Cabinet Office Minister Mo Mowlam tells BBC News Online why the government welcomes the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life - but warns there is more progress still to be made.

Standards in public life are improving. A great deal has been achieved over the last five years since the chaotic days of 'cash for questions' and Tory sleaze.

That was the conclusion of Lord Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life in their report published on Wednesday.

But there is no room for complacency. High standards will only be maintained if we remain vigilant. Lord Neill's report is a timely reminder of what the public have a right to expect and politicians a duty to maintain.

Let's be straight. I accept there have been occasions with this government, as with all governments, when the highest standards have not been achieved. Being honest about that and seeking to remedy it swiftly is good sense and good government.

All of us regret it when we fall short of our own high standards and all of us suffer if public faith in politicians and in public service is undermined.

Lord Neill's report deals with Parliament as well as with government. The committee have reflected on the procedures Parliament has in dealing with MPs who abuse the system.

They have recommended that the law be changed to make bribery in relation to MPs a criminal offence. This has been suggested on many occasions since the 1970s. Home Secretary Jack Straw has already indicated to the committee his support for action in this area.

The committee also recommended new procedures for disciplining MPs in cases where serious allegations of misconduct have been made. This is something that Parliament rather than government must decide, but it is an important change, which MPs will want to consider.

'Adviser speculation unfounded'

In advance of the reports publication, there was some speculation that Lord Neill would recommend a 'reining in' of the activities of special advisers. As with much speculation, this proved to be unfounded.

In fact, the report made it clear that 'special advisers perform a valuable function within government' and the committee went on to conclude 'that it is right that they should be paid out of public funds'.

I welcome this endorsement of a group of people who are among some of the most dedicated, hard working people I know.

But of course, I also know this is a topic of legitimate public interest. So I want to put the record straight - as a matter of public record not Westminster gossip.

If special advisers did not exist, the much-hyped 'politicisation' of the civil service would be almost inevitable. Special advisers are there precisely to prevent civil servants becoming involved in political work.

We value very highly as a government and as a country the impartiality, professionalism and dedication of our civil servants. The presence of special advisers in government helps to protect that and it is crucial that they continue to do so.

For example, when I am at Labour Party conference each autumn, whom should I call upon to provide advice and support? Clearly not members of an impartial civil service.

Special advisers are there because there is a job for them to do. As British governments have recognised since the days of Lloyd George.

Yes, there has been an increase in the number of special advisers working for this government. We have never made any secret of the fact that as a government we want a strong centre to provide political focus and to drive through the work we promised the public we would do at the election.

But as for special advisers compromising the work of civil servants, there is no evidence of that. As Sir Richard Wilson, the head of the civil service has said, 'I do not think the senior civil service of 3,700 people is in danger of being swamped by 70 special advisers'.

And let's not be shy about what the government has done to address public concerns. We have introduced for the first time ever a published model contract for special advisers. We are open about the numbers and about salaries. Special advisers work to codes of conduct which also apply to ministers and to civil servants. What Lord Neill is suggesting is that these should be consolidated and clarified. That is something we will want to consider, but, at first blush it appears to me to be of benefit to all.



The Opposition likes to criticise political appointments - as if they never did it themselves! And yet we have done more to help the opposition in terms of their own advice and policy support than they ever did for us. Financial support for the opposition frontbench has almost trebled under this government and William Hague now has £500,000 to support his own team of advisers.

Maintaining democracy

This is about maintaining a healthy democracy which in itself is an essential part of good government.

Good government is about getting high quality practical advice too. Some special advisers, like former Police Chief Constable Keith Hellawell, have been brought in precisely so that government and policy can benefit from their expertise and experience in the field.

There are other areas too where government has brought in people from outside - from business, the voluntary and community sectors to help design good policy that is practical and works.

I accept what Lord Neill is saying in terms of openness about the number of taskforces and policy review groups which include people from outside the civil service. I will look actively at whether the commitment the government has shown in providing information to the public could apply here also. Similarly in relation to lobbying activities. Lord Neill's recommendations reflect our own desire to ensure transparency about government communications with the many interest groups we deal with. Lord Neill supports a commonsense approach and so do I.

The process of monitoring standards in public life is a very important one. Prime Minister Tony Blair has encouraged Lord Neill in his work, welcomed this report and asked Lord Neill to carry on with what he is doing.

We have already taken important steps forward. The publication of the ministerial code, of guidelines on ministerial travel and the model contract for special advisers are just three examples of how this government is turning its commitment to high standards into reality.

The misery of Tory sleaze under the last government cast a shadow over us all. People's respect for politicians and confidence in public life plunged further into the gloom.

For the past three years we have shown our determination to turn that around. And, as the Neill report shows, progress is being made.

But Lord Neill is right, there is more to be done. There will always be more to do.

Which is why I welcome his report and give the government's commitment to listen to sound and sensible suggestions to get the best system of government we can. And in doing so to make sure we deliver on what we promised and provide the best possible services to the people of this country.