Question: Why do you think it is taking so long for the government to introduce a Civil Service Bill?

Tony Wright: Because the government doesn't view it as being in its interest, not just this government but any government. To introduce a Bill that would constrain itself in any way at all is never at the top of anyone's list of priorities.

Question: What prompted you to introduce a draft Civil Service Bill - its quite unusual for a committee to do so isn't it?

Tony Wright: I think it is probably unique for a committee not to hang around for a government but to do a Bill itself. The argument had been around for a long time and we wanted to kick-start the process and to show the government that it could be done in a quite straight forward way.

Question: So what would you like to see in a Civil Service Bill?

Tony Wright: We would like the Civil Service to be established in statute so that if things are to be done to it then parliament has to be consulted.

We think it is an important thing to do and should have been done 150 years ago. We think it puts some important lines in the sand in terms of constitutional principle, and it sorts out the position of the Civil Service Commission and special advisers and so on.

So I think it clears up a number of difficulties that are around at the moment and then crucially and constitutionally it anchors the civil service in statute.

Question: What difficulties would it solve?

Tony Wright: Well I think it would, for example, provide a much clearer appeal mechanism for civil servants who think there are difficulties. I think it would crucially set out a proper regulatory body for the civil service, which is the civil service commission.

At the moment they can only react to particular cases. I think what we need is a regulator for the civil service. It would, I hope, clarify and codify some of the relationships between civil servants, ministers and special advisers.

Question: Wouldn't some of those things get absorbed in a wider Bill that would try to modernise the civil service?

Tony Wright: We are quite anxious that nothing happens in this Bill that should prevent the civil service developing. This is not an anti-modernisation Bill, it simply tries to say what we think the key difficulties of the civil service are.

Question: Looking at one of the issues and one of the difficulties - how concerned are you about the workings of special advisers at present?

Tony Wright: Well there has become some confusion about it; there is confusion about what they are supposed to do and what they actually do. We need to clarify that. And also we need to clarify the process by which the number of special advisors can be determined.

Question: Do you think we have too many at present?

Tony Wright: No I don't think we do, nor do I think that we need to have a statutory cap on the number as some people recommend. All I think is important is that government has to say to parliament we would like this many, and parliament has to approve it so it has to be done publicly and openly. I think that enables the system to develop without freezing it, but it does put some important safeguards in place.

Question: Do you think some level of politicisation of the civil service is no bad thing?

Tony Wright: Well this is a key argument at the moment and again the Bill doesn't pronounce on that. There is the whole argument about appointment on merit, and there is a big argument going on between the government and the Cabinet Secretary and the Civil Service Commission about the nature of some senior civil service appointments.

We are taking evidence on that at the moment and we may take a view on it at some point. Its not always entirely clear what appointment on merit means. This Bill would not pronounce on it but it would maybe highlight the question of merit and the need for a conversation on it.

Question: Some people argue that the UK is moving down towards the US system of politicised civil service, do you see it going in that way?

Tony Wright: I have no evidence of that at all, I think what has been dispiriting is the way that it has been almost impossible to have any sensible discussion about this issue in this country without people throwing up the charge of politicisation.

Question: Why do you think this debate over special advisers and the politicisation of the civil service is so fragile in the UK?

Tony Wright: This is because we had one or two incidents which I think distorted the whole debate. I think most people think special advisers do very useful work and most civil servants think they provide a useful buffer between themselves and the political world of ministers.

We just need to be absolutely clear about who does what and where someone's work stops and another persons work starts. On any international test we are at one end of the spectrum in terms of the number of political people involved in government.

I mean it is a perfectly proper thing to want to increase that somewhat, we just need to know what we are doing and what the boundary lines are.

Question: So in a way, once they did set up the remits more clearly it would give greater scope for us to have more politicised appointments within the civil service, because we would know what they are doing?

Tony Wright: I am not advocating that, all I am saying is if we are secure enough to put into statute some of the key constitutional principles in this area and if everybody can agree to those in passing this legislation then we can I hope have more flexible discussions about how we apply these principles in practice.

Question: What has come out of the committee's inquiry into the Phillis Review of Government Communications?

Tony Wright: We are doing that at the moment. We have already taken some evidence on it and when we get the full review we shall take some further evidence on it.

It was our committee that recommended this review should be established in the first place.

Question: What would you like to see come out of the review?

Tony Wright: I quite like what I am seeing so far; we have only had the discussion about the centre of government so far but I think some important safe guards are being put in there. I want to see a properly professional Government Information Service. I don't want to see an information service that's...

Question: ...You don't think we have a professional one at the moment?

Tony Wright: I think there have been questions about it in the past, questions that have been raised by people from all different parts of the political spectrum.

Question: What type of questions?

Tony Wright: Questions about whether people who are engaged in communication issues are people who are not top rank.

I think we need to make sure the government does attract the very best people, that ministers feel comfortable with and therefore they do not, in some way, seek to bypass them in ways that we have seen in the past. So I think it is absolutely crucial that we get a service that has great credibility and that we can have confidence in.

Question: How do you think you can make a great service that attracts the top rank people so it isn't bypassed?

Tony Wright: Well I think it means organising it rather differently. It means upping the structural profile of the government information and communications service and proper rewards, promotion structure, and seeing rather more of these people around the system, if the job is to be done effectively. All that you can do while making sure civil servants do things civil servants should do and politically appointed people do things politically appointed people should do.

Question: What effect do you think the Hutton inquiry will have on the civil service?

Tony Wright: It will be a time of stock-taking, it depends very much on what Lord Hutton says. We have said that we are going to do an inquiry after Hutton reports on the implications of Hutton and the machinery of government. I just want to see what he says about whether he thinks the boundary lines were in fact clear enough.

Question: What kind of things do you think your inquiry will be looking into in terms of the machinery of government?

Tony Wright: I think we will be looking at whether the relationships between Number 10 and the departments are of the right kind, and whether those between special advisers and civil servants are of the right kind, and who was guarding the boundaries when these boundaries were tested.

Question: Who do you think should be guarding those boundaries?

Tony Wright: Well we have people whose job it is to do it at the moment - we have permanent secretaries who have to do it in terms of their department and we have a Cabinet Secretary who does it for the system as a whole. We will have to see when Lord Hutton reports whether those boundaries were being properly patrolled or not.