Menu
UK Parliament

Lord Evans of Weardale: Lord Speaker's Corner

11 September 2024

Lord Speaker’s Corner returns for a new Parliament and Lord McFall of Alcluith’s first guest is former Director General of MI5 and Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Jonathan Evans, Lord Evans of Weardale.

Watch now

Lord Speaker:

Lord Evans, Jonathan, welcome to the Lord Speaker's podcast. Could you start by giving us a feel about your early life?

Lord Evans:

Certainly. I was brought up in Kent, I still live in Kent, and I'm a bit involved in the community there. I went to Sevenoaks School, and then I went to university in Bristol where I read classics, and also, where I met my wife, to whom I'm still married after 43 years.

Lord Speaker:

Good. The classics degree, how did that help you get into your first job?

Lord Evans:

Well, I wasn't quite sure what I wanted to do when I left university. I knew I wanted to work in London for personal reasons, and I went to the university careers service and they had an advert for something called the Ministry of Defence Independent Intelligence Branch. It was a very unspecific description of what the role was. I applied for it really on spec, and that ended up being recruited into MI5, and MI5 in those days was very secretive, had a very low public profile, and it was literally the case that it was only on day two of my initial training course that I realised I'd actually joined MI5.

Lord Speaker:

You're 30 years engaged in counterintelligence. Give us a flavour of that and then a comparison with how life is today in the security area.

Lord Evans:

Well, as I said, I joined during the Cold War period. The Service was extremely secretive. It had no public profile. When I joined, there was no statutory basis for the work of the Service and quite limited accountability, really. Over the time that I was in the Service, 33 years, having worked from being a new graduate Desk Officer right through to being the Head of Service, it changed really radically. The Service was put onto a statutory basis. We started to have proper oversight, both from the courts and from Parliament through the Intelligence and Security Committee. In that sense, the public understanding of what the Service did changed enormously, and that was for the better. The Service actually was very positive and wanted that change because we realised that we couldn't operate on the previous basis in a modern society.

At the same time, the threats changed. When I joined, really, looking east at the activities of Russia and the Soviet Bloc was the main focus. During much of my career, I worked on counterterrorism, initially affairs from Northern Ireland, and then subsequently from the late 90s, I moved over into Al-Qaeda and its associated groups. During the time that I was Director General, there were two main challenges. The first was to counter Al-Qaeda's threat to the UK and to our allies. The second really was how do you do that whilst also growing the Service massively. The government were very generous in providing additional funding because of the threat. We were faced with the challenge of how do you both do the day job of counterterrorism, which was very intense, and also, recruit many more people, go over to a national network of offices rather than just in London. We also, over that same period, took the national security lead in Northern Ireland. It was a period both of operational challenge and very considerable management demand as well.

Lord Speaker:

In Northern Ireland, the security element has changed enormously then. When were you there and what were the issues for you?

Lord Evans:

I worked on Irish affairs, particularly Irish republican terrorism on a number of different postings. I spent some years working as what we would then have called an agent handler, which today would be called - we talked about agents, which is people within the terrorist groups who were willing to talk to us. That was a very important part of how we understood what the threat was and what they were planning. I was involved in that activity for a number of years. I was also involved on the investigative side trying to pull together all the various threads and strands of intelligence and ensuring that we could intervene and stop attacks before they took place. Of course, with the Good Friday Agreement, which was a massive game changer, the threat changed. It didn't entirely go away because there are still a number of dissident groupings who would like to destabilise the political settlement there and to mount attacks. We see occasional flare-ups and killings even today. Obviously, it's become very much less of the dominant security threat that we face.

Lord Speaker:

For years before that, was it not the case that Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, were trying to engage in the peace process, and it took quite a lot of time. I would like you to give us a flavour of the civic engagement, because I think the Redemptorist priest, Father Alec Reid and Gerry Adams had secret meetings at the instigation of John Hume and they were reaching across the Catholic-Protestant divide.

Lord Evans:

For a long time, there were attempts to create some form of political process which were going along in parallel with a very vicious and deadly terrorist campaign at the same time. Obviously, in the early days, there were talks with the government back in the 1970s that went into abeyance very largely for quite a long period and then re-emerged in the, I suppose the early 90s, really, with what was called the link in which there were secret discussions between representatives of HMG and of the republican movement. At the same time, of course, as you say, community activity to try to bridge many of those very longstanding fissures and tensions within the communities of Northern Ireland. Of course, it was from those seeds that the peace process grew and led eventually amidst many challenges and difficulties and setbacks to the extraordinary success of the Good Friday Agreement.

Lord Speaker:

I think I missed out Reverend Harold Good who worked with Father Alec Reid. That religious engagement, I think was very important. If I remember correctly, Harold Good gave a homily at Father Alec Reid's funeral.

Lord Evans:

It is extraordinary in the way in which actually people have found common ground. I think one of the really striking aspects of the post-Good Friday Agreement period was the relationship between Ian Paisley on the one hand and Martin McGuinness on the other who-

Lord Speaker:

The Chuckle Brothers.

Lord Evans:

The Chuckle Brothers as they became known. These were both hardliners who were seen as being irreconcilable, but actually, they had the vision and the courage to make common cause. I think that human element is actually equally important alongside the political settlement.

Lord Speaker:

Obviously, the feeling that the politicians themselves, they were there to encourage individuals rather than set down the policy. It was the civic community that forged the agreement rather than politicians. I know politicians were very helpful, but the outcome wouldn't have arisen if that civic engagement hadn't taken place.

Lord Evans:

I don't think you could envisage a settlement unless there had been some willingness on the part of the actual communities of Northern Ireland to settle. The terrible impact of the human and the economic and the political level of the Troubles was obviously increasingly in people's minds, and I think that was very important. Having said which, it was ultimately a political process. I think on both sides, courage was shown. I think the British government actually took considerable risks, both Conservative and Labour in bringing it to fruition. I think the events in the last 25-plus years have demonstrated why that was so important.

Lord Speaker:

Can I take you on to your security work? If I'm correct, you took up your position just after 9/11, a few days after that, is that correct?

Lord Evans:

Well, yes. I became the head of the branch coping with international terrorism on the 1st of September and then on the 11th of September were the 9/11 attacks. That was by any means, a busy period and a fascinating period of course, because that was a point where the whole world's attention really was suddenly on this Al-Qaeda threat manifested so clearly in the United States, but was much wider than that. There was a lot of concern about whether the UK was under threat in the same way. Over the following years, it became clear that there was a very considerable threat here, and we saw that with the 7 July bombings in London where 52 people were killed. From a personal point of view, I had been doing work on Al-Qaeda prior to that, but I was promoted into that role at that critical point. That very much for the rest of my time in the Service was the key focus of what we were doing. We did other things apart from counterterrorism, but massively disproportionately focused on terrorism and particularly Al-Qaeda over that 10-15-year period.

Lord Speaker:

Tell us about your period as Director General of MI5, because for years we were brought up in the notion that you didn't know who was the Director General, you didn't know anything about it, that secrecy, and that has changed.

Lord Evans:

It has changed, and I think that is a good thing. I don't think the model of complete secrecy works in today's world. I think also, the fact that a lot of the cases that we were involved in came before the courts and people were convicted of crimes and that was very visible. Again, I think it's important to explain what the process is that leads to those criminal convictions. It always seemed to me that the Service had many critical relationships, but the one with the police was one of the most critical. Because in the UK model, we want to bring people before the courts and have them convicted. This is not in our model, fundamentally a military problem. It is fundamentally a problem that can be dealt with through the rule of law.

I was struck during that period by one particular case where somebody who was arrested in Birmingham, there was a lot of community concern as to whether this person had really done what was being claimed. Once the process had gone through the courts, the evidence had been presented and they had been convicted by a jury. Actually, that was very important in stabilising sentiment in the community, which seemed to me to suggest that the rule of law model was the right one, and it did mean that people learnt and understood what was going on and therefore, why these very harsh measures were necessary and were proportionate and importantly, were being done on the basis of law and accountability rather than being done by some faceless security bureaucracy. I think that was an asset as far as the UK was concerned.

Lord Speaker:

Give us an insight into what the DG role was.

Lord Evans:

I used to feel that there were four parts to the role. The first was as the head of the Service, your job was to ensure that the strategy was right, that the right people were in the key jobs, which I think is always important in an organisation, and that the resourcing had been properly allocated, that we'd got the appropriate amount of money from the government. There's that element of it. There was the leadership of the Service being a visible leader, communicating, spending time visiting parts of the Service so that people felt that their contribution was understood and was recognised. There was the engagement with ministers and with the political side of the work. MI5 is an accountable part of British government activity and the role of the Director General-

Lord Speaker:

And parliamentary activity.

Lord Evans:

Indeed, parliamentary activity, and the role of the Director General really is to ensure that is working right. Giving evidence, for instance, to the Intelligence and Security Committee, meeting regularly with the Home Secretary, with the Prime Minister, with other ministers, and being engaged with the wider government machine. Fourthly, and equally importantly, ensuring that the relationship between Service and foreign services was correctly aligned. I think a lot of that did come down to the relationship that the Director General was able to make with the head of some of the key European services, with our Five Eyes colleagues, the relationship with the United States, with the Australians, the Canadians and New Zealanders, and indeed, with other services more widely. Spending quite a lot of time travelling, visiting and making sure that our concerns were understood, our constraints were understood, and that equally we understood what others could do for us. Those, I felt were the four things you had to get right.

Lord Speaker:

Am I correct in stating that in the early days, at the beginning, there was almost an individual country-to-country engagement, but since then, the security map has changed enormously? I'm reading a book at the moment by Anne Applebaum, where she distinguished between the autocratic states and the democratic states and she makes a point that the autocratic states are now joined up, China, Russia, the rest. Is that a fair assessment?

Lord Evans:

Yes, I mean the UK obviously has direct intelligence relationships with a number of states, but we also take part in the international fora in Europe, with the Five Eyes, in Nato, and so on. That's very important because coordinated action is more powerful than countries doing it on their own. Equally, we are faced, I think in the world with an increasing alignment between states that are hostile to our values, and in some cases, are actively war fighting in Europe. The fact that Russia is working very closely and is getting supplies from other states such as Iran, North Korea, and to an increasingly important extent, working closely with China. We have a new emergent group of states that do pose a threat to us and it's extremely important that we are as integrated in our response amongst the Western democracies and our allies as those who have different views on how the world should run.

Lord Speaker:

Does it make it more difficult that China has got many bilateral relationships all over the world and that's a strategic goal for them?

Lord Evans:

I mean, China obviously, are going down the path of trying to extend their influence both economically and militarily and culturally, and you can understand that as a country which has an enormous and important history and which economically has been doing so well over the last 20, 30 years. From the British point of view and working with our allies, we need to ensure that the story that we tell in the world is as compelling or more compelling than that which is told by those who do not support democracy, do not support human rights and do not support the international rules-based model that actually has done well for the world over the last generation or two.

Lord Speaker:

Given that you're now retired, and probably that's the wrong word I'm using, you are chair of the HALO Trust. I think the general public would think the HALO Trust is about landmines and there's a simple objective to it, but that's not the case, so could you elaborate on that for us?

Lord Evans:

The HALO Trust is a charity, it's a humanitarian organisation and it focuses really on trying to help communities that have been affected by conflict. A lot of the work has been and still is, getting landmines out of the ground. Landmines once put in can still be lethal for decades. I was in Angola in February and visited a minefield which had been laid by, I think South Africans in the 1980s and it's still lethal. The mines will still explode, and that's a real impediment to development and it's an impediment to communication, economic development, to tourism and so on. It means that communities impacted by conflict can't rebuild. It's really important from a humanitarian point of view that stuff is done about that. The HALO Trust is also in a way part of a wider effort to stabilise and we're involved with weapons and ammunition management.

After many conflicts, there'll be a lot of equipment, military equipment just almost left around and somebody needs to go and make sure that it's properly counted, recorded, stored, so that it does not fall into the wrong hands and other areas of work. We try to do whatever we can to help to create sustainable societies and communities post-conflict. It's an organisation that has grown a great deal in recent years. Over 11,000 staff operating in at least 30 countries. The UK are really good at this. It's something that we can contribute to international development and to stabilisation. HALO is, from that point of view, doing fantastic work. It's been fascinating from my point of view to see the work that is being done and the skill and the expertise that people are bringing to this in sometimes very hazardous situations.

Lord Speaker:

Given it's in 30 countries, does that change the security landscape?

Lord Evans:

I think the fact that we are operating in so many countries demonstrates that conflict is one of the big drivers of problems in the world, one of the biggest humanitarian challenges in the world. We have a big presence in Ukraine. We've got a presence in Afghanistan. We've got a presence in Angola, in Cambodia, in Laos, all sorts of countries. Our purpose in being there is fundamentally to provide humanitarian support, particularly in hazardous areas in order to ensure that people can rebuild. That also means that countries are able to thrive. The stabilising effects of this on communities, I think are really positive. It's also, in a way, it's part of soft power, if you want to put it in that way, for Britain, but our fundamental aim is humanitarian.

Lord Speaker:

In fact, I was just going to come on to soft power, so you gave us a lead on that. Given that we're out of Europe, some would say our soft power has lessened. What's your view on that? Because as Speaker of the House of Lords, I feel there's still a big interest with foreign countries coming here, engaging with us and the need for us to engage in Europe. I think the new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has made that one of his priorities.

Lord Evans:

I certainly believe that some of the influence that we had in European decision-making has reduced as a result of Brexit, but we are still a significant European power. It's absolutely in our interests to cooperate with the European Union and with individual European countries. I think we have a lot that we can bring to that. As a country, we are extraordinarily connected. We have large export markets, we are strong on defence, we're strong on security. I was struck when I was chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that we would often get visits to the UK wanting to talk about the systems that we have for trying to reinforce integrity in public life.

You can be cynical about that, and I think we have suffered setbacks in the last few years on standards in public life, but still the principles laid out by Lord Nolan are respected internationally. It was always striking that people would come and say that 'we want to talk to you about the Nolan principles and how that is integrated into public life in the UK', which given some of the criticism and some of the problems that were happening was slightly surprising. Actually, there was still something there where people recognise, that there was some very good aspects to British public life. My only question on the seven principles is I do think they're surprisingly difficult to remember.

Lord Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Lord Evans:

As you say, whenever I appeared on the Today Programme or wherever, I always used to have the little card with all seven on.

Lord Speaker:

Well, if there's any comfort, you're ahead of me on that. Now, I would like to focus on the House of Lords and your views on that and how you felt coming into that, and also, your ethics work and the general work. Because as you said, and people have commented that the esteem of politicians is at its lowest yet, but the House of Lords coming into it, why did you come in? Did you think you could make a contribution to that? How do you feel that you adapted to the House or have adapted to the House of Lords?

Lord Evans:

Well, it was a considerable surprise to me to end up in the House of Lords. It was not something that I expected. Once I had the suggestion that I might, I consulted friends who were already here and they said, actually, there are useful and important things that the House of Lords can do and does do. I've been struck by the quality and detailed scrutiny that the House of Lords gives to legislation that comes up from the Commons. I've tried to make a point since I've been here, particularly when there is legislation that I feel I know something about in the security sphere, and there's quite often some form of security legislation going through, and contributing to that. I think if you look at the legislation when it appears in the Lords and then the legislation when it goes out from the Lords again, it is always improved, very often with agreement from government when people point out areas of problem.

I think that the Lords does an important role in scrutinising legislation. I guess I view my contribution on that to bring the expertise such as I have on national security, on intelligence, and to bring that to the discussion. Of course, we have seen in the last two or three years, new legislation on foreign interference, particularly. It's striking that having been passed through the House within the last year, there have been a series of arrests of individuals who have breached those laws. It's very clear that we needed new laws that particularly as we see Russia attacking the UK in a variety of ways, not just the traditional ways, but in new ways, we need to have appropriate legal defences to that, and that's what were delivered through that legislation. I think that it's actually better legislation having left the Lords than it was when it arrived.

Lord Speaker:

There is a negative view of the House of Lords. By the way, this is one of the reasons that we have the podcast, because I want to get out the quality of people that are here, the experience that they have and the wisdom that there is here. Because in many ways, the House of Commons now, the members are focused on the outside with their constituency, social media, or whatever. To the ordinary person in the street, how would you respond to the remark that the House of Lords is useless, it should be abolished. Do we need a second chamber and it should be fully democratic?

Lord Evans:

Well, from my point of view, and of course, I'm a Crossbencher and non-political peer, I usually say, first of all, look at the work that's done, the rather unglamorous and unexciting, but really important work that's done in the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation. The Lords has the time and it has the inclination to go through legislation clause-by-clause and to make improvements, propose improvements. That is a very positive process and it means we get better laws coming out. That's important. The other thing, and I would say this as a Crossbench peer but I believe it, that by having a significant body of people in the Lords who are not political in the sense of aligned to one political party, but bring expertise of various sorts, whether that's security expertise or people from the media or people from the law or people from all sorts of walks of life, having those voices, I think is a really big asset.

Because we look at legislation, I think in a slightly different way from the way in which the Commons looks at it. We do have people usually who have both the perspective of having seen activity in public life over a long period, but also, very often have external expertise which they're able to bring to bear. I think that is a unique contribution from the House of Lords. There are plenty of criticisms, a number of which I might agree with in terms of the way in which people are appointed, in terms of whether there needs to be a kind of point at which you retire from the House of Lords and various things like that. The fundamental idea of having a revising chamber, which includes voices who are not being whipped into voting but are able to take their own decisions, I think is a strong one.

Lord Speaker:

Your work on ethics and you were chair of that committee, doing very important work at a time when, as I mentioned, that the esteem of politicians is at a low. Could you tell us what you were doing in that area?

Lord Evans:

For five years, I was the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is not a parliamentary body, but it's a body appointed to advise the Prime Minister on ethical systems in public life. We don't do individual cases, I'm glad to say, but we do advise and recommend the systems that should be there to underpin ethical standards in public life. I happened to be there during a particularly interesting period because of the, not so much cash for questions, which was how it was originally set up in the 90s, but with Partygate, with the Owen Paterson affair and so on.

It was in that sense a bumpy period to be in the role and a period when I think it would be fair to say that at least one of the prime ministers when I was there was not very attracted to the role of the committee. And that made it difficult because our recommendations were mostly turned down by government. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be made and that the case should not be publicly made as to why we should have strong standards arrangements. I was struck by the support that the committee received from many other parts of government and from many allies on these issues. It's really important in my view that there should be an independent voice arguing for high standards, which stands away from the immediate political battle.

Lord Speaker:

The new Prime Minister has already mentioned that ethics and standards and conduct is very important. What advice would you have for him? He's in his early days, so this is the best time to give him that advice.

Lord Evans:

I think there need to be clear structures for handling problems of this sort. They need to be insulated from political problems. It will also take considerable courage because sometimes there is a short-term political cost to taking action on standards issues, particularly if they are amongst allies, but there is a long-term political advantage in doing that, in my view. If you look back to Mr. Johnson as Prime Minister, a little bit more attention to standards issues actually would have saved a huge amount of political damage. There may be a short-term advantage in bending the rules, but there's a long-term advantage in being seen to be acting with integrity. Keep that long-term view, and I think that this will be a political advantage.

Lord Speaker:

The Prime Minister today has discretion whether to accept the reports, and we've seen that a number of them have been rebuffed. Would you say that the Prime Minister should not have the last word on this?

Lord Evans:

I think that elected politicians and political leaders have got to ultimately have the say on these issues. It was a matter we discussed in the committee. One of the benefits of the committee is that it included both independent figures, such as myself for this purpose, and also, representatives of the political parties. The system in the UK is that the ultimate power lies in Parliament, particularly in the Commons. The reason for that is because there is elected legitimacy, particularly in the House of Commons. That's where the ultimate leadership has got to come from and in their selection of the Prime Minister. I don't think that you can take the Prime Minister out of these things because I think that is part of the democratic process. Therefore, you always have this question of how do you match up on the one hand a system of ethics and on the other hand, a democratic political process.

Usually, that is something which we have managed to find a way through. If you look back over time, it was the Prime Minister who set up the Nolan Committee in the first place, and it was the Prime Minister-

Lord Speaker:

John Major.

Lord Evans:

... John Major, who endorsed that report, and that, I think is the right model. There is a problem if elected political leaders decide not to go down that route. Actually, the public get concerned about this. It has political implications. I always felt that there were two power poles in the whole question of public standards. One was with the leadership shown by the Prime Minister or not, as the case may be. On the other hand, what the voters do. If voters take into consideration issues of standards and ethics in the decisions they make, then that is the most important safeguard. If they discard that, then they do so at their own peril.

Lord Speaker:

What place do select committees have in this, particularly in the House of Commons? Because we've seen examples of the select committees being criticised in that area. Should there be a standard for select committees and their word should be taken as really influential?

Lord Evans:

Well, I think it's very important in our system and in any democratic system that the government is not unaccountable. The benefit that select committees bring is of accountability and being able to shine a light on the actions of government. I think that is very important. I think if you look at the activities over the last few years of, for instance, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, they have shone a light on issues to do with ethics and integrity in a way that has been very helpful. It means that voters can take that into consideration if they are reflecting on these things because the facts are out there. Ultimately, select committees don't decide what policy is, but they can illuminate what is going on and they can challenge government ministers on the decisions that they're making. I think that's really important and it's a very important part of what it means to have parliamentary accountability. You could argue as to whether it needs to be further strengthened and the same applies to them.

Lord Speaker:

Do you think it should be?

Lord Evans:

I think overall, the system does need to be strengthened. We had a report in my committee called Upholding Public Standards, and we said that a number of the ethics bodies need to be put onto a statutory basis. That actually reinforces and gives greater authority to those bodies. At the moment, they are not on a statutory basis and therefore the government can just get rid of them if it wants to. Our view is they need to have a stronger basis and there needs to be a stronger basis of selection of people on those bodies so that people can have confidence in their independence. Unfortunately, the government of the day did not accept any of those recommendations, which I think is very regrettable. Although to be fair, under Prime Minister Sunak, some of those recommendations were adopted. One always hopes that at some point, perhaps government will come back and accept more of those recommendations.

Lord Evans:

One of the other things we looked at was the regulation of electoral finance. There are some big holes in the electoral finance rules in the UK and a number of them could readily be closed. Unfortunately, the government of the day took none of those recommendations on board. Again, I think we want to be confident that people can be sure that our election finance is on a sure and safe footing, and there are steps that could be taken on that. They're sitting on the table in the report and I think they should be adopted.

Lord Speaker:

You touched on AI and the need for high ethical standards there, and I've had a few distinguished members giving those views. One of the issues which you've highlighted is there's no regulation or limited regulation in this area. How does that match with high ethical standards and what have we got to keep in mind with the development of AI?

Lord Evans:

My committee did a report on AI and public standards, I think in 2019. There are a number of issues there. AI, I think is going to be right across our lives in coming years. I don't think you can have a single regulator of AI across every part of public and commercial life. I just think that's unrealistic. What I think is really important is that each regulated area, the regulator needs to have an eye to the implications of artificial intelligence and needs to have access to really high-quality advice, and we made recommendations around that.

I think also, that if you look at some of the main challenges, for instance, accountability, if AI is saying this individual should or should not be, for instance, given bail, then it is vitally important first of all, that we do what we can to understand what the machine is telling us. Secondly, that ultimately, there is accountability for an individual, for a person in making that decision. AI can be a useful input, but AI itself I don't think can be held to account for what it might throw up. Therefore, we need to think about this in a way that ensures that there is proper accountability in the use of these technologies, particularly in the public sphere where they might invade or impact human rights.

Lord Speaker:

In terms of Nolan, you've taken them very seriously, and I think that's important. You've also said that's not enough. There have to be codes of conduct. There have to be conventions, and there has to be lively debate and engagement on these issues.

Lord Evans:

Lord Nolan himself said that the seven principles of public life, which are very high level, those are as it were, the kind of the North Star. To make that real, each institution in public life needs to think, what does this mean for us as an organisation? You can't just say honesty. You need to say, what does it mean to be honest in this particular environment? If you look at the Civil Service, there is a Civil Service Code. There is a code for the House of Lords, taking those principles and then saying, well, what does this mean for the work that you do as a member of the House of Lords or as a member of the House of Commons or in the Civil Service or in the police or wherever. Nolan himself, recognised that you need the codes and you also need to educate people in these issues.

Certainly, my view, and this is something that I felt very strongly when I was in MI5, that very often, there is no simple answer to ethical issues. You can't just lay out a series of rules and answers. What you need to have is a culture within an organisation that sees these discussions of where the ethical boundaries are as part of the day job. Because you're much more likely to get to the right point if people are actively thinking about discussing and engaging with these challenges, rather than just looking to see what the rules say because life ain't like that.

Lord Speaker:

I've discussed these issues with Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary, who's got very firm views in this, and he states that we need conventions in this area, and there has to be a flexible and a proportionate approach. Do you agree with that?

Lord Evans:

I do. I think we do not have a written constitution in the UK. We have some flexibility. The common law, again, it develops over time, and that's the way in which the British system works. There are strengths to that. There are also risks with it. It does require a willingness to put the health of the overall system ahead of, perhaps some short-term political advantages. That's a challenge because pressures on political life are very intense. I think I have not been an active party politician in that sense, but it is clear that this is not an easy job and we need to cut people with some slack on it.

Ultimately I think, given the system that we've got, you cannot legislate for absolutely every eventuality, and we want to have the flexibility to respond. If you look back over hundreds of years, the British system actually has responded pretty well to challenges and new developments and has adapted itself. The House of Lords is a good example of that. The history goes back hundreds of years. The way in which the House operates changes year-on-year. The way in which, for instance, the Conduct Committee operates is very different from the way that it operated five years ago because it responds to events. That's a strength, but it does require people to be willing to accept the importance of those conventions and the fact that they have a constitutional implication.

Lord Speaker:

There seems to be despair in the part of society at the moment, and the political process comes into that amongst other things. I think the most regular response you would get from people on the street would be, nothing works. They're all the same. How do we go about getting a better engagement with the public? Because there'll always be tension there. There has been tension in the past, but to increase the merits of the political process.

Lord Evans:

I think it's really challenging. I think members of the public obviously have high expectations of government, but they also want to be able to drive down the road without their tyre being split as a result of the fact there are so many potholes. There are some bread-and-butter issues. If we just got the bread-and-butter issues right, I think people might then be willing to listen a bit more to those in political life. Because if you can't sort out the potholes and you can't get a GP appointment, then however highfalutin’ the ethics might be you still think, 'well, it isn't working for me.' I think there is a fundamental bedrock of actually having a government system and a public service system that works. I don't think we should underestimate that.

More widely than that, people do expect that people in public life will be working for them and not for their own interests, and that's why we need a good ethical system. That's why we need to explain what is going on. I said when I was the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life a number of times that the biggest risk to public standards is the view that they're all the same. It's not true. Actually, I still believe that most people in public life are doing it because they want to serve and they want to do the right thing, and we need to be critical where people get things wrong, but we should not be cynical in saying they're all in it for themselves. Because that's certainly not my experience having been around politicians for many years and having been an official myself. Most people in public life are doing it because they feel that they are contributing and want to contribute positively. It's a big error to say they're all in it for themselves. It isn't true.

Rightly, people don't spend all their time looking at politics. Most people, they don't obsess on this. They get particular pictures that they see, or particular incidents, and they extrapolate from theirs. You can understand that, which is why I think you've got to start on the very basic stuff. Do you feel as you go around the place that the system is working for you? If it isn't working for you, then why should you believe that the people at the top are working on your behalf? Get the basics right. I suspect that will then give you a hearing when it comes to some of those more high-level issues.

Lord Speaker:

Jonathan, thanks very much for your time. That's been fascinating, and I think it will be a real interest when this is published, but it's a privilege to have you along. Thank you very much.

Lord Evans:

Well, thank you very much. Indeed, I've enjoyed it. Thank you for the opportunity.

 

In this episode

‘MI5 in those days was very secretive, had a very low public profile… it was only on day two of my initial training course that I realised I'd actually joined MI5.’

In this episode, hear from Lord Evans about his experience at MI5, including his work in Northern Ireland and later tackling the threat from Al-Qaeda. You can also hear about his role as head of the Service at a time it was increasingly opening up while confronting new challenges.

‘We are faced with an increasing alignment between states that are hostile to our values and, in some cases, are actively war fighting in Europe… it's extremely important that we are as integrated in our response.’

Lord Evans also explains how threats have changed since he joined MI5, the importance of the UK’s international relationships for security and the impact of countries such as China, Iran and Russia.

 

‘I think the fact that we are operating in so many countries demonstrates that conflict is one of the big drivers of problems in the world, one of the biggest humanitarian challenges in the world.’

Lord Evans is the Chair of the HALO Trust and shares his thoughts on the work the charity does and why it is important, explaining that ‘communities impacted by conflict can't rebuild’ without support.

Lord Evans also reflects on his work in ethics as the former Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life under previous prime ministers: ‘There may be a short-term advantage in bending the rules, but there's a long-term advantage in being seen to be acting with integrity.’

Listen now

Other episodes

Transcript

Lord Speaker:

Lord Evans, Jonathan, welcome to the Lord Speaker's podcast. Could you start by giving us a feel about your early life?

Lord Evans:

Certainly. I was brought up in Kent, I still live in Kent, and I'm a bit involved in the community there. I went to Sevenoaks School, and then I went to university in Bristol where I read classics, and also, where I met my wife, to whom I'm still married after 43 years.

Lord Speaker:

Good. The classics degree, how did that help you get into your first job?

Lord Evans:

Well, I wasn't quite sure what I wanted to do when I left university. I knew I wanted to work in London for personal reasons, and I went to the university careers service and they had an advert for something called the Ministry of Defence Independent Intelligence Branch. It was a very unspecific description of what the role was. I applied for it really on spec, and that ended up being recruited into MI5, and MI5 in those days was very secretive, had a very low public profile, and it was literally the case that it was only on day two of my initial training course that I realised I'd actually joined MI5.

Lord Speaker:

You're 30 years engaged in counterintelligence. Give us a flavour of that and then a comparison with how life is today in the security area.

Lord Evans:

Well, as I said, I joined during the Cold War period. The Service was extremely secretive. It had no public profile. When I joined, there was no statutory basis for the work of the Service and quite limited accountability, really. Over the time that I was in the Service, 33 years, having worked from being a new graduate Desk Officer right through to being the Head of Service, it changed really radically. The Service was put onto a statutory basis. We started to have proper oversight, both from the courts and from Parliament through the Intelligence and Security Committee. In that sense, the public understanding of what the Service did changed enormously, and that was for the better. The Service actually was very positive and wanted that change because we realised that we couldn't operate on the previous basis in a modern society.

At the same time, the threats changed. When I joined, really, looking east at the activities of Russia and the Soviet Bloc was the main focus. During much of my career, I worked on counterterrorism, initially affairs from Northern Ireland, and then subsequently from the late 90s, I moved over into Al-Qaeda and its associated groups. During the time that I was Director General, there were two main challenges. The first was to counter Al-Qaeda's threat to the UK and to our allies. The second really was how do you do that whilst also growing the Service massively. The government were very generous in providing additional funding because of the threat. We were faced with the challenge of how do you both do the day job of counterterrorism, which was very intense, and also, recruit many more people, go over to a national network of offices rather than just in London. We also, over that same period, took the national security lead in Northern Ireland. It was a period both of operational challenge and very considerable management demand as well.

Lord Speaker:

In Northern Ireland, the security element has changed enormously then. When were you there and what were the issues for you?

Lord Evans:

I worked on Irish affairs, particularly Irish republican terrorism on a number of different postings. I spent some years working as what we would then have called an agent handler, which today would be called - we talked about agents, which is people within the terrorist groups who were willing to talk to us. That was a very important part of how we understood what the threat was and what they were planning. I was involved in that activity for a number of years. I was also involved on the investigative side trying to pull together all the various threads and strands of intelligence and ensuring that we could intervene and stop attacks before they took place. Of course, with the Good Friday Agreement, which was a massive game changer, the threat changed. It didn't entirely go away because there are still a number of dissident groupings who would like to destabilise the political settlement there and to mount attacks. We see occasional flare-ups and killings even today. Obviously, it's become very much less of the dominant security threat that we face.

Lord Speaker:

For years before that, was it not the case that Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, were trying to engage in the peace process, and it took quite a lot of time. I would like you to give us a flavour of the civic engagement, because I think the Redemptorist priest, Father Alec Reid and Gerry Adams had secret meetings at the instigation of John Hume and they were reaching across the Catholic-Protestant divide.

Lord Evans:

For a long time, there were attempts to create some form of political process which were going along in parallel with a very vicious and deadly terrorist campaign at the same time. Obviously, in the early days, there were talks with the government back in the 1970s that went into abeyance very largely for quite a long period and then re-emerged in the, I suppose the early 90s, really, with what was called the link in which there were secret discussions between representatives of HMG and of the republican movement. At the same time, of course, as you say, community activity to try to bridge many of those very longstanding fissures and tensions within the communities of Northern Ireland. Of course, it was from those seeds that the peace process grew and led eventually amidst many challenges and difficulties and setbacks to the extraordinary success of the Good Friday Agreement.

Lord Speaker:

I think I missed out Reverend Harold Good who worked with Father Alec Reid. That religious engagement, I think was very important. If I remember correctly, Harold Good gave a homily at Father Alec Reid's funeral.

Lord Evans:

It is extraordinary in the way in which actually people have found common ground. I think one of the really striking aspects of the post-Good Friday Agreement period was the relationship between Ian Paisley on the one hand and Martin McGuinness on the other who-

Lord Speaker:

The Chuckle Brothers.

Lord Evans:

The Chuckle Brothers as they became known. These were both hardliners who were seen as being irreconcilable, but actually, they had the vision and the courage to make common cause. I think that human element is actually equally important alongside the political settlement.

Lord Speaker:

Obviously, the feeling that the politicians themselves, they were there to encourage individuals rather than set down the policy. It was the civic community that forged the agreement rather than politicians. I know politicians were very helpful, but the outcome wouldn't have arisen if that civic engagement hadn't taken place.

Lord Evans:

I don't think you could envisage a settlement unless there had been some willingness on the part of the actual communities of Northern Ireland to settle. The terrible impact of the human and the economic and the political level of the Troubles was obviously increasingly in people's minds, and I think that was very important. Having said which, it was ultimately a political process. I think on both sides, courage was shown. I think the British government actually took considerable risks, both Conservative and Labour in bringing it to fruition. I think the events in the last 25-plus years have demonstrated why that was so important.

Lord Speaker:

Can I take you on to your security work? If I'm correct, you took up your position just after 9/11, a few days after that, is that correct?

Lord Evans:

Well, yes. I became the head of the branch coping with international terrorism on the 1st of September and then on the 11th of September were the 9/11 attacks. That was by any means, a busy period and a fascinating period of course, because that was a point where the whole world's attention really was suddenly on this Al-Qaeda threat manifested so clearly in the United States, but was much wider than that. There was a lot of concern about whether the UK was under threat in the same way. Over the following years, it became clear that there was a very considerable threat here, and we saw that with the 7 July bombings in London where 52 people were killed. From a personal point of view, I had been doing work on Al-Qaeda prior to that, but I was promoted into that role at that critical point. That very much for the rest of my time in the Service was the key focus of what we were doing. We did other things apart from counterterrorism, but massively disproportionately focused on terrorism and particularly Al-Qaeda over that 10-15-year period.

Lord Speaker:

Tell us about your period as Director General of MI5, because for years we were brought up in the notion that you didn't know who was the Director General, you didn't know anything about it, that secrecy, and that has changed.

Lord Evans:

It has changed, and I think that is a good thing. I don't think the model of complete secrecy works in today's world. I think also, the fact that a lot of the cases that we were involved in came before the courts and people were convicted of crimes and that was very visible. Again, I think it's important to explain what the process is that leads to those criminal convictions. It always seemed to me that the Service had many critical relationships, but the one with the police was one of the most critical. Because in the UK model, we want to bring people before the courts and have them convicted. This is not in our model, fundamentally a military problem. It is fundamentally a problem that can be dealt with through the rule of law.

I was struck during that period by one particular case where somebody who was arrested in Birmingham, there was a lot of community concern as to whether this person had really done what was being claimed. Once the process had gone through the courts, the evidence had been presented and they had been convicted by a jury. Actually, that was very important in stabilising sentiment in the community, which seemed to me to suggest that the rule of law model was the right one, and it did mean that people learnt and understood what was going on and therefore, why these very harsh measures were necessary and were proportionate and importantly, were being done on the basis of law and accountability rather than being done by some faceless security bureaucracy. I think that was an asset as far as the UK was concerned.

Lord Speaker:

Give us an insight into what the DG role was.

Lord Evans:

I used to feel that there were four parts to the role. The first was as the head of the Service, your job was to ensure that the strategy was right, that the right people were in the key jobs, which I think is always important in an organisation, and that the resourcing had been properly allocated, that we'd got the appropriate amount of money from the government. There's that element of it. There was the leadership of the Service being a visible leader, communicating, spending time visiting parts of the Service so that people felt that their contribution was understood and was recognised. There was the engagement with ministers and with the political side of the work. MI5 is an accountable part of British government activity and the role of the Director General-

Lord Speaker:

And parliamentary activity.

Lord Evans:

Indeed, parliamentary activity, and the role of the Director General really is to ensure that is working right. Giving evidence, for instance, to the Intelligence and Security Committee, meeting regularly with the Home Secretary, with the Prime Minister, with other ministers, and being engaged with the wider government machine. Fourthly, and equally importantly, ensuring that the relationship between Service and foreign services was correctly aligned. I think a lot of that did come down to the relationship that the Director General was able to make with the head of some of the key European services, with our Five Eyes colleagues, the relationship with the United States, with the Australians, the Canadians and New Zealanders, and indeed, with other services more widely. Spending quite a lot of time travelling, visiting and making sure that our concerns were understood, our constraints were understood, and that equally we understood what others could do for us. Those, I felt were the four things you had to get right.

Lord Speaker:

Am I correct in stating that in the early days, at the beginning, there was almost an individual country-to-country engagement, but since then, the security map has changed enormously? I'm reading a book at the moment by Anne Applebaum, where she distinguished between the autocratic states and the democratic states and she makes a point that the autocratic states are now joined up, China, Russia, the rest. Is that a fair assessment?

Lord Evans:

Yes, I mean the UK obviously has direct intelligence relationships with a number of states, but we also take part in the international fora in Europe, with the Five Eyes, in Nato, and so on. That's very important because coordinated action is more powerful than countries doing it on their own. Equally, we are faced, I think in the world with an increasing alignment between states that are hostile to our values, and in some cases, are actively war fighting in Europe. The fact that Russia is working very closely and is getting supplies from other states such as Iran, North Korea, and to an increasingly important extent, working closely with China. We have a new emergent group of states that do pose a threat to us and it's extremely important that we are as integrated in our response amongst the Western democracies and our allies as those who have different views on how the world should run.

Lord Speaker:

Does it make it more difficult that China has got many bilateral relationships all over the world and that's a strategic goal for them?

Lord Evans:

I mean, China obviously, are going down the path of trying to extend their influence both economically and militarily and culturally, and you can understand that as a country which has an enormous and important history and which economically has been doing so well over the last 20, 30 years. From the British point of view and working with our allies, we need to ensure that the story that we tell in the world is as compelling or more compelling than that which is told by those who do not support democracy, do not support human rights and do not support the international rules-based model that actually has done well for the world over the last generation or two.

Lord Speaker:

Given that you're now retired, and probably that's the wrong word I'm using, you are chair of the HALO Trust. I think the general public would think the HALO Trust is about landmines and there's a simple objective to it, but that's not the case, so could you elaborate on that for us?

Lord Evans:

The HALO Trust is a charity, it's a humanitarian organisation and it focuses really on trying to help communities that have been affected by conflict. A lot of the work has been and still is, getting landmines out of the ground. Landmines once put in can still be lethal for decades. I was in Angola in February and visited a minefield which had been laid by, I think South Africans in the 1980s and it's still lethal. The mines will still explode, and that's a real impediment to development and it's an impediment to communication, economic development, to tourism and so on. It means that communities impacted by conflict can't rebuild. It's really important from a humanitarian point of view that stuff is done about that. The HALO Trust is also in a way part of a wider effort to stabilise and we're involved with weapons and ammunition management.

After many conflicts, there'll be a lot of equipment, military equipment just almost left around and somebody needs to go and make sure that it's properly counted, recorded, stored, so that it does not fall into the wrong hands and other areas of work. We try to do whatever we can to help to create sustainable societies and communities post-conflict. It's an organisation that has grown a great deal in recent years. Over 11,000 staff operating in at least 30 countries. The UK are really good at this. It's something that we can contribute to international development and to stabilisation. HALO is, from that point of view, doing fantastic work. It's been fascinating from my point of view to see the work that is being done and the skill and the expertise that people are bringing to this in sometimes very hazardous situations.

Lord Speaker:

Given it's in 30 countries, does that change the security landscape?

Lord Evans:

I think the fact that we are operating in so many countries demonstrates that conflict is one of the big drivers of problems in the world, one of the biggest humanitarian challenges in the world. We have a big presence in Ukraine. We've got a presence in Afghanistan. We've got a presence in Angola, in Cambodia, in Laos, all sorts of countries. Our purpose in being there is fundamentally to provide humanitarian support, particularly in hazardous areas in order to ensure that people can rebuild. That also means that countries are able to thrive. The stabilising effects of this on communities, I think are really positive. It's also, in a way, it's part of soft power, if you want to put it in that way, for Britain, but our fundamental aim is humanitarian.

Lord Speaker:

In fact, I was just going to come on to soft power, so you gave us a lead on that. Given that we're out of Europe, some would say our soft power has lessened. What's your view on that? Because as Speaker of the House of Lords, I feel there's still a big interest with foreign countries coming here, engaging with us and the need for us to engage in Europe. I think the new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has made that one of his priorities.

Lord Evans:

I certainly believe that some of the influence that we had in European decision-making has reduced as a result of Brexit, but we are still a significant European power. It's absolutely in our interests to cooperate with the European Union and with individual European countries. I think we have a lot that we can bring to that. As a country, we are extraordinarily connected. We have large export markets, we are strong on defence, we're strong on security. I was struck when I was chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that we would often get visits to the UK wanting to talk about the systems that we have for trying to reinforce integrity in public life.

You can be cynical about that, and I think we have suffered setbacks in the last few years on standards in public life, but still the principles laid out by Lord Nolan are respected internationally. It was always striking that people would come and say that 'we want to talk to you about the Nolan principles and how that is integrated into public life in the UK', which given some of the criticism and some of the problems that were happening was slightly surprising. Actually, there was still something there where people recognise, that there was some very good aspects to British public life. My only question on the seven principles is I do think they're surprisingly difficult to remember.

Lord Speaker:

Yeah, exactly.

Lord Evans:

As you say, whenever I appeared on the Today Programme or wherever, I always used to have the little card with all seven on.

Lord Speaker:

Well, if there's any comfort, you're ahead of me on that. Now, I would like to focus on the House of Lords and your views on that and how you felt coming into that, and also, your ethics work and the general work. Because as you said, and people have commented that the esteem of politicians is at its lowest yet, but the House of Lords coming into it, why did you come in? Did you think you could make a contribution to that? How do you feel that you adapted to the House or have adapted to the House of Lords?

Lord Evans:

Well, it was a considerable surprise to me to end up in the House of Lords. It was not something that I expected. Once I had the suggestion that I might, I consulted friends who were already here and they said, actually, there are useful and important things that the House of Lords can do and does do. I've been struck by the quality and detailed scrutiny that the House of Lords gives to legislation that comes up from the Commons. I've tried to make a point since I've been here, particularly when there is legislation that I feel I know something about in the security sphere, and there's quite often some form of security legislation going through, and contributing to that. I think if you look at the legislation when it appears in the Lords and then the legislation when it goes out from the Lords again, it is always improved, very often with agreement from government when people point out areas of problem.

I think that the Lords does an important role in scrutinising legislation. I guess I view my contribution on that to bring the expertise such as I have on national security, on intelligence, and to bring that to the discussion. Of course, we have seen in the last two or three years, new legislation on foreign interference, particularly. It's striking that having been passed through the House within the last year, there have been a series of arrests of individuals who have breached those laws. It's very clear that we needed new laws that particularly as we see Russia attacking the UK in a variety of ways, not just the traditional ways, but in new ways, we need to have appropriate legal defences to that, and that's what were delivered through that legislation. I think that it's actually better legislation having left the Lords than it was when it arrived.

Lord Speaker:

There is a negative view of the House of Lords. By the way, this is one of the reasons that we have the podcast, because I want to get out the quality of people that are here, the experience that they have and the wisdom that there is here. Because in many ways, the House of Commons now, the members are focused on the outside with their constituency, social media, or whatever. To the ordinary person in the street, how would you respond to the remark that the House of Lords is useless, it should be abolished. Do we need a second chamber and it should be fully democratic?

Lord Evans:

Well, from my point of view, and of course, I'm a Crossbencher and non-political peer, I usually say, first of all, look at the work that's done, the rather unglamorous and unexciting, but really important work that's done in the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation. The Lords has the time and it has the inclination to go through legislation clause-by-clause and to make improvements, propose improvements. That is a very positive process and it means we get better laws coming out. That's important. The other thing, and I would say this as a Crossbench peer but I believe it, that by having a significant body of people in the Lords who are not political in the sense of aligned to one political party, but bring expertise of various sorts, whether that's security expertise or people from the media or people from the law or people from all sorts of walks of life, having those voices, I think is a really big asset.

Because we look at legislation, I think in a slightly different way from the way in which the Commons looks at it. We do have people usually who have both the perspective of having seen activity in public life over a long period, but also, very often have external expertise which they're able to bring to bear. I think that is a unique contribution from the House of Lords. There are plenty of criticisms, a number of which I might agree with in terms of the way in which people are appointed, in terms of whether there needs to be a kind of point at which you retire from the House of Lords and various things like that. The fundamental idea of having a revising chamber, which includes voices who are not being whipped into voting but are able to take their own decisions, I think is a strong one.

Lord Speaker:

Your work on ethics and you were chair of that committee, doing very important work at a time when, as I mentioned, that the esteem of politicians is at a low. Could you tell us what you were doing in that area?

Lord Evans:

For five years, I was the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is not a parliamentary body, but it's a body appointed to advise the Prime Minister on ethical systems in public life. We don't do individual cases, I'm glad to say, but we do advise and recommend the systems that should be there to underpin ethical standards in public life. I happened to be there during a particularly interesting period because of the, not so much cash for questions, which was how it was originally set up in the 90s, but with Partygate, with the Owen Paterson affair and so on.

It was in that sense a bumpy period to be in the role and a period when I think it would be fair to say that at least one of the prime ministers when I was there was not very attracted to the role of the committee. And that made it difficult because our recommendations were mostly turned down by government. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be made and that the case should not be publicly made as to why we should have strong standards arrangements. I was struck by the support that the committee received from many other parts of government and from many allies on these issues. It's really important in my view that there should be an independent voice arguing for high standards, which stands away from the immediate political battle.

Lord Speaker:

The new Prime Minister has already mentioned that ethics and standards and conduct is very important. What advice would you have for him? He's in his early days, so this is the best time to give him that advice.

Lord Evans:

I think there need to be clear structures for handling problems of this sort. They need to be insulated from political problems. It will also take considerable courage because sometimes there is a short-term political cost to taking action on standards issues, particularly if they are amongst allies, but there is a long-term political advantage in doing that, in my view. If you look back to Mr. Johnson as Prime Minister, a little bit more attention to standards issues actually would have saved a huge amount of political damage. There may be a short-term advantage in bending the rules, but there's a long-term advantage in being seen to be acting with integrity. Keep that long-term view, and I think that this will be a political advantage.

Lord Speaker:

The Prime Minister today has discretion whether to accept the reports, and we've seen that a number of them have been rebuffed. Would you say that the Prime Minister should not have the last word on this?

Lord Evans:

I think that elected politicians and political leaders have got to ultimately have the say on these issues. It was a matter we discussed in the committee. One of the benefits of the committee is that it included both independent figures, such as myself for this purpose, and also, representatives of the political parties. The system in the UK is that the ultimate power lies in Parliament, particularly in the Commons. The reason for that is because there is elected legitimacy, particularly in the House of Commons. That's where the ultimate leadership has got to come from and in their selection of the Prime Minister. I don't think that you can take the Prime Minister out of these things because I think that is part of the democratic process. Therefore, you always have this question of how do you match up on the one hand a system of ethics and on the other hand, a democratic political process.

Usually, that is something which we have managed to find a way through. If you look back over time, it was the Prime Minister who set up the Nolan Committee in the first place, and it was the Prime Minister-

Lord Speaker:

John Major.

Lord Evans:

... John Major, who endorsed that report, and that, I think is the right model. There is a problem if elected political leaders decide not to go down that route. Actually, the public get concerned about this. It has political implications. I always felt that there were two power poles in the whole question of public standards. One was with the leadership shown by the Prime Minister or not, as the case may be. On the other hand, what the voters do. If voters take into consideration issues of standards and ethics in the decisions they make, then that is the most important safeguard. If they discard that, then they do so at their own peril.

Lord Speaker:

What place do select committees have in this, particularly in the House of Commons? Because we've seen examples of the select committees being criticised in that area. Should there be a standard for select committees and their word should be taken as really influential?

Lord Evans:

Well, I think it's very important in our system and in any democratic system that the government is not unaccountable. The benefit that select committees bring is of accountability and being able to shine a light on the actions of government. I think that is very important. I think if you look at the activities over the last few years of, for instance, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, they have shone a light on issues to do with ethics and integrity in a way that has been very helpful. It means that voters can take that into consideration if they are reflecting on these things because the facts are out there. Ultimately, select committees don't decide what policy is, but they can illuminate what is going on and they can challenge government ministers on the decisions that they're making. I think that's really important and it's a very important part of what it means to have parliamentary accountability. You could argue as to whether it needs to be further strengthened and the same applies to them.

Lord Speaker:

Do you think it should be?

Lord Evans:

I think overall, the system does need to be strengthened. We had a report in my committee called Upholding Public Standards, and we said that a number of the ethics bodies need to be put onto a statutory basis. That actually reinforces and gives greater authority to those bodies. At the moment, they are not on a statutory basis and therefore the government can just get rid of them if it wants to. Our view is they need to have a stronger basis and there needs to be a stronger basis of selection of people on those bodies so that people can have confidence in their independence. Unfortunately, the government of the day did not accept any of those recommendations, which I think is very regrettable. Although to be fair, under Prime Minister Sunak, some of those recommendations were adopted. One always hopes that at some point, perhaps government will come back and accept more of those recommendations.

Lord Evans:

One of the other things we looked at was the regulation of electoral finance. There are some big holes in the electoral finance rules in the UK and a number of them could readily be closed. Unfortunately, the government of the day took none of those recommendations on board. Again, I think we want to be confident that people can be sure that our election finance is on a sure and safe footing, and there are steps that could be taken on that. They're sitting on the table in the report and I think they should be adopted.

Lord Speaker:

You touched on AI and the need for high ethical standards there, and I've had a few distinguished members giving those views. One of the issues which you've highlighted is there's no regulation or limited regulation in this area. How does that match with high ethical standards and what have we got to keep in mind with the development of AI?

Lord Evans:

My committee did a report on AI and public standards, I think in 2019. There are a number of issues there. AI, I think is going to be right across our lives in coming years. I don't think you can have a single regulator of AI across every part of public and commercial life. I just think that's unrealistic. What I think is really important is that each regulated area, the regulator needs to have an eye to the implications of artificial intelligence and needs to have access to really high-quality advice, and we made recommendations around that.

I think also, that if you look at some of the main challenges, for instance, accountability, if AI is saying this individual should or should not be, for instance, given bail, then it is vitally important first of all, that we do what we can to understand what the machine is telling us. Secondly, that ultimately, there is accountability for an individual, for a person in making that decision. AI can be a useful input, but AI itself I don't think can be held to account for what it might throw up. Therefore, we need to think about this in a way that ensures that there is proper accountability in the use of these technologies, particularly in the public sphere where they might invade or impact human rights.

Lord Speaker:

In terms of Nolan, you've taken them very seriously, and I think that's important. You've also said that's not enough. There have to be codes of conduct. There have to be conventions, and there has to be lively debate and engagement on these issues.

Lord Evans:

Lord Nolan himself said that the seven principles of public life, which are very high level, those are as it were, the kind of the North Star. To make that real, each institution in public life needs to think, what does this mean for us as an organisation? You can't just say honesty. You need to say, what does it mean to be honest in this particular environment? If you look at the Civil Service, there is a Civil Service Code. There is a code for the House of Lords, taking those principles and then saying, well, what does this mean for the work that you do as a member of the House of Lords or as a member of the House of Commons or in the Civil Service or in the police or wherever. Nolan himself, recognised that you need the codes and you also need to educate people in these issues.

Certainly, my view, and this is something that I felt very strongly when I was in MI5, that very often, there is no simple answer to ethical issues. You can't just lay out a series of rules and answers. What you need to have is a culture within an organisation that sees these discussions of where the ethical boundaries are as part of the day job. Because you're much more likely to get to the right point if people are actively thinking about discussing and engaging with these challenges, rather than just looking to see what the rules say because life ain't like that.

Lord Speaker:

I've discussed these issues with Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary, who's got very firm views in this, and he states that we need conventions in this area, and there has to be a flexible and a proportionate approach. Do you agree with that?

Lord Evans:

I do. I think we do not have a written constitution in the UK. We have some flexibility. The common law, again, it develops over time, and that's the way in which the British system works. There are strengths to that. There are also risks with it. It does require a willingness to put the health of the overall system ahead of, perhaps some short-term political advantages. That's a challenge because pressures on political life are very intense. I think I have not been an active party politician in that sense, but it is clear that this is not an easy job and we need to cut people with some slack on it.

Ultimately I think, given the system that we've got, you cannot legislate for absolutely every eventuality, and we want to have the flexibility to respond. If you look back over hundreds of years, the British system actually has responded pretty well to challenges and new developments and has adapted itself. The House of Lords is a good example of that. The history goes back hundreds of years. The way in which the House operates changes year-on-year. The way in which, for instance, the Conduct Committee operates is very different from the way that it operated five years ago because it responds to events. That's a strength, but it does require people to be willing to accept the importance of those conventions and the fact that they have a constitutional implication.

Lord Speaker:

There seems to be despair in the part of society at the moment, and the political process comes into that amongst other things. I think the most regular response you would get from people on the street would be, nothing works. They're all the same. How do we go about getting a better engagement with the public? Because there'll always be tension there. There has been tension in the past, but to increase the merits of the political process.

Lord Evans:

I think it's really challenging. I think members of the public obviously have high expectations of government, but they also want to be able to drive down the road without their tyre being split as a result of the fact there are so many potholes. There are some bread-and-butter issues. If we just got the bread-and-butter issues right, I think people might then be willing to listen a bit more to those in political life. Because if you can't sort out the potholes and you can't get a GP appointment, then however highfalutin’ the ethics might be you still think, 'well, it isn't working for me.' I think there is a fundamental bedrock of actually having a government system and a public service system that works. I don't think we should underestimate that.

More widely than that, people do expect that people in public life will be working for them and not for their own interests, and that's why we need a good ethical system. That's why we need to explain what is going on. I said when I was the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life a number of times that the biggest risk to public standards is the view that they're all the same. It's not true. Actually, I still believe that most people in public life are doing it because they want to serve and they want to do the right thing, and we need to be critical where people get things wrong, but we should not be cynical in saying they're all in it for themselves. Because that's certainly not my experience having been around politicians for many years and having been an official myself. Most people in public life are doing it because they feel that they are contributing and want to contribute positively. It's a big error to say they're all in it for themselves. It isn't true.

Rightly, people don't spend all their time looking at politics. Most people, they don't obsess on this. They get particular pictures that they see, or particular incidents, and they extrapolate from theirs. You can understand that, which is why I think you've got to start on the very basic stuff. Do you feel as you go around the place that the system is working for you? If it isn't working for you, then why should you believe that the people at the top are working on your behalf? Get the basics right. I suspect that will then give you a hearing when it comes to some of those more high-level issues.

Lord Speaker:

Jonathan, thanks very much for your time. That's been fascinating, and I think it will be a real interest when this is published, but it's a privilege to have you along. Thank you very much.

Lord Evans:

Well, thank you very much. Indeed, I've enjoyed it. Thank you for the opportunity.

 

Related news