Constitution Committee
Wednesday 11th November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 hours, 33 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:31
10:31
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
Baroness Stewart of Edgbaston. Doug Chalmers, chair of the Ethics and Integrity Commission. I should have said that Lady Stewart is the first civil service commissioner and Vijay Rangarajan, chief executive, and John Pullinger, chair of the Electoral Commission. You are all very welcome this morning. I remind members of the committee to declare any interest relevant to this inquiry or today's meeting. The first time they speak, I have no relevant interests of my own to declare. I'd also like to remind everybody that we will pause the evidence session shortly before 11:00 to observe the two minutes silence of Remembrance Day, the beginning and end of which will be marked by the ringing of Division bells.
Well, my my, my Lords and our esteemed guests here, we're doing an inquiry on the constitutional safeguards in the United Kingdom. We're looking at a whole variety of things from the Cabinet secretary, former ones. We're going to have the existing ones. We're looking at some of the organisations that make up the safeguards of the British Constitution. But we also very much wanted to hear from from you in terms of the role that you play in protecting the UK's constitutional democracy. Do you consider your organisation to form part of the UK's network of constitutional safeguards? Now, although there are four of you here, you don't have to all answer every every question.
But perhaps I could ask Lady Stewart if she would like to to start off on that one. It's a good broad question. You might all want to comment on that, and then we'll continue with the other questions.
Well, my my, my Lords and our esteemed guests here, we're doing an inquiry on the constitutional safeguards in the United Kingdom. We're looking at a whole variety of things from the Cabinet secretary, former ones. We're going to have the existing ones. We're looking at some of the organisations that make up the safeguards of the British Constitution. But we also very much wanted to hear from from you in terms of the role that you play in protecting the UK's constitutional democracy. Do you consider your organisation to form part of the UK's network of constitutional safeguards? Now, although there are four of you here, you don't have to all answer every every question.
But perhaps I could ask Lady Stewart if she would like to to start off on that one. It's a good broad question. You might all want to comment on that, and then we'll continue with the other questions.
10:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, chair. I do regard the Civil Service Commission as an integral part of the constitutional framework of this country. It arose out of Northcote-trevelyan in the last century, and I think we've now existed for 150 years, and we're now within a statutory framework of the constitutional Reform Act of 2010. The reason why it's an important element is that we now regulate and advise on the entire career cycle of a civil servant. We regulate the entry into the civil service, either by chairing competitions, ensuring that the process is open and fair, and decisions based are based on merit or by auditing departments on that process.
We are the final arbiter of any complaints under the Civil Service Code, and since October last year, we have taken on the role of advising civil servants and special advisers of a certain pay grade when they leave the civil service on business appointment rules, so that that overall oversight and assurance and education from our role is really important for the Constitution. It may also be useful to say at this point that we regard our role as a regulator as well as an educator. So what we're driving at is we should spend as much energy on, on preventing wrong decisions being taken, ensuring that the system works, educating everyone what is expected of them to ensure that the system functions properly.
We are the final arbiter of any complaints under the Civil Service Code, and since October last year, we have taken on the role of advising civil servants and special advisers of a certain pay grade when they leave the civil service on business appointment rules, so that that overall oversight and assurance and education from our role is really important for the Constitution. It may also be useful to say at this point that we regard our role as a regulator as well as an educator. So what we're driving at is we should spend as much energy on, on preventing wrong decisions being taken, ensuring that the system works, educating everyone what is expected of them to ensure that the system functions properly.
10:35
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
Let me just interrupt you then. We had a lot of evidence early on on the civil service, and one of our. Witnesses said that what the civil service really needed was more responsibility and more accountability, and that would make it react more beneficially to the issues that were facing us. Do you see that as part of the problem that needs solving, and do you play a role in that?
10:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So we we don't play a role in that. However, I would add the current cabinet secretary, Antonio Antonio Romero, gave a speech last night, and she very much emphasized that that kind of decision making by civil servants, that it should be effective, it should actually improve things. And she led by example. I think she's the first cabinet secretary who's actually put in public her own performance criteria of what should be expected of her performance. And in that context, I think she's showing leadership and that element of leadership, which my colleagues will have much more to say about, I think is important both in the civil service as in public life in general.
10:36
10:36
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So we are slightly different as the Ethics and Integrity Commission, and I was the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life before I became the chair of the EIC, and I'll come back to its remit shortly. But if I can build on on something that Baroness Stewart said is therefore we don't do casework. So I'm not a regulator, but I still think for me, I would say I'm an educator and an adviser, but I think if I take back to the first principle, why do we as a standards body have a part to play in, in this constitutional the work that you're doing now?
I think it is because standards do matter. And I think there is an expectation of the public. And I know having looked at some of the previous evidence, that may come up as a question, but the expectations of the public definitely have risen over time about those that are put in office, elected or appointed into public office. And we are a country that still should govern without bias or rest of it. And we should we still, you know, tax and police by consent, so that trust and linkage to consent, I think, remains very, very, very important.
And of course, we are as standards bodies are very focused on ensuring that that power in public office is exercised fairly consistently and without favoritism or bias. Now, the EIC built off the CSP, but we are an umbrella organization. We don't regulate per se. We don't do casework, but we do look over the standards landscape and then we advise we make policy proposals over time, just like CSP did in times past, that have actually led to much of the landscape that's now. In fact, the team to my right are a result of a CSP recommendation in the past.
In the growing intervene, the EIC, we've been given a few extra remits, one of which is to keep on doing what CSP did, a more formal element on engagement. And that comes back into the educator word you heard both of us talk about. So far already. We are also to become a centre of excellence in codes of ethical conduct, which we might explore a bit further in conversations later on. I write an annual letter to the Prime Minister, and I also chair a network of those who are in the regulatory space. And actually both Baroness Stewart and John are part of that network.
So we get to know each other quite well from there. And I should also say that our remit is focused on England, but we have quite strong relationships and we're building strong relationships with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales just to see how they're they they are all looking at the same problems and how they address them in different ways. Their context is slightly different, but we need to learn from them and share. But we also look into other European countries as well as countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, where there's a more aligned about how they are addressing similar challenges.
Because the challenges we're talking about here are not unique to us. Others are addressing the same challenges.
I think it is because standards do matter. And I think there is an expectation of the public. And I know having looked at some of the previous evidence, that may come up as a question, but the expectations of the public definitely have risen over time about those that are put in office, elected or appointed into public office. And we are a country that still should govern without bias or rest of it. And we should we still, you know, tax and police by consent, so that trust and linkage to consent, I think, remains very, very, very important.
And of course, we are as standards bodies are very focused on ensuring that that power in public office is exercised fairly consistently and without favoritism or bias. Now, the EIC built off the CSP, but we are an umbrella organization. We don't regulate per se. We don't do casework, but we do look over the standards landscape and then we advise we make policy proposals over time, just like CSP did in times past, that have actually led to much of the landscape that's now. In fact, the team to my right are a result of a CSP recommendation in the past.
In the growing intervene, the EIC, we've been given a few extra remits, one of which is to keep on doing what CSP did, a more formal element on engagement. And that comes back into the educator word you heard both of us talk about. So far already. We are also to become a centre of excellence in codes of ethical conduct, which we might explore a bit further in conversations later on. I write an annual letter to the Prime Minister, and I also chair a network of those who are in the regulatory space. And actually both Baroness Stewart and John are part of that network.
So we get to know each other quite well from there. And I should also say that our remit is focused on England, but we have quite strong relationships and we're building strong relationships with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales just to see how they're they they are all looking at the same problems and how they address them in different ways. Their context is slightly different, but we need to learn from them and share. But we also look into other European countries as well as countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, where there's a more aligned about how they are addressing similar challenges.
Because the challenges we're talking about here are not unique to us. Others are addressing the same challenges.
10:39
10:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
But no. Well, I will go. I mean, the answer to your question is yes, we are definitely part of this system. And that was what CSL recommended and was taken up in Parliament, that there should be a body that has the duty to give independent oversight to elections across the UK, and we have a lot of elections. I mean, we've had general elections in Wales and Scotland this year, Vijay and I, the last couple of days we've been in Northern Ireland overseeing the preparations for the combined elections that are taking place across Northern Ireland next May.
And we've also had a lot of local elections in England and a whole string of by elections recently. So all of those are part of our constitutional settlement, giving democratic legitimacy, giving those in power accountability and using the word consent, ensuring there is proper consent for for the system. So we would say we're absolutely at the heart of this Constitution.
And we've also had a lot of local elections in England and a whole string of by elections recently. So all of those are part of our constitutional settlement, giving democratic legitimacy, giving those in power accountability and using the word consent, ensuring there is proper consent for for the system. So we would say we're absolutely at the heart of this Constitution.
10:40
10:40
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Absolutely. I mean, the whole emphasis is on free, fair and trusted elections. And we start from pretty strong foundations. So there are high levels of public trust in the smooth running of elections. And we kind of survey this after each election. And we have a statutory duty to report within six months of an election. And we've just done the reports for the May elections. And across the board, we have high levels of trust. That's particularly down to the efficient running of elections by local authorities up and down, up and down, down the country. We also have high levels of compliance with the political finance regime.
We work with all political parties and to follow the conversation earlier, try and create a framework that supports political parties to comply, but of course calls out non-compliance. And we have statutory authority to to call out non-compliance and find find people. And I think that to to that extent, the system does well. But we have a whole range of threats coming down the line. And if you think of the electoral system as part of critical national infrastructure, which we do, we need to renew our investment in it. If it's to keep the strengths that we've had in the past into the future.
I know you want me to go on and kind of name some of those threats.
We work with all political parties and to follow the conversation earlier, try and create a framework that supports political parties to comply, but of course calls out non-compliance. And we have statutory authority to to call out non-compliance and find find people. And I think that to to that extent, the system does well. But we have a whole range of threats coming down the line. And if you think of the electoral system as part of critical national infrastructure, which we do, we need to renew our investment in it. If it's to keep the strengths that we've had in the past into the future.
I know you want me to go on and kind of name some of those threats.
10:41
10:42
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I just add two things to what John said. The first is the lowest part of trust in the process is transparency of political finance. The current bill, which you'll all be involved in scrutinising, will help significantly on that. But it is a very complex system, and one area where we do think there needs to be some significant improvements. The second area, which you may want to touch on later, is education, which we've already touched on briefly because of votes at 16 coming in, we're running a major programme to get materials to help young people understand not just the system.
Why does politics matter to them and the issues that they care about, but also where to get information from and frankly, what information not to trust. And then thirdly, how to argue with a politician or a candidate that you may agree with, but you may strongly disagree with as well. But this is partly to tackle the one of the fundamental threats that we do see, which is the increased abuse and intimidation of political party candidates across the country. And it's rising steadily over time because we track that. And that is a significant worry, I think, for our longer term issues.
If people are aren't standing to be candidates, that's a pretty fundamental part. So we're running a big programme of education. We're now in about 500 schools testing out the materials we've produced. We want to go to all schools in the course of 2027, and that, I think, should help some of the underlying trust issues and expectations.
Why does politics matter to them and the issues that they care about, but also where to get information from and frankly, what information not to trust. And then thirdly, how to argue with a politician or a candidate that you may agree with, but you may strongly disagree with as well. But this is partly to tackle the one of the fundamental threats that we do see, which is the increased abuse and intimidation of political party candidates across the country. And it's rising steadily over time because we track that. And that is a significant worry, I think, for our longer term issues.
If people are aren't standing to be candidates, that's a pretty fundamental part. So we're running a big programme of education. We're now in about 500 schools testing out the materials we've produced. We want to go to all schools in the course of 2027, and that, I think, should help some of the underlying trust issues and expectations.
10:43
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Now that's across the whole country. We're starting in England, UK, in England and Northern Ireland at the moment, and we had a fantastic session in Northern Ireland with a whole lot of youth voices, networks and our key partners on Monday night. So that's England, Northern Ireland, because that's where votes at 16 is coming in immediately. Yes, we've also going to expand that, and we've already done quite a lot in Scotland and in Wales, where they already have votes at 16. But our new material is really getting a very good reception. So we will we will go.
10:43
10:43
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
-
-
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Thank you very much. Lord Strathclyde mentioned that a very big part of our inquiry is about the safeguards to our Constitution, and perhaps you could tell us a little about how effective you think your organisations are able to fulfil your roles as constitutional safeguards and what factors, if any, constrain your ability in so doing.
10:44
10:44
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'll lead off as the umbrella. If I could describe myself as that, I think I will. I will say that I, I look back and it was useful for me being chair of CSP and then coming to it because we've taken the can of literature that CSP did, the evidence based inquiries and the recommendations that have been made from there and moved them through, because, as you know better than I sometimes recommendations to to action is not linear. It doesn't go in an algebraic way. You put something into the mix, into the system, and it takes a while for the system to truly absorb it.
And then it finally comes through. So I've been a key advocate of many of the stuff that CSP did. There's some strong recommendations were made on on things like local government. It was great to see some of the stuff in the in the bill representation bill, which we'd put in about finance before. So we keep on advocating that. So the metric I judge by is do we do high quality evidence based reports that pick up well with external credibility, as well as being tested by those involved? And then on the other side of it is how the government enacts them and takes them forward.
And the latter both are really important because there is an external credibility element, which also helps influence the government and how they pick it up. But for me, it's how the government pick those up. So the two concerns I have, and I watch quite carefully is how our our reports are picked up and enacted by the government over time. But secondly, that I have the resource to deliver the quality and evidence based work that we do. And as I mentioned before, I see has grown quite a lot. And if we get given additional tasks, then obviously my ability to match resource to tasks to get the quality that we're after can come under stress.
And we did a report on lobbying, business appointments and disclosure, which was asked by the government, and that stressed our system to get that in. And we might want to come back to that later on. So I think we have had effect, good effect, and we've talked about some of the recommendations, creating other elements that that sort of help guide, guard and guide rail, I think life in public office. But for me, as I look forward, it's they've been picked up, enacted and then how they've been done and what sort of time.
And then it finally comes through. So I've been a key advocate of many of the stuff that CSP did. There's some strong recommendations were made on on things like local government. It was great to see some of the stuff in the in the bill representation bill, which we'd put in about finance before. So we keep on advocating that. So the metric I judge by is do we do high quality evidence based reports that pick up well with external credibility, as well as being tested by those involved? And then on the other side of it is how the government enacts them and takes them forward.
And the latter both are really important because there is an external credibility element, which also helps influence the government and how they pick it up. But for me, it's how the government pick those up. So the two concerns I have, and I watch quite carefully is how our our reports are picked up and enacted by the government over time. But secondly, that I have the resource to deliver the quality and evidence based work that we do. And as I mentioned before, I see has grown quite a lot. And if we get given additional tasks, then obviously my ability to match resource to tasks to get the quality that we're after can come under stress.
And we did a report on lobbying, business appointments and disclosure, which was asked by the government, and that stressed our system to get that in. And we might want to come back to that later on. So I think we have had effect, good effect, and we've talked about some of the recommendations, creating other elements that that sort of help guide, guard and guide rail, I think life in public office. But for me, as I look forward, it's they've been picked up, enacted and then how they've been done and what sort of time.
10:46
10:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I next thank you, chair. I think we're pretty well, well placed. But going back to the threats that Vijay hinted on, the Electoral Commission is part of the electoral system, and electoral system comprises a whole range of people beyond us. And the critical factor is how those bits of the system work well together. So just running a few a few things. The toxic information environment is an absolutely critical threat at the moment, and trying to get a handle on how foreign actors and others are kind of manipulating the information space to confuse voters and destabilise campaigns is becoming a massive issue.
Now the Electoral Commission can call attention to that. So we ran a deep fake detection tool in the elections in May 2026 that threw out a whole range of issues there, including kind of 15 particular cases where we thought there was a threat to democratic integrity. Now we did that. We are not a kind of technological, deep fake detection organisation, and we think that the state should have some systematic monitoring of this so that we can call out bad behaviour. So that is number one. Number two, as Vijay referenced, the increasing levels of abuse and intimidation of candidates is putting people off and kind of degrading our political capacity.
And the speaker of the House of Commons has taken a lead on, on how we tackle that, and ran a speakers conference last year. And there's a critical role for the police here to really step up and understand that it needs to they need to step in when there is unacceptable illegal abuse of candidates. And some of the police forces are very good, but some have been hesitant because how do they navigate the boundary between freedom of speech and harassment? It's really hard in the political space. The third one that Vijay's referenced is political finance.
The public has very, very low levels of trust, even though we do a pretty good job of making public where the money is coming from. Representation of people, bill should help, but there is serious public disquiet about money buying influence that we need to tackle. And I'm really getting to the end chair. But the next one is that the British law around elections is so complicated that it is becoming very, very difficult for those involved voters, candidates or electorate administrators to to manage. Much of it is very out of date. It's becoming inconsistent because we get one layer over another, particularly for voters in Wales and Scotland.
And the complexity is enormous. And there are very many good things in the representation of the people Bill, but it will add another layer of complexity. And there are amendments down on the bill in this House about to be debated on making some progress with simplifying and consolidating electoral law. We think that's very important. It's one of these boiling the frog issues. It gets more and more complicated until one day it's so complicated it collapses under its own weight. And my final one, which is a constraint on us, is the pressure on local government. Our elections are run by local authorities up and down the country.
Returning officers have personal responsibility for running them and they do a really good job. We set and monitor standards. We call out if they fail to meet the standards and if you don't, each time , they desperately want to do a good job, but they struggle to get the staffing and resources that enable them to do it. Given the complexity of the task they're having to undertake, there are a range of things there. I think we're well placed, but there is work to be done, significant work to be done between now and the next general election.
Now the Electoral Commission can call attention to that. So we ran a deep fake detection tool in the elections in May 2026 that threw out a whole range of issues there, including kind of 15 particular cases where we thought there was a threat to democratic integrity. Now we did that. We are not a kind of technological, deep fake detection organisation, and we think that the state should have some systematic monitoring of this so that we can call out bad behaviour. So that is number one. Number two, as Vijay referenced, the increasing levels of abuse and intimidation of candidates is putting people off and kind of degrading our political capacity.
And the speaker of the House of Commons has taken a lead on, on how we tackle that, and ran a speakers conference last year. And there's a critical role for the police here to really step up and understand that it needs to they need to step in when there is unacceptable illegal abuse of candidates. And some of the police forces are very good, but some have been hesitant because how do they navigate the boundary between freedom of speech and harassment? It's really hard in the political space. The third one that Vijay's referenced is political finance.
The public has very, very low levels of trust, even though we do a pretty good job of making public where the money is coming from. Representation of people, bill should help, but there is serious public disquiet about money buying influence that we need to tackle. And I'm really getting to the end chair. But the next one is that the British law around elections is so complicated that it is becoming very, very difficult for those involved voters, candidates or electorate administrators to to manage. Much of it is very out of date. It's becoming inconsistent because we get one layer over another, particularly for voters in Wales and Scotland.
And the complexity is enormous. And there are very many good things in the representation of the people Bill, but it will add another layer of complexity. And there are amendments down on the bill in this House about to be debated on making some progress with simplifying and consolidating electoral law. We think that's very important. It's one of these boiling the frog issues. It gets more and more complicated until one day it's so complicated it collapses under its own weight. And my final one, which is a constraint on us, is the pressure on local government. Our elections are run by local authorities up and down the country.
Returning officers have personal responsibility for running them and they do a really good job. We set and monitor standards. We call out if they fail to meet the standards and if you don't, each time , they desperately want to do a good job, but they struggle to get the staffing and resources that enable them to do it. Given the complexity of the task they're having to undertake, there are a range of things there. I think we're well placed, but there is work to be done, significant work to be done between now and the next general election.
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
Yes. No. I'm okay. I've got that. You said there was public disquiet about people buying influence with money. And I, I, I completely understand of external people putting money potentially directly to, to try and speak to ministers or members of Parliament. But your disquiet was also wider than that. It's the generality of spending around a general election campaign, for instance, you feel that you have a greater role in in deciding what does pass muster and what does not.
10:51
10:51
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
You may wish to add, I mean, what we're doing at the moment is we will. Get input from the public about the things they are happy with and the things they are concerned about, and the lowest ratings of public trust in the transparency of the political finance regime. So I'm saying, in a sense, no more, no less than that. And we have consistently said, because the public also want political parties to make sure they are well informed about the issues they're they're going to be debating. And that costs money. We're drawing attention to that disquiet at the moment.
We are running a review on the spending limits the political parties have at election time, and we are taking evidence from all political parties about how those should be set. And this is quite challenging territory for us. We had a discussion of it at a board yesterday, but that will enable us to put an evidence base before Parliament as to what those spending limits should be, and I think that will help inform this debate in a much better way than maybe it has been in the past.
We are running a review on the spending limits the political parties have at election time, and we are taking evidence from all political parties about how those should be set. And this is quite challenging territory for us. We had a discussion of it at a board yesterday, but that will enable us to put an evidence base before Parliament as to what those spending limits should be, and I think that will help inform this debate in a much better way than maybe it has been in the past.
10:51
10:51
10:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes, because just the Electoral Commission expressed this view of of plethora of legislation which sort of layer of the layer we are on the other extreme, we are the beneficiaries of crack, which is very clear, very precise and very enabling. So legislation, when well drafted, can be really helpful. But the and also it is worth putting on record that in the four and a half, four and three quarters years I've done this role, there has never been a moment where either on the political or on the civil service side, I felt there was any undue pressure.
However, if there were to be, I think probably the political pressure would be one which is slightly more difficult. Which leads me to the search for my successor. I believe I was the first former politician in 120 years to fulfil this role, and I would suggest it's for others to say, but I would like to offer it as an observation that it may not be a bad idea to have this role filled by a former politician. And that also leads me to the observation that my term of office comes to an end at the end of February.
It's a complicated process. Pacac has to approve. If the First Minister of Scotland and Wales have to be consulted, the leaders of the opposition. The role was advertised in the summer. There have not yet said interview dates, and I would urge anybody who may take note of these proceedings to ensure that we don't end up with an interim, because if you have got regulators or any organisations, if you don't fill vacancies in a timely fashion, if you do not provide the budgets, then you weaken the organisations. You don't destroy them, but you weaken them. And if you can avoid weakening them, I think it'd be really, really important.
But but other than that, I would say that the Civil Service Commission has a long history. I think it's important. And as long as they don't weaken this organisation and allow the line management of civil servants who who serve on those organisations to be properly managed, these things can work really well.
However, if there were to be, I think probably the political pressure would be one which is slightly more difficult. Which leads me to the search for my successor. I believe I was the first former politician in 120 years to fulfil this role, and I would suggest it's for others to say, but I would like to offer it as an observation that it may not be a bad idea to have this role filled by a former politician. And that also leads me to the observation that my term of office comes to an end at the end of February.
It's a complicated process. Pacac has to approve. If the First Minister of Scotland and Wales have to be consulted, the leaders of the opposition. The role was advertised in the summer. There have not yet said interview dates, and I would urge anybody who may take note of these proceedings to ensure that we don't end up with an interim, because if you have got regulators or any organisations, if you don't fill vacancies in a timely fashion, if you do not provide the budgets, then you weaken the organisations. You don't destroy them, but you weaken them. And if you can avoid weakening them, I think it'd be really, really important.
But but other than that, I would say that the Civil Service Commission has a long history. I think it's important. And as long as they don't weaken this organisation and allow the line management of civil servants who who serve on those organisations to be properly managed, these things can work really well.
10:51
10:51
Baroness Hamwee
-
-
Baroness Hamwee
Thank you. This is to the Electoral Commission. In your written evidence, you said that the UK's paper based voting system is an important safeguard. I was a member of the Greater London Authority. It was immensely frustrating as a candidate and then provided quite a lot of work for me as chair to be involved with the automatic counting, and it's hard to think that there might not be a pressure for more automatic counting the way the world is going.
And so I wondered whether you might want to expand on that a bit.
And so I wondered whether you might want to expand on that a bit.
10:51
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. I think I think you're right, there's pressure to use technology more extensively to both make the system simpler and better for voters and better for candidates and administrators. The reason why we are we do think that paper voting, and you can use a pen or a pencil, I should hasten to.
10:51
10:51
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
It is important. It's because it's so transparent and it's so scrutinised by agents, by candidates, by everybody in counts. You can track it every step of the way. One of the things we certainly see internationally is a massive level of cyber attacks on counting systems around the world. We have it in the UK. I mean, we get between 30 and 50,000 cyber attacks on the electoral Commission every month. So I think that cyber threat to our systems means it's very important for voter trust. They can be absolutely clear what happened, and it is scrutinised every step of the way.
It's even more important. I'd argue for candidate trust. If you're a losing candidate, you really want to be
It's even more important. I'd argue for candidate trust. If you're a losing candidate, you really want to be
11:01
11:01
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
In terms of its speed, in terms of its risk assessment. But you're quite right that at the moment, the some ranks of the Mod and the intelligence services are not not part of our remit. The rules belong to the Cabinet Office. So I think we have to report on how we find the system. And then in. conversations both with the Cabinet Secretary, who I think, and propriety and ethics, who I think you're taking evidence from in future sessions, any changes to the rule, we have to agree with them. From my point of view, we have started to as we publish.
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
Lord Beith
-
-
Lord Beith
11:05
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Government's goodwill to do your job? I can I have a follow up to that question, because we, as you know, we were asked by the government to do a review. into lobbying, business appointment rules and disclosure. So the very with the the dissolution of Acoba, we we looked at that and we, we, we identified exactly what you described is that civil servants find ministers went to the independent adviser. But military officers and crown.
11:06
11:06
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Such as in the agencies obviously didn't fall under the Civil Service rules. Now under Cobra, the only dealt with the top end. The departments always dealt with the. The lower level before. What we found was that they. There should be a better Cabinet Office corralling. Of the people who are. delivering the business appointment rules. We also felt because they're still owned by the Cabinet Office, we also felt that the business appointment rules themselves need to be updated because they're quite old in some of the mechanisms. And I really welcome some of the review that you've done.
If I may say, in the Civil Service Commission, on their side of it, I think there are many lessons in there that hopefully would be translated through the Cabinet Office to the business rules as a whole. Therefore, all. organisations should be done. And we made a couple of. observations about things like national interest and who should be the judge of national interest as well, in order to protect against some of the concerns that you had.
I realise I say that as a retired.
If I may say, in the Civil Service Commission, on their side of it, I think there are many lessons in there that hopefully would be translated through the Cabinet Office to the business rules as a whole. Therefore, all. organisations should be done. And we made a couple of. observations about things like national interest and who should be the judge of national interest as well, in order to protect against some of the concerns that you had.
I realise I say that as a retired.
11:08
11:08
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
So I feed that into the mix, into the the your point you raised before, how important, how important it is that we are independent and how can we be independent? We take it very, very seriously. And I mentioned in my opening words that being independent is critical for our external. credibility and the fact that we are here to support all governments as they come into into being, and that balance of power that sits within. So for us, that really is key. We need to be seen to be neutral and without bias, and we need to be seen as in our views focused on the public interest.
Of the recommendations and safeguards that we put in place. So how do we deliver that is we have political members, as you know. inside of our committee. That's actually a remarkably strong balance because it means that some of those discussions, if we if they feel we're too much under the cosh of the government, that will come up very, very quickly. And I get evidence that, for example, when the Prime Minister asks us to do the lobbying review recently, we had a long discussion whether to say yes or not, because we're not a branch of the government to do to be tasked at at will.
But lobbying was always very high on our list of things to do, which was why we. decided to do it. And then our relationship with Pacac, who holds us in in Parliament is very important to us. And then, of course, we have to make sure that our external think tanks, etc. view our work as being independent to keep going into it. But we'd still need a sponsor, because I rely on civil servants to do much of our official work. We rely on accommodation and we rely on the funding stream, but it's getting that balance. I've just gone through the MOU exercise with the Cabinet Office at the moment to make sure that we are.
independent in our output, the choice of what we do and how we do it. But .
Of the recommendations and safeguards that we put in place. So how do we deliver that is we have political members, as you know. inside of our committee. That's actually a remarkably strong balance because it means that some of those discussions, if we if they feel we're too much under the cosh of the government, that will come up very, very quickly. And I get evidence that, for example, when the Prime Minister asks us to do the lobbying review recently, we had a long discussion whether to say yes or not, because we're not a branch of the government to do to be tasked at at will.
But lobbying was always very high on our list of things to do, which was why we. decided to do it. And then our relationship with Pacac, who holds us in in Parliament is very important to us. And then, of course, we have to make sure that our external think tanks, etc. view our work as being independent to keep going into it. But we'd still need a sponsor, because I rely on civil servants to do much of our official work. We rely on accommodation and we rely on the funding stream, but it's getting that balance. I've just gone through the MOU exercise with the Cabinet Office at the moment to make sure that we are.
independent in our output, the choice of what we do and how we do it. But .
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:12
Lord Bichard
-
-
Lord Bichard
I could be. reassured that everything was pretty good in a good place. I think, as you said a moment ago, everything can always be improved. But the suggestion is we're in a good place. And then I think about the reality on the ground, and I think about infected blood, where I was involved and found civil servants lying. I look at Hillsborough, I look at the post office, I look at Grenfell. I could go on and on. The reality on the ground seems to be very different. So I have to ask you whether you really do believe the standard.
system is working all of these things. Second point. All of these things have happened despite the existence of various coats. Nolan, Civil service co. ministerial code. And yet we seem to be prepared to trust codes in the future. A centre of excellence on codes. Are you happy with the use of codes? And thirdly, just as it may seem an odd point to throw in, but as someone who spent quite a lot of time working in local.
system is working all of these things. Second point. All of these things have happened despite the existence of various coats. Nolan, Civil service co. ministerial code. And yet we seem to be prepared to trust codes in the future. A centre of excellence on codes. Are you happy with the use of codes? And thirdly, just as it may seem an odd point to throw in, but as someone who spent quite a lot of time working in local.
11:14
11:14
Lord Bichard
-
-
Lord Bichard
Local government has a monitoring officer. Every local authority has a monitoring officer. It's a statutory post. Central government doesn't. Central government departments don't. Wouldn't it be quite a good idea because you're in a position. I think, particularly looking at the EOC and Civil Service Commission to make that recommendation. But it's never been made. So central .
11:15
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Government departments just carry on free of that burden. If I sort of just make that first observation. So we regulate the entry and exit and the compliance with the code, fine. But you're absolutely right, there comes an extra element. And that's why I think the Cabinet. secretary's speech yesterday was an important one. That kind of emphasis on saying that actually the decisions you make have to make a difference. Actually, they have to make things better and you're accountable for them. And as as from our point of view and the regulatory function, I think there's nothing more.
important that that. continues making decisions.
important that that. continues making decisions.
11:16
11:16
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The system. contemporaneous information, because as you go back and say all the things which have gone wrong, infected blood now goes back to the 70s. If he has, I think people will need to be held. accountable at the time of that decision making. And I think your analogy with the local authorities was an important one, albeit .
11:17
Lord Bichard
-
-
Lord Bichard
Not within the remit of the Civil Service Commission. Can I just say that just before, Mr. Chairman, I mean, yes, if I went back to the 70s, but some of the things I've just referred to were not in the 70s. They're much more recent than that. And you did mention about the Cabinet Secretary's publishing her.
11:17
11:17
11:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It seems to me that others are not either. But she also mentioned that she wants to review the civil Service code. And I do think that just the fact that you're discussing and raising that awareness, that these are the standards, these are the professional standards we hold you by. We are, for example, aware that there's very high awareness amongst civil servants of the code, the People's Service, that revealed something of. 93% awareness and who they need to turn to.
So the.
So the.
11:19
11:19
11:19
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Element of change. But you have got much more concrete proposals when you try to do my best. I'll tackle your your three questions. So if we've if I've presented and I don't, I don't think we have actually presented that we're happy. I think we all do the jobs that we do because we believe that there is work to be done here. And the public. expectations have risen, as I've mentioned before, which means that we need to work harder. Now, there's a whole range of reasons that we might come back into other questions for it. I do think sometimes the government use of hyperbole and.
superlatives sets expectations, challenges those expectations going forward. But we are. I wouldn't say I'm happy I mentioned I judge our impact by the. recommendations we make for evidence based stuff that's taken forward and picked up. We made recommendations on local government about the standard system of local government quite a while ago, and it's taken this long for the government to start to pick up some of those problems. Now, that's about .
superlatives sets expectations, challenges those expectations going forward. But we are. I wouldn't say I'm happy I mentioned I judge our impact by the. recommendations we make for evidence based stuff that's taken forward and picked up. We made recommendations on local government about the standard system of local government quite a while ago, and it's taken this long for the government to start to pick up some of those problems. Now, that's about .
11:21
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Government, not the monitoring. Absolutely. It's different, which is not the point I was making, and it's not the point. And your point is that the monitoring officer I will take that away as something. We haven't done any evidence on that, but I will take that away as something to look at. But it's back to my point about whether we're happy or not. We're not happy. We wouldn't be doing half this work if we were happy, as the last thing as CSB did is we did a report saying recognising, responding to early warning signs because and I've read a lot of these.
inquiries from the recent ones to the old ones, and I've read more than enough, for example, in maternity and all the other areas they're there. And what is common throughout all of those is in there. Someone in the system knew that something wasn't right, and there is a defensiveness in some of our structures and all those those elements go into it. So we're not happy. We play our part in trying to help those who are elected or appointed in public office behave in the public interest. And that's what we're trying to do, is create a more trustworthy system.
Because the thing that does worry me, which links into this, is, so I'm on my I'm on my .
inquiries from the recent ones to the old ones, and I've read more than enough, for example, in maternity and all the other areas they're there. And what is common throughout all of those is in there. Someone in the system knew that something wasn't right, and there is a defensiveness in some of our structures and all those those elements go into it. So we're not happy. We play our part in trying to help those who are elected or appointed in public office behave in the public interest. And that's what we're trying to do, is create a more trustworthy system.
Because the thing that does worry me, which links into this, is, so I'm on my I'm on my .
11:23
11:23
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Is something I'm passionate about. It's why I spend my time doing the role that I do do is, is because the, you know, trust in politicians, frankly, has never been massively high. My predecessor used to say that trust in our institutions in the UK used to be much higher than it is now, and they are being damaged as a result of these elements.
11:24
11:24
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Trust in those institutions, I think is, is really important work. Which brings me to codes. Codes have been around before. I've been in organisations using codes. This is a perennial thing about how in a human hierarchical system, with personal. incentives of promotion and all the rest of it, how do you ensure that the decision making cycle inside of that thing is. orientated on the outcome and the purpose of your.
11:25
11:25
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Not subordinate to personal interest or a sense that you need to do something or to get on within the system. This is a perennial, this is not new, but what the Hillsborough Law or Public Accountability Bill will hopefully. provide is a pivot point for everyone to relook and re dust off, because many most organisations have codes, but if those codes you have them in being. But they don't shape your approach on every single day, they're not affecting that decision making cycle. So our role, I think as a centre is to provide best advice and then keep on doing research and provide best.
examples about how people. can make sure that these codes are used to help the decision making cycle inside public authorities. And I don't think this is a light switch moment.
examples about how people. can make sure that these codes are used to help the decision making cycle inside public authorities. And I don't think this is a light switch moment.
11:26
Lord Bichard
-
-
Lord Bichard
This is going to be the work of months and years to change. Can I just ask one other question? I, I understand that you are. advising on the codes that will be brought in under the Public Office and Accountability bill. Does that mean that you are. satisfied that the bill's. suggestion that every public sector. organisation should have its own code? Are you satisfied that that's the way to go forward? That's the first and the second and last question. Yes. You talked about local government. monitoring the Local. government and housing bill under which the monitoring officers were.
appointed was in 1989. It's 40 years ago. And yet no one associated with central .
appointed was in 1989. It's 40 years ago. And yet no one associated with central .
11:27
11:27
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Ever suggested that we should have something similar in Whitehall. Yeah. So the last bit I do take away the monitoring of I'm going to go away and do my homework on that and scratch that forward. I've not seen it that way. But thank you very much for bringing that up on the on the way for us to go forward. The bill, we're linked in with the mandatory requirement to have a code of ethical conduct, and our remit is to help public. authorities review, draft and then embed that code of ethical conduct go into it. And the public authorities is a huge landscape.
There are some that there will be a specific sector wide code which will be adapted, and our advice will help that sector wide. Other areas, such as civil service, will then update their own code to make sure it fits within it. If your question is should .
There are some that there will be a specific sector wide code which will be adapted, and our advice will help that sector wide. Other areas, such as civil service, will then update their own code to make sure it fits within it. If your question is should .
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:29
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
And should we provide it? Because that's what the bill provides for at the moment. I'm. We are. Because what we've seen is the. variations from first. responders to. education and all the other side of it. One size will not fit all. And the level of tailoring that would need to be done to make it fit right. The second bit is actually the. consultation required, because in the code, it's not just about do this, don't do that. It's also distilling down that public. authorities values and. purpose so that people within that know that these are the ethical standards in that public authority you're doing.
You won't get that from a cookie cutter, and you're going to need to go through quite a lot of painful. consultation with your. organisation and those who your. organisations affects and. impacts in order to come up with the code before. So that's where we're aiming our advice to. We are aware of an amendment in, in, in workmen , and we will watch that we we are there to provide advice.
You won't get that from a cookie cutter, and you're going to need to go through quite a lot of painful. consultation with your. organisation and those who your. organisations affects and. impacts in order to come up with the code before. So that's where we're aiming our advice to. We are aware of an amendment in, in, in workmen , and we will watch that we we are there to provide advice.
11:31
11:31
11:31
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
One of which is sort of. The first one I'd be interested in each. Statutory or not. Does it help to be statutory? Second is a question for Gisela, Lady Stuart, which is this there's beginning to be an argument that the so-called Armstrong Robert. Armstrong memorandum is under threat that said that the civil service had no political personality. Politics is all for now. There are some who say that the sort of leadership that the cabinet Secretary is offering puts that at risk, and I'd be interested in your feelings about that. It's come up once or twice in the in the chamber of the House of Lords, for example, during.
11:34
11:34
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
On Black Lives Matter or, or things that some people call woke. Should civil servants have views on those things, or are they. political and that it's very difficult, this issue? I think it's the same in. corporations and other things, but it's a real issue. I'd just be interested in your view, as to whether there's any danger in the sort of leadership that that and we will be asking her this personally, the the sort of leadership that the new Cabinet Secretary is offering.
11:36
Lord Bellamy
-
-
Lord Bellamy
Yeah. Let's start off with the Electoral Commission on statutory. Well, the general question. It depends what you're trying to do. But if you're trying to do what the Electoral Commission is trying to do, we have to have a statutory backing for it. And we are a sanctuary. We are a regulator, we are issuing sanctions, and that has to have parliamentary authority. And so it's a necessity for us. The downside risk of it is once something is enshrined in law, you then have to come back to law to change it. And some of the challenges we're facing is the world is moving faster than our ability to legislate for it.
So, for example, the changes in the representation of the people bill to prohibit foreign money coming into politics that were the subject of Philip Rycroft review were first recommended by us and. CSPL13 years ago, and it's taken and there's been a consensus that this should be stopped. Indeed, I reread the original CSB report last night and it said we should prevent foreign money coming into politics. It is an unintended loophole of the way it was legislated in the first place, so that inhibition on innovation is challenging. But I think the answer to that is not to say law or not law, but to make sure we have law that's properly considered and .
So, for example, the changes in the representation of the people bill to prohibit foreign money coming into politics that were the subject of Philip Rycroft review were first recommended by us and. CSPL13 years ago, and it's taken and there's been a consensus that this should be stopped. Indeed, I reread the original CSB report last night and it said we should prevent foreign money coming into politics. It is an unintended loophole of the way it was legislated in the first place, so that inhibition on innovation is challenging. But I think the answer to that is not to say law or not law, but to make sure we have law that's properly considered and .
11:38
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
It as you go. Yes, I think on the statutory or non-statutory, I think very much it's about what they are doing. And and so for those who do casework, I think being. statutory is quite important actually, because they should be able to operate without a risk of fear or favour in order to be independent, to deliver that casework that goes forward. And in fact, you know, we've got two examples of statutory. But if I look around the other regulators that I connect with quite a lot, I would probably highlight that the independent adviser on ministerial interests currently, Sir Laurie Magnus, is not statutory.
And I think given now the role that's been given to that, that post about advising the Prime Minister, running. investigations and running the business appointment rules for exiting and ministers, I think that that role should now be statutory. And on the other side of it, though, statutory is not the only answer. Because if I look at the. consultant registrar for lobbyists that she's.
And I think given now the role that's been given to that, that post about advising the Prime Minister, running. investigations and running the business appointment rules for exiting and ministers, I think that that role should now be statutory. And on the other side of it, though, statutory is not the only answer. Because if I look at the. consultant registrar for lobbyists that she's.
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There's one line in there which leads to your second question, and that is that special advisers can not have any role in appointing civil servants, and that is a line in the statute. And it's very helpful if you're in a competition and you ask who's in the room? And he says, I'm terribly sorry, I have to ask you to leave. And if there's any argument, you can say, no, it's in here, you are leaving. And that line, I think, is an important one. But it takes me on to to. impartiality and how that is sometimes misunderstood.
If you're a senior civil servant, if you're a civil servant, you're a.
If you're a senior civil servant, if you're a civil servant, you're a.
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There are certain. expectations of you. And, and if, if, if you feel so strongly about something and you're so out of line with what the government of the day wishes to do, then you have an honorable option. And that is, you say this profession is no longer the right profession for me, because your role is to serve the government of the day. And one of the things which I do hope that departments are starting to look at, is that they look at their. functions and say, what are the things this department has to do. irrespective of who is in.
11:45
11:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To keep the machinery of government going, and what are the things which are. priorities which will fulfill? And there's a dependency on the government of the day, because what I think we probably have seen over the last ten years, and this is just a reflection on the sheer numbers of four and three quarters years. I'm on my fifth prime minister, on the third cabinet secretary. So if you're living in, in, in a in a place of constant change, I think it's incumbent on the civil service to, to, to actually know what is our core function.
Impartiality doesn't mean you're not effective. You need to be effective, you need to deliver the day, but you also need to remember you're a .
Impartiality doesn't mean you're not effective. You need to be effective, you need to deliver the day, but you also need to remember you're a .
11:47
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
Thank you. Are you happy that both. questions are. Well, I don't think there's any easy answer to to the latter one, but the statutory one. Very interesting. Thank you. The different angle I, I think that the issue of. impartiality is and the the is a difficult one. There are certain. Standards that we think of as being part of.
11:48
11:48
11:48
Lord Beith
-
-
Lord Beith
And I think your answer is very helpful. Thank you on that, which is when you say that the civil service responsibility is, Armstrong said, is to the government of the day and doesn't have a personality separate from that. Does its responsibility include being able to safeguard its ability to provide that service for future governments and other not sometimes, occasions when the decision of civil servant is being asked to make has implications for the future ability of the .
11:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Civil service to provide that support for ministers. I mean, I'm on this committee will have far more experience of this than I have, but I, I would suggest that the that sometimes. Senior civil servant having to ask for ministerial direction is a very clear indicator that the senior civil servant at this moment thinks this is now beyond what I think is good to be done, but if I'm ordered to do so, I recognize that at the .
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Principle under threat? I think it's exceptionally important. And I think what it does, it's a process of. contesting views. If ministers want to to to achieve something, even if it's quite radical, I think it's for the civil service to make them aware of what is possible to be done is to make sure they are aware of what the dangers and risks are in doing so. If there is a particular risk a minister wants to take, then I think it has to be a clear. understanding that this is what the advice was. Is it under threat?
Well, I think it's one of the most inherent. tensions in, in in.
Well, I think it's one of the most inherent. tensions in, in in.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You have democracy always. requires that whoever has got more votes of the day has to have wider. responsibility to the country and the nation and the continuity of a democratic system. And it's the civil service which provides the continuity and therefore with it also the caution, the risks which advised. But in our system.
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Second part of the question? Is it under threat, that principle? Well, I think it will always be contested. And actually I would be worried if it wasn't contested. And therefore, I think part of your inquiry is is so important to ensure. Is there a kind of a is there is the balance of power and the balance of. effectiveness between those who. impose the will of the day and those who have got wider responsibility to the continuity? Do I think there's a proper balance? And I think we hear the institutions. I think we've got the institutional framework if we're allowed to fulfill our functions properly, whether it's bye bye, bye bye budget filling.
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
Lord Burnett of Maldon
-
-
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Of it when it becomes law? Thank you chair. So we're making a lot of preparation for it because it's going to be probably the dominant element of our work, apart from running elections and the day to day, the dominant element of our work in in. 2027 and 2028. So first of all, when it comes on the. implementation side, we will have to, as we take on regulatory. responsibility for candidates. And that's going to be tens of thousands of candidates across the whole UK. We will need to set up whole systems to do that. Some electronic systems on, for example, candidate finance.
But most of all, we want to set up systems to.
But most of all, we want to set up systems to.
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Many people get put off. They don't want to be a candidate. They think it's all very. complicated for the reasons John has said. It is very complicated legally, but we can do a lot of work to help political parties and independent in understanding those roles. So there is a tremendous programme there. Votes at 16. I've already mentioned the education programme and some of the work on automatic voter registration. There is a lot of work, a lot of work there. So really every element of this timing of when it comes into actual legal effect is going to take a lot of work by us.
There'll be a very significant programme of secondary. legislation after the bill. Remember how many there's hundreds of pieces of secondary legislation that are going to be needed, and that's largely for the reason John has said the complexity of our legal regime here and this is, I think, from right, the. 27th representation of the people bill, layering up one over another does make life much more complex. So we'll have to produce guidance then to simplify .
There'll be a very significant programme of secondary. legislation after the bill. Remember how many there's hundreds of pieces of secondary legislation that are going to be needed, and that's largely for the reason John has said the complexity of our legal regime here and this is, I think, from right, the. 27th representation of the people bill, layering up one over another does make life much more complex. So we'll have to produce guidance then to simplify .
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
A piece of work consolidating both the electoral. administration and the regulatory parts of that to say, there's one area where we don't we would like to see further changes in the bill. We think really everything in it is good and there's make a huge difference. But we have an issue on, for example, this is one of the edge issues. Now, our investigatory powers to obtain information. The current bill will let us get information from permitted. participants and information about the income and expenditure of a political party, both crucial. But it won't let us get information to assess if an offence has been committed by a non permitted.
12:02
12:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Or something unconnected with the income and expenditure of a party like the crypto world that we're going into, or they're they're they're whether they're international or. domestic donor. And so we would like those restrictions on that. broadened so we can actually assess some of these issues, because I think the regulation of some of the .
12:02
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
Real challenge for us. We've got a couple more minutes. Lord Waldegrave, I don't want to add to your workload, but like you, you said you looked at alternative systems around the world. We've been doing that a bit. And rather to my surprise, I found the the. Material from Australia about compulsory voting much more persuasive than I ever thought. Have you ever. considered making .
12:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Recommendations about that or made any work, done any work on it? Oh, we did the last time we did some work on this was about. 15 years ago, and if that were to get some traction, I know it would be debated in this House soon. We would want to get some evidence together, including the international evidence from Australia. We have met our Australian counterparts and as you say, they're very. enthusiastic and very positive about it. But the British context is is different. The most recent review that I've seen was, I think, 2015. The House of Commons Library did something that pulled together the the evidence, but there hasn't been anything done that I think will give us the grounding to take a view yet.
And we want to .
And we want to .
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Where where should the boundaries be at the moment? We don't want the power to do private prosecutions. And that is partly because our role is to support the political parties, to support candidates. It's quite hard to then shift into that. What we do do, obviously, is we increasingly now we're using a lot of quite advanced data. techniques to look across, say, all the political finance returns that we get to try to see. Can we spot. patterns on trying to evade the rules? And then when we do that, we will then provide that. information at quite a high evidentiary level to the police or to others who can then take forward further investigations.
But we we don't have all the powers. We don't want all the powers of the police when a crime has been committed, because that really is very specialized. I don't think we are big enough or would have necessarily the right long term. institutional framework to do that. But what we can do is prepare all the ground, get the evidence together, and then let others in, the police or the CPS, obviously, over the last few years, done some quite extensive support for the police in various.
investigations of of political parties where there's been some significant.
But we we don't have all the powers. We don't want all the powers of the police when a crime has been committed, because that really is very specialized. I don't think we are big enough or would have necessarily the right long term. institutional framework to do that. But what we can do is prepare all the ground, get the evidence together, and then let others in, the police or the CPS, obviously, over the last few years, done some quite extensive support for the police in various.
investigations of of political parties where there's been some significant.
12:07
12:07
Lord Bichard
-
-
Lord Bichard
Had you finished your your questioning, was there anything you wanted to add? A little water has asked a question that I wanted to ask. I thought the Australian. experience was interesting. 70 odd percent of Australians now support mandatory voting, but we haven't looked at it for 15 years. I kind of .
12:08
12:08
12:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Is is the very top layer of an extremely rich cake, and that is based on a very advanced set of automatic registration provisions. So they do do a. tremendous amount to get every Australian on their electoral register and keep it up to date. I mean, frankly, we've talked a lot to my Australian colleagues. We are a long way behind that. But we will catch up with the bill currently in Parliament and get a good system of automatic registration, which is both accurate and complete, and that would be a very great advantage. The other thing they do do is they they spend a tremendous amount of money reaching every Australian to vote .
a current exact figure, but they .
a current exact figure, but they .
12:09
12:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
A billion the budget for this. And they didn't say good idea, I think because they do try to get every Australian to vote. But it's a profoundly different system, the one we have at the moment. But but I do think that some of the basic the underpinnings of automatic voter registration will begin to bring us more in line .
12:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
With Australia, and then we can make a better judge of whether we can implement it here. Okay. Thank you chair. We would want to test some of those things in Britain. Like, do we want to spend large sums of money on this? Do we really think it's a good idea? How does compulsion work with the way we think about things in Britain?
12:11
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
It's different here to Australia, and I think we need to get the evidence before we get to. It could be the subject of an entirely different inquiry, so we won't go there any more. But can I I'm going to draw this to a close, and we're going to have a pause before we return to talk to Morgan McSweeney. But in for the time being, thank you very much indeed for taking the time and the trouble to come and talk to us. It may have felt that you weren't all getting a fair share, but we got a very clear message, and that's very helpful.
And if there's anything you want to follow up, do please write in to us so that we can hear your your views for the time being. I .
And if there's anything you want to follow up, do please write in to us so that we can hear your your views for the time being. I .
12:12
12:51
12:51
12:51
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
And we are now joined by Mr. Morgan McSweeney, former chief of Staff to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Mr. McSweeney, you are very welcome and I know that you are joining us. remotely and it's very early in the morning where you are. So we are particularly pleased that you've been able to join us. Thank you very much. As you know, we are undertaking an inquiry into the.
12:51
12:51
Lord Strathclyde
-
-
Lord Strathclyde
In the United Kingdom. And obviously, your role as chief of staff was an important one in in. witnessing how this all worked in in practice, and perhaps some of the. vulnerabilities or strengths of how it all worked. And so my, my initial. question is, do you think that the UK's constitutional. democracy is under threat? And if you do, why or what is. threatening to it? And what did you witness at the heart of the.
operation .
operation .
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
In number ten Downing Street? I think constitutional democracy is always under pressure and it's under pressure from two different sources. One is abuse of power, and the second is a failure of democratically elected governments to deliver their lawful programme. And I think in the second one, that is .
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Kingdom Constitution? So I think there are quite a lot of. rules that that govern the Prime Minister's exercise of his or her power and what and rather than identifying each one of those individual rules, because every single one of them, I'm sure has been put in place with the best intent. But I think what should happen is that they should be. identified and they should be there should be fewer of them. They need to be justified. The ones that are there, the ones that prevent the abuse of power, should be kept. And everything else needs to be looked at in the round.
So not just each individual one, but the cumulative effect of all of them. And then I'd like to see, in my view, I think there should be some kind of codification of it, whether that is some sort of codification of the cabinet manual to make clear what the role of the Prime Minister is, what the role of the cabinet is, what the role of Parliament and what the role of judiciary is. And I think that is I think that is the interest of citizens. And I think it is an interest of the media. And I think it's certainly in the interest of those who exercise power.
And that's that's what I'd like to see. I think there's a few other.
So not just each individual one, but the cumulative effect of all of them. And then I'd like to see, in my view, I think there should be some kind of codification of it, whether that is some sort of codification of the cabinet manual to make clear what the role of the Prime Minister is, what the role of the cabinet is, what the role of Parliament and what the role of judiciary is. And I think that is I think that is the interest of citizens. And I think it is an interest of the media. And I think it's certainly in the interest of those who exercise power.
And that's that's what I'd like to see. I think there's a few other.
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But good chaps, but essentially a good faith way of interpreting the Constitution. I think it leads to people having different interpretations. It leads to. ministers and Parliament being unsure exactly what the role of the minister was and should be in an individual decision. But I think before I would. codify or make something.
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
For other reasons of something happened like a mistake, and a minister wanted to ensure the mistake didn't happen again. So a review body was set up or an independent process was added here or there, or a post to decision making was added. I think these things have accumulated over a long period of time. They are applied then through precedent rather than written down rules, and I think they should be looked at in the round where there are rules that prevent governments from functioning at the speed it needs to, and delivering its lawful. mandate or its lawful .
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
Lord Beith
-
-
Lord Beith
Lord Beith. That poses the. possibility of a Prime Minister saying, yes, I agree with you that there are two threats to our Constitution. One is abuse of power, but the other is failure to deliver. And then saying, I prefer to deal with failure to deliver , because that's a more urgent problem for us at the moment. Is there anything you could do in your previous post .
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Removing rules and codifying in whatever way that should be decided by Parliament, not by by the Prime Minister. So I think if a committee such as this made made recommendations, it would be for Parliament to decide rather than Prime Minister, because I think that is the appropriate place that it could be decided.
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Respect for the more urgent need , I. I think there are constraints to prevent abuses of power, and it's important that those constraints remain in place. So there are the courts and there is. Parliament that can reject and amend. legislation and cabinet can challenge. Cabinet can refuse to support, or ultimately cabinet members can resign. Civil servants can give strong written advice. Political parties can overthrow leaders, elections can remove government.
So I think there are.
So I think there are.
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I think it's important that those remain in place. I don't think that prime. ministers should be able to usurp the powers of Parliament. They should not be able to usurp the powers of the judiciary, and they should not be able to abuse human rights. So I think those safeguards are important. And I'm not arguing for the removal of of any of those, but I think the safeguards that are in place need to be clear, need to be.
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
Lord Beith
-
-
Lord Beith
To deliver. So I think both and I don't think they're in conflict. I'll give you one simple example for which that doesn't work. And that and that is one which is currently about to be changed. The decision of a previous government to require the Electoral Commission to work to a policy statement provided by the government that went through all of those processes and survived them. In the end, of course, it's being changed by a successive .
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Sorry, quasi judicial. processes were applied. So there would be. legislation that will say the Secretary of State should decide. And then I don't know whether it's because the. legislation is too unclear about how a secretary of state should make a decision, or because the. interpretation of that legislation by the civil servants meant that the Secretary of State should decide. removed the. possibility of.
ministers to decide or to discuss it.
ministers to decide or to discuss it.
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Whether that is with the Prime Minister or at the cabinet level or at a subcabinet level, it prevents the Prime Minister from saying it's for the Secretary of State to make a decision. But I'd like the decision to be quick and timely, because there's a lot going on in the world. So I think there's some.
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think I think it's. I think we can have a set of rules that are dependent on whether a prime minister is. trustworthy or not, and I think that there are limits to how far any. codification of of a Constitution, how far a Constitution could come in deciding that. I think the safeguards for the character of a leader or prime minister is to do with our party's. I think our political.
parties have a constitutional role in that. The processes which they choose, their parliamentary candidates, their MPs, the MPs.
parties have a constitutional role in that. The processes which they choose, their parliamentary candidates, their MPs, the MPs.
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And then, of course, the public. The public decide through the ballot box who they who they want to form the government. So I don't think I don't think the character of the Prime Minister can be judged by codes. And I would hope that the codes are strong enough to prevent a Prime Minister from abusing power, and would enable a Prime Minister for delivering their lawful agenda. I think that. clarity helps enormously. Clarity helps a Prime Minister to understand this is the limits of my power. If they then. And they should know that to begin with, they should know what they can do to make government work as effectively as it can in the interest of the country, and not have to guess at that.
Ask ask a civil servant. Sometimes civil servants will have slightly different views about what a Prime minister can do and can't do. I've certainly seen situations like that which shows the limits of a lack of clarity, and I think the clarity will help. Now, in the event, if a Prime Minister wants to usurp the powers of of. Parliament or usurp the powers of of cabinet. It's not just that there are. constitutional safeguards, there's political realities. A cabinet that feels that a prime minister is abusing power will rebel against that. Prime Minister, you know, these are strong characters that that that are governments of all parties.
So I think there are. safeguards in place already. What I think is that everyone would benefit from a clarity of exactly what those are. And .
Ask ask a civil servant. Sometimes civil servants will have slightly different views about what a Prime minister can do and can't do. I've certainly seen situations like that which shows the limits of a lack of clarity, and I think the clarity will help. Now, in the event, if a Prime Minister wants to usurp the powers of of. Parliament or usurp the powers of of cabinet. It's not just that there are. constitutional safeguards, there's political realities. A cabinet that feels that a prime minister is abusing power will rebel against that. Prime Minister, you know, these are strong characters that that that are governments of all parties.
So I think there are. safeguards in place already. What I think is that everyone would benefit from a clarity of exactly what those are. And .
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The mark, usurping the Parliament's. The Parliament's proper place, then. Then there is. Then there is a place for a debate. There's a place to challenge that. And I think that that is is appropriate. But but again, I think that Parliament would probably benefit from understanding what exactly those those rules and constraints are and limits are. And and what are the rules that .
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And then. ministers or prime ministers will announce a review or an extra safeguard in place without looking at the cumulative effect of all of these safeguards. So you could look at each. individual rule and say that one is of itself justified. But I think actually this is better looked at in the round, and I don't feel that I'm qualified to give advice as to what our.
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
What is overinterpretation? I think it. requires civil servants or ex-civil servants to help the committee with that one. One area where I think ought to be looked at is, I think, this idea of quasi judicial. processes that prevent secretaries of state from having. conversations with their colleagues, other cabinet members at a cabinet level, where it prevents the Prime Minister from looking for quicker. decisions or from being involved in a in a conversation. I think that's an area that needs to be addressed. But I don't want to pick individual rules because when you look at those individual rules, you can justify them.
It's the cumulative total of a prime minister being unclear about which powers they can. exercise at speed. And this country is facing multiple. challenges and a very volatile world, and the public are looking to it to act in its interest and act in its interest at speed. The public needs to have confidence that the government can meet these.
It's the cumulative total of a prime minister being unclear about which powers they can. exercise at speed. And this country is facing multiple. challenges and a very volatile world, and the public are looking to it to act in its interest and act in its interest at speed. The public needs to have confidence that the government can meet these.
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And that means meeting them, not just meeting them, but meeting them at a speed. And I think rules that prevent that, that are. unnecessary should be cleared out. But but not but but like I said, I don't think there's any rule that's been put in place for bad reasons. They've been put in place for good reasons. It's the cumulative effect of all of these. rules that are not being added to some kind of code.
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:51
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
-
-
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill
Thank you. Okay, thanks. Lord Waldegrave, I wanted to bring you back to your subject, to failure to deliver and your ideas and ask you to explain. We've read your interview that you gave in September. I think, when you said that the central government's too weak and the Prime Minister was right to give the Cabinet. Secretary to make her stronger in the centre. I'm interested in that. How to we . The Cabinet Office has. expanded an. enormously in recent years. And in that some sense, that presumably means that more has gone to the centre. Anyway, I don't want to pre-empt you.
How would you make make the centre work better? You .
How would you make make the centre work better? You .
12:51
12:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
What would you do? So I think that size and strength are different things. I think that the state is in lots of ways misshapen. I think in some ways it's at Whitehall is too centralised. And so the state is big, but in places it is out of shape. I think I think it is a good idea for there to be more central controls around some, some some central issues. I'll try to give you an example. The government has a lot of. communication teams, a lot of communication staff around government, but it is not centrally coordinated in any way.
So important. issues that that the government will need the communications team to work on are not worked on, because each individual. department is just. addressing media queries about its own department. I think I think in terms of so some of that has to do with culture. It's not all to do with just adding more staff. In fact, you could have you could have less staff. Some of it's to do with culture. Some of it's to do with a sense
So important. issues that that the government will need the communications team to work on are not worked on, because each individual. department is just. addressing media queries about its own department. I think I think in terms of so some of that has to do with culture. It's not all to do with just adding more staff. In fact, you could have you could have less staff. Some of it's to do with culture. Some of it's to do with a sense