate future.
Let me say that I hope to give similar briefings from time to time about
what the work of the Committee is ? what we are doing ? though I won’t
obviously, I think, do that after every meeting. We will of course as a
Committee continue to have our formal press conferences rather than
briefings, as it were, when we have a major report to announce or something
major to publish.
Now what is the approach of the Committee. Well let me say we want to take
some actions over the next few months, indeed over the next few weeks, but
I want to put those actions, the Committee wants to put those actions, in
the context of a work programme of work for the next 6-9 months. Now you
won’t need me to remind you that a key consideration here is the timing of
the Election. Why do I say that? Soon after the Election, if long-standing
precedent is followed, the Prime Minister in office will issue a new
edition of the Ministerial Code. That is one event that is I think likely
to happen. Another event which will happen I think after the Election is
that in the House of Commons there will be a new Committee on Standards and
Privileges and that Committee will have a new Chairman because the existing
Chairman is not standing again. Now both those events, the new edition of
the Ministerial Code and the new Committee on Standards and Privileges I
think are something that the Committee has to take into account in
planning.
Having said that as general background for the next few months, let me set
out what I think is going to be one of our main activities of the Committee
for the next 6-9 months and what I have in mind here. I have in mind here a
piece of work that I hope is going to provide a working foundation for our
work generally for the next year or so, and this is what we call the
stock-take. Now we intend to publish this stock-take ? and I’ll explain
what is in a minute ? we intend to publish it and we are currently working
towards publication some time I think in July.
Now what is this stock-take? It is a systematic review of the action taken
on the Committee’s first six reports. We are going to leave aside for the
time being the Committee’s Seventh Report on the House of Lords, because
that is relatively new, and the House of Lords has yet to give its response
on that Committee. Now what we are going to do with the stock-take, which I
repeat will be published, is to examine in as a systematic way as we can,
whether the outcome of the actions taken, the concrete results to the
extent that we can discern those concrete results, meets the objectives
which the Committee had in mind when it made its recommendations. We may
sometimes find that we have to make new recommendations, or bring up to
date old recommendations, reiterate existing recommendations when they have
not been implemented, and we may identify gaps and areas where new work
needs to be done.
Let me say also that the Committee is giving some thought to establishing
some research into public attitudes about standards of conduct in public
life. We have got to do some more thinking on this but what we have in mind
is a sort of programme of rolling assessment of public attitudes. There
are, as you know, various polls published from time to time on this but we
think it might be helpful, no decision yet made, we think it might be
helpful if there was, as I say, some systematic rolling assessment. That is
not a new point. It has been discussed before and obviously I will keep you
in touch with what is going on there.
Now there is quite a lot of work in the stock-take. It is a stock-take of 6
reports, so some prioritisation is clearly essential and there are two
areas where the Committee thinks it should initially concentrate its
attention. And they are areas which I don’t think will surprise you because
they have received a good deal of attention recently.
One area is the Ministerial Code and the other is Self-Regulation in the
House of Commons. And here I come back to what I said earlier about the
forthcoming Election. On the Ministerial Code, what the Committee plans to
do is to write in the next two or three weeks to the Cabinet Secretary,
Richard Wilson, reiterating the still outstanding recommendations of the
Committee which are relevant to the Code and I think the main outstanding
recommendation is for a clearer statement of the role of the Prime Minister
in enforcing the Ministerial Code.
Now on the issues to do with the House of Commons, directly after the
Election, whenever it is, we will be writing to the Prime Minister in
office and the other main Party leaders and the Speaker. And what we will
do in that letter is we will reaffirm the Committee’s view which was set
out in its Sixth Report ? and let me quote here ?
‘the House of Commons should take measures in relation to the Committee
on Standards and Privileges with a view (a) to ensuring that a substantial
proportion of its members are senior MPs, and (b) to exempting the
Committee from the convention that its Chairman should be drawn from the
Government Benches’.
Now we would be writing at an early stage, that is directly after the
Election, so that the Committee’s views can be fully taken into account by
all concerned when the new Standards and Privileges Committee is
established early in the next Parliament. Later on I think the committee
will be writing to whomever is adopted as the new Chairman
of the Standards and Privileges Committee in the Commons, again to set out
what we have recommended and which of our recommendations are still
outstanding. I think the main recommendation which relates to the Committee
on Standards and Privileges which is outstanding is that there should be
procedures to ensure minimum standards of fairness in cases where Members
of Parliament are accused of serious offences and contest the accusations.
The Committee will also consider, and this is something that we will need
to give some thought to, raising some new issues, though I doubt whether we
will actually come to firm recommendations at this stage, which have been
the subject of public debate in recent months and which relate to the work
of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the House of Commons. Now
obvious examples are, and there may be others, is strengthening the ability
of the Standards Commissioner to obtain information when investigating
cases. Another issue is ensuring that investigations are not unreasonably
delayed, and the third issue which we might look at is what I for shorthand
call preventing tit-for-tatting by which I mean complaints which look to be
trivial and which are intended essentially for scoring points. But as I
say, we have to look at those in the Committee. I think it unlikely that in
the time available we will be making specific recommendations regarding
those issues, but we will say that they are issues that the Committee ? if
that is what we decide ? thinks that the new Standards Committee might wish
to look at.
Now, any questions on any of that.
Question (The Times)
Just two questions. One on your survey and research. You talk about looking
at public views but also those actually affected by the regulations, like
MPs, like civil servants, what about researching them because their own
attitudes are quite important. And point two, on your kind of priority
areas, you talk in relation to the Ministerial Code where clearly there is
quite a tight timescale on the point of the Prime Minister’s responsibility
but aren’t the two other issues which have come up which will be covered by
a Code, one is Special Advisers and two is post-Hammond on Enquiries, both
of which are live issues which in a sense could be determined in the new
Code before you have a chance to get on to things in the Autumn.
Sir Nigel Wicks
Let me take your first issue about research. Yes, I think you are right.
When you are doing research there are two groups that you can look at. One
is the British Citizens generally and clearly what they think is very
important, and another group, a sub-set of that, are public officials who
are active in public life. From as it were the centre of Government down to
the more local agencies and that is certainly something that we will want
to look at. Whether we do just one big assessment or in addition we want to
focus in on these public officials. I think that is a good point and
something that we have certainly in mind.
Now on the Ministerial Code, let me be quite frank here. Time is rather
short. I don’t know when the next General Election is going to be, though I
read obviously what you people write about it, and I think in those
circumstances we are going to have to ? because before we make new
recommendations we normally have a period of consultation, take evidence,
including from some people in this room ? I don’t think we are going have
time for that, but these issues are certainly issues that we could well
return to in the light of what the Ministerial code says. And you will
remember that one of the recommendations I think we have
made in the past is that we ought to review the convention – I don’t think
we have actually made this as a recommendation but I think it is a view of
the Committee – we ought to review the convention that the Code is only
reissued when a new Administration comes into office and on that basis it
could be reviewed only once in every four years or, in some circumstances,
once in every five years. So I think we will come back to those issues
Peter in the light of what the Ministerial Code ? the new edition ? says,
but they are certainly issues that I think will be
in the Committee’s mind.
Question (Carol Walker, BBC)
A couple of points. The idea of looking at this whole question of
self-regulation. Does that reflect concerns on your behalf and that of the
Committee that the current system we’ve got with this sort of division of
labour, if you like, between Elizabeth Filkin and the Standards and
Privileges Committee, are you concerned that that isn’t really working as
efficiently as it could be. And on the Ministerial code, do you think there
is a case for, if you like, having some mechanism whereby, in the Peter
Mandelson case, a situation like that could be referred to a Committee. And
the third point was that on this research into public attitudes, does that
reflect a sort of concern that giving all the new mechanisms that have been
put in place over the last four years that people still don’t have that
high an opinion of MPs and politicians generally.
Sir Nigel Wicks
Let me, Carol, take your questions in a different order than you gave me,
not for any particular reason, except convenience. Your last question about
why we are thinking of having a rolling assessment, as I call it. No I
don’t think the answer is the one that you suggest. I think that it is
useful in this area to have what I call an evidential approach. Now that
sounds a pompous way ? that’s a pompous phrase ? but what it means is that
you should try to see as objectively as you can how attitudes are changing,
whether public attitudes, or the attitudes of public officials are
changing, and by doing that you at least have some indication of whether
the work of the Committee is having some effect. So I would say it’s part
of what I would call an evidential approach.
Going on to your first question about self-regulation. The Committee on
Standards and Privileges have recently had some cases. Those cases have not
been easy cases for them, and I think what my Committee would want to do is
to see ? and this is I think absolutely right ? how the Commons Committee,
the new Committee, reacts to it. What lessons they draw from recent events
and how they intend to respond to it, and I think bearing in mind obviously
the position of the House of Commons, it is right to operate in that way.
We will, as I say, suggest some issues which we think they might want to
look at , but I think it would be wrong for us to, as it were, rush in here
without Parliament having itself had an opportunity to draw lessons.
On the Ministerial Code, again I have not the faintest idea what revisions
are going to take place. That is a matter for the Prime Minister of the day
and Sir Richard Wilson, so I have no idea. But again this is something.
There have been issues recently, they have been raised and bearing in mind
the time constraint the Committee I am sure will be examining the
Ministerial Code. The Committee indeed may want to take further evidence
from the people who have given us evidence in the past and others if they
want to on the new Code, and the sort of things that you referred to in
your question will obviously be some of the issues that we want to look at.
Question (Michael White, The Guardian)
One small factual point. The research ? I may have misunderstood this ? is
it going to be a mixture of getting Bob Wooster in to do quantities of
polling, or is it a largely a question of in depth discussion with civil
servants and others. Secondly, Members of Parliament sometimes complain
that the cases which come into the public domain are really outside the
remit of either the Committee or indeed the Ministerial Code of Conduct
because they are what MPs do in what I will euphemistically call their
private lives. Is this in any way on your radar at the moment. The
demarcations between what is appropriate for various of the regulatory
authorities. And thirdly I can see in the questions you gave us of your
thinking on many of these things, delays and fairness and all the rest of
it, but I was curious to know what your thinking was behind your expressed
need to have a substantial proportion of more senior members and a Chairman
not from the Government benches. What lies behind that particular proposal.
Sir Nigel Wicks
First of all the question on the nature of the research. The answer to that
question is that it is a good question, because those are just the issues
that we have got to consider. We have identified the fact that there is a
case for having this, as I call it, rolling assessment.
Precisely how we do it we have got to work through and there is a little
conference that we are going to shortly in Oxford with some academics that
will talk to us about possible ways, but there are lots of ways we will do
it. But let me say here that I don’t want to rush into this because what we
do I want to be to the extent we can a quality piece of work, and those of
you who have been involved in doing this sort of research, it is easier to
say you are going to do it than to do it well, and so as I say we’ll need
to think about the questions, and the questions you ask are perfectly good
ones.
Now on your second question about the private lives of Members of
Parliament. It probably depends what you mean private lives, and I am
almost tempted to go back to you. I don’t think we are involved in our
Committee in what I would call personal We are involved in what is set out
in the Seven Principles of Public Life. That is what our remit is. And
there are certainly aspects of the private life of a Member of Parliament
which may be of interest to his constituents, but probably doesn’t fall
within those Seven Principles and I don’t think it is very easy to actually
demarcate what is the actual detailed dividing line, but we will be guided
in all these issues by the Seven Principles of Public Life. Let me say I
regard the Seven Principles of Public Life as a sort of template. You apply
the Seven Principles of Public Life across the public sector to public
officials to public institutions, and you see how they measure up and that
is the basic philosophical approach that I think we take.
Now you asked what we have done, why I mentioned those two points which
came from the Sixth Report. Why do we say that we think a substantial
proportion of the members of the Committee should be senior MPs, and why do
we say that the Committee should be exempted from the convention that the
Chairman should be drawn from the Government benches. I think the reason
for both is the same. What we want is a Committee ? I think under my
predecessor, Lord Neill, I think the thinking behind those recommendations,
we wanted a Committee which carried authority, considerable authority, and
it was thought that if there were a substantial proportion of its members
which were senior Members of Parliament, who had a lot of experience of the
ways of Parliament, of being an MP, that would increase the authority of
the Committee and similarly the same point goes for the suggestion that the
Committee might have a Chairman not drawn from the Government benches. One
of the pre-eminent Committees of the House of Commons, as you know, is the
Public Accounts Committee, and I cannot remember a Chairman of the Public
Accounts Committee who wasn’t from the non-Goverment Benches. They always
seem to come from the non-Government benches and for good reasons. And that
is a very prestigious and authoritative Committee. And that is the
reasoning that lies behind that.
Question (Financial Times)
At the 1997 Election Campaign, Labour promised to maintain higher standards
of behaviour than the Tory Government that preceded it. Do you think it has
succeeded in that? And secondly, given the trouble this Government has had
with its dealings with the business community, do you think that will be
fruitful area of research for you in the future.
Sir Nigel Wicks
On your first question you will not be surprised if I refuse to be drawn ?
you will be extremely disappointed. Although I will make a point on it and
that is, if we had some rolling assessments of the sort that I am talking
about I would be able to say, to answer your question, by saying well we
have had a rolling assessment and I would never answer in quite the terms
that your question seems to imply that I might, but I would have some
objective evidential material and that is one of the reasons that one
wants, as I say, this objective material.
Your second question related to business. Again, this is an interesting
question and it is an issue which has been before the Committee ? you will
remember regarding sponsorship the Committee have made some rules about
sponsorship ? speaking rather broadly I believe, and I say personally I
approve this, I don’t know what my Committee thinks, that there is room in
modern government for the use of business skills in delivering services, in
providing advice because we are living in an increasingly complex, and
complicated, world and therefore there is a role for business, but clearly
if that is going to be the way forward, the ethical dimension, because we
are involved here often with public money, public power has to be
safeguarded and I think that this is one of the issues that will be in the
Committee’s mind as our work proceeds. But what I mentioned to you is quite
an agenda already, and it may well be that when we do our stock-take it
well may be that this is one of the issues that will come out. But I don’t
that at this moment I can say any more than that.
(End of transcript)
