Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
SIR PHILIP
MAWER
28 FEBRUARY 2008
Q1 Mr Prentice: Could I call the Committee
to order? Our Chairman, Tony Wright, cannot be with us today and
I have been asked to take the Chair. Welcome to Sir Philip Mawer,
who is our witness today. We all know that Sir Philip was the
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for some five years,
I think.
Sir Philip Mawer: Almost six.
Q2 Mr Prentice: Almost six years
in the salt mines, and has now moved to this job as the Prime
Minister's Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests. You are
just getting your feet under the table, I think. You got the job
last month.
Sir Philip Mawer: That is correct,
yes.
Q3 Mr Prentice: I wonder if I could
kick off by asking you, quite simply, what the primary purpose
of your job is as the Prime Minister's Independent Adviser on
Ministerial Interests?
Sir Philip Mawer: Chairman, thank
you. Thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning and
thank you to PASC for the intelligent interest it has taken in
these issues. It is important that they are discussed in a forum
like this, where you can have a more reflective debate about these
critical issues for the governance of our public life. To answer
your specific question, there are really two aspects to the role,
as I understand it: one is to be available to ministers and to
permanent secretaries to advise on avoiding conflicts between
ministers' private interests on the one hand and their public
responsibilities on the other, and the other aspect of the role
is to investigate, when the Prime Minister, advised by the Cabinet
Secretary, so decides, allegations against government ministers.
Those are the two aspects. In that sense, because there are two
aspects to the role, it is a wider role than, I think, my predecessor,
Sir John Bourn, enjoyed.
Q4 Mr Prentice: We have had two codes,
have we not? We had a ministerial code drawn up by the previous
Prime Minister—we can call it the Blair code—and we
have got a new one that was brought in under Gordon Brown when
he became Prime Minister. What are the big differences between
the Blair code and the Brown code?
Sir Philip Mawer: Partly as a
result of recommendations that this Committee and the Committee
on Standards in Public Life have made in the past, the Brown code
is much more principles-based. The Blair code was the result of
a steady accretion of provisions. As you know, each Prime Minister
coming into office promulgates their code and there had been this
steady accumulation of material over the years. The code which
Gordon Brown approved in July of last year is much more principles-based
and a lot of the detail has, therefore, been relegated to separate
advice. I think, in that sense, I hope, it is sharper, more focused
and, therefore, a more useful tool, both to ministers themselves
and to those, like you, who exercise supervision over them.
Q5 Mr Prentice: Is the term "independent"
a misnomer, because you cannot investigate an alleged breach without
the Prime Minister's say so?
Sir Philip Mawer: I do not think
it is a misnomer at all, Chairman, for this reason. First, I entirely
bring my independent judgment to bear on the issues that are put
before me. For example, in relation to the advice side of the
job (which is an important aspect of the job because, frankly,
the more we can do to prevent problems from arising in the first
place the better), it is my independent view which is transmitted
to ministers and their permanent secretaries, and I think there
is no doubt of my independent status in that area, nor will there
be in the investigation function in relation to my actual conduct
of an investigation and the reports I make to the Prime Minister.
You have touched on a very specific aspect of the investigation
role, which is when I am brought into play, and that, clearly,
is an issue which, I think, poses some difficulties for the Prime
Minister in this sense. Obviously I am used, in the parliamentary
context, to a situation in which complaints come into the Independent
Commissioner; he or she decides whether or not they should be
investigated, and so on. The Prime Minister's position is different
to this extent, I think, that he remains ultimately responsible
for the conduct of his administration and, because of that, the
first question that is inevitably asked when a newspaper story
breaks is: what is the Prime Minister going to do about it? My
understanding, therefore, is that the intention is that the Cabinet
Secretary will do a preliminary recce, if you like, to establish
the facts on the basis of which the Prime Minister can answer
that question, and obviously one potential answer is (and I expect
this will be the answer in serious cases) that the independent
adviser should be brought in. I see this as a sort of preliminary
look by the Cabinet Secretary at the facts in order to advise
the Prime Minister on what to do and enable him to answer the
inevitable media attention.
Q6 Mr Prentice: What if the Prime
Minister decided to take no action and you thought that perhaps
it was something worthy of investigation? Would you go and see
the Prime Minister and would you put that to him?
Sir Philip Mawer: I can assure
you that I am not going to sit there supine. If I believe that
something, on the basis of the facts available to me, requires
investigation, I shall make that view known to the Cabinet Secretary
and the Prime Minister. I have not been brought into this job
just to be somebody's foot stool or patsy.
Q7 Mr Prentice: Will you meet the
Prime Minister regularly and ask that question: because the former
Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair
Graham, astonished us all because he never actually met the Prime
Minister, although he was constantly making statements which were
highly critical of Tony Blair?
Sir Philip Mawer: I have had a
number of meetings with the Prime Minister prior to my appointment,
and I envisage that I will have more as my time in office unfolds.
Of course, I hope that, through a combination of the preventative
action I referred to and the good behaviour of ministers, there
will not be cause for me to have many meetings. Of course I envisage
having a relationship which is, through the Cabinet Secretary,
direct and honest.
Q8 Mr Prentice: You have been patrolling
the whole area of standards for many years, six years you told
us. Have there been instances in the past involving ministers
when you thought to yourself, "Goodness me, there is a case
for an investigation there", but nothing has happened?
Sir Philip Mawer: I cannot point
to one in which there was a case for investigation and nothing
happened, but I can point to one which illustrated the need for
some such arrangement, and that was the allegation against Mr
Blunkett in relation to his alleged fast-tracking of a visa application
by his mistress's nanny, if you remember the circumstances. I
was able, in my Parliamentary capacity, to look into the alleged
misuse of a parliamentary travel warrant by Mr Blunkett in that
affair, but I was not able to look into the actions of Mr Blunkett
as a minister. There was a separate inquiry, in fact, but it involved
an ad hoc appointment and it was not possible to relate, as it
were, easily the one part of the inquiry to the other. I hope
that, with my parliamentary experience behind me, I will be better
placed to enable the thing to be seen in the round without stepping,
of course, on my successor here's responsibility.
Q9 Mr Prentice: That is the only
example. I ask the question because when we had Sir Alistair Graham
in front of us about nine months ago, he said that he was astonished—that
is my word, not his—that there was no investigation into
John Prescott and his visit to the American ranch. I had no idea
at the time that John Prescott was a great fan of cowboy films,
and we know about the cowboy boots and all of that, but that was
a specific example where Alistair Graham said there should have
been an investigation but there was not. He also talked about
the Tessa Jowell and the Berlusconi business. We forget these
things, do we not? With the passage of time they fade. But he
pointed to that as another example where there could have been,
and perhaps should have been, an investigation but there was not.
I come back to the point I made earlier: if you think there is
a case for investigation and you hit a prime ministerial brick
wall, you will insist on an investigation happening?
Sir Philip Mawer: Firstly, on
the cases that you have mentioned, in fact there was an investigation
into the John Prescott affair, because I conducted it, and I conducted
it because the Ministerial Code says that hospitality received
by a minister must be declared in the Register of Members' Interests;
so that gave me a locus and I was able to investigate; and you
may recall that there was a report which I made to Standards and
Privileges accordingly.[1]
In that case there was an investigation and, of course, there
was a dividing line which I had to observe in terms of my locus
as a parliamentary officer and not an executive official, as it
were, but I was able to, in effect, look at the allegations against
Mr Prescott in that case. On the other matter, the Tessa Jowell
matter, in my parliamentary capacity I met Mrs Jowell, but I received
no formal complaint about Mrs Jowell and there was no evidence
of any breach of the parliamentary rules and, therefore, there
was no locus for me to proceed. I mention that to illustrate that
perhaps the field is not quite as virgin as you have previously
gained the impression. On your final and critical point: am I
going to insist on an investigation? I doubt that I am in a position
to insist on an investigation.
Q10 Mr Prentice: You could resign, for
example?
Sir Philip Mawer: I think any
regulator, if I may say so, who occupies the kind of position
that I have occupied for the last six plus years now, knows that
that is the ultimate sanction and, at the end of the day, you
only go into these jobs because you have a very strong belief
in the importance of public service, of ethical values as the
dominant requirement in the way that service is conducted and
a strong feeling that you are not going to flinch when you see
those values being jeopardised in some way. So, at the end of
the day, yes, if I judge that the conditions which are being placed
around me mean that I am not able to do the job properly, then
I will have no hesitation in saying so. I want to add this point,
and I think the parliamentary experience demonstrates this: it
takes time for these kind of arrangements to bed in, it takes
time for people to become, not comfortable with, but accustomed
to, their existence and it takes time to ensure that the way in
which they are conducted carries confidence with the public on
the one hand and with those who are being regulated on the other.
The reason I have taken on this job, frankly, is because I perceived
a gap, which this Committee had identified, among others, in the
arrangements in this area, and I see Gordon Brown's appointment—the
role that he has sketched out, I should say, not the individual
appointment—as a move forward, and it is because I regard
it as that and want to build on the opportunity that he has afforded
that I have agreed to take on the job.
Q11 Mr Prentice: When are we going
to get your annual report? I know it is very early days, but you
are going to publish an annual report?
Sir Philip Mawer: Indeed. I am
intending to produce it before the summer, and I do not mean in
the week before the summer recess. I shall try and make sure that
it comes out in good time for you and others to be able to see
it before the recess starts. I think it is a very important part
of the job that the public, you, should know what is going on.
Obviously there are limitations in relation to individuals. I
am convinced, not least as a result of my former job, that you
have got to deal with individual cases in a confidential manner,
but the general principles that are being followed, the procedures
and processes that I am putting in place, I want to be able to
report on, and the Prime Minister has endorsed that and so there
will be an annual report before the summer recess.
Mr Prentice: Excellent. Let me bring
my colleagues in. Paul.
Q12 Paul Flynn: Who approached you
and asked you to consider this role?
Sir Philip Mawer: The Prime Minister.
Q13 Paul Flynn: Were there other
candidates?
Sir Philip Mawer: I do not know.
You would have to ask the Prime Minister himself. It was not advertised,
if that is the point you are getting at.
Q14 Paul Flynn: We are talking of
going into more pre-appointment hearings. Do you think your job
will be one in which there should be a pre-appointment hearing?
Sir Philip Mawer: In a way we
are having almost a pre-appointment hearing, in the sense that
you find me relatively new in post, and, frankly, I am regarding
this as an occasion when you can advise me, in part, on how I
approach the job. The kind of job I am doing is a personal job
at the end of the day, personal both in terms of the kind of relationship
that you have got to have with the Prime Minister and those with
whom you deal and personal in the sense that you are taking a
personal responsibility at the end of the day. Whether, therefore,
it is suitable for the full panoply of the public appointment
process, I am not sure. In terms of pre-appointment scrutiny,
I think that is something we are all feeling our way into, is
it not, including this Committee?
Q15 Paul Flynn: You say you are not
a patsy or a foot stool?
Sir Philip Mawer: No.
Q16 Paul Flynn: But there was speculation,
when you followed Elizabeth Filkin, that that was precisely your
role, because there was a history before then of Elizabeth Filkin
instigating inquiries into people in very high offices that were
thought to be troublesome, and they merited discussion, there
was debate in the House, and she has been removed because she
was doing the job, inquiring into possible bad behaviour by ministers.
Was that fair and were you put in as an alternative to someone
who was doing their job perfectly well?
Sir Philip Mawer: I do not think
it is for me to comment on my predecessor as Parliamentary Commissioner.
I think it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Whether I proved
to be a patsy or not, you just have to look at the record, I think.
I stand on my record.
Q17 Paul Flynn: The investigations
that Elizabeth Filkin was carrying out when you took over the
job: did you continue with those?
Sir Philip Mawer: I took over
the investigations that she left me uncompleted at the point at
which she left office. I have looked into a number of prominent
politicians, as you know, in my time as Parliamentary Commissioner.
We have mentioned some already: John Prescott was one, Mr Blunkett
was another. I need only mention Derek Conway, perhaps, as the
last report I submitted, to indicate that I was not in any sense
in the pocket of Parliament in the way I did the job. I do have
this strong view about the proper role of a regulator. There are
strategic regulators, like the Chairman of the Committee on Standards
in Public Life, who have an overview of the scene as a whole,
and it is much more easy for them to make general pronouncements
about these matters than it is for those of us who are specific
regulators with a specific brief and who have quasi-judicial jobs,
in a way, and who have to be very careful always to behave in
a way which does not compromise our ability to judge cases fairly
and impartially. It is sometimes, frankly, a constraint when I
would like to speak out on some of these matters, but that perhaps
explains the somewhat lower profile approach which I took to my
previous job.
Q18 Paul Flynn: There are two views
on this: one is that we are not tough enough with ministers in
policing their conduct, and there is another view that we are
perhaps too puritanical, which is a view that many members of
Parliament and others in European countries would take. If you
take the instances of the two Peter Mandelson resignations, do
you think, with hindsight, they were the appropriate action, given
what we know now about the circumstances of the Hinduja brothers
and the passport application?
Sir Philip Mawer: At the end of
the day, the question of whether a minister resigns or not is
one which is for the Prime Minister and for the minister concerned.
My view, frankly, is that my job is to investigate allegations
and expose where there has been wrongdoing. It is then for the
Prime Minister—I am speaking in my current role—to
decide whether a minister can continue in office or not. Clearly,
in the specific cases you mentioned, there was a history and it
was two strikes and you are out.
Q19 Paul Flynn: Do you think it is
appropriate that Peter Mandelson should have resigned after the
Hinduja brother passport incident?
Sir Philip Mawer: He did.
1 Committee on Standards and Privileges, Thirteenth
Report of Session 2005-06, Conduct of Mr John Prescott,
HC 1553, Appendix 1 Back
|
