Committee on Standards in Public Life chair speaks to CSW about empathy, rapport and why "zigzagging between departments is a really healthy thing"
In May 1995, Michael Nolan published the Seven Principles of Public Life, declaring the need for a “restatement of the general principles of conduct which underpin public life”.
Lord Nolan was the first chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, set up by then-prime minister John Major in response to concerns about unethical practices, including the 1990s cash-for-questions scandal in the House of Commons. The principles – selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership – were set out in the committee’s first report alongside a series of sweeping reforms. Thirty years later, they remain the basis of the ethical standards expected of public-office holders in the UK.
Doug Chalmers now leads CSPL, which continues to advise the PM on standards, but watches over a much-changed ethical scene. A 37-year army veteran, Chalmers recalls a fairly bare standards landscape in 1995. “There was a series of ‘good chap theory’-type precedents,” he tells CSW.
“People’s behaviour would sort of be self-policed – there was a degree of personal honour. But obviously, the series of scandals that led to the creation of this committee highlighted that the public perception of that was no longer tolerable. The idea of someone just being tapped on the shoulder and being given a remunerated public appointment, it’s hard for us to even imagine that today.”
Chalmers became the ninth chair of CSPL in December 2023, taking over from Lord Jonathan Evans. He says the establishment of written standards and codes of conduct, and mechanisms for when people are in breach of them, has created an ethical landscape where compliance “is actually very, very high”. While Nolan’s concerns about “weaknesses in the procedures” for maintaining and enforcing standards have been partly addressed, “public disquiet” – as Nolan described it in 1995 – remains high. This is unsurprising given the swathe of scandals that dogged the last government.
Chalmers suggests this is also partly because procedural improvements have made the public more aware of breaches. “If you develop a decent complaints structure and develop a good culture for it, you will get more complaints,” he says. “Have we addressed the diminishing of trust in those who are in a position of power? Well, the answer is no. But my counter to that would be: if we didn’t have a standards landscape, would it be better? I think it’d be much worse, because then there would be no belief that there’s even some form of check and balance in place.”
Chalmers says we should be worried, however, at the change in the public’s trust in institutions over the last three decades. “The trustworthiness of MPs or ministers or public officials has never actually been really high,” he says. “If you look back over the polling from all of our history, there was never a golden period where there was a 90% approval rating of everyone. But what I think has changed is that 30 years ago, the trust in our institutions was high. Right now, I worry that the trust in our institutions has come down as well.” This is one of the reasons why Recognising and responding to early warning signs in public sector bodies, the committee’s first report under his leadership, “is more aimed at institutions, processes and culture than specific recommendations on how an individual behaves at certain points”, Chalmers explains.
In his pre-appointment hearing in November 2023, Chalmers told the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that the CSPL chair job was something he cared deeply about. What was it that resonated with him?
In 2000, the army published a set of values and standards including six key principles: courage, discipline, respect for others, integrity, loyalty and selfless commitment. Whether he was on deployment, in Whitehall or in barracks, Chalmers says the covenant was “really helpful” when complicated operational, HR or cultural issues arose. He says the values and standards allowed him to “step back and look at the actions we were taking and how they sat into a much bigger remit and perspective”.
“The Nolan Principles do exactly the same,” he continues. “They are a wonderful lens by which you can get out of the absolutely chaotic detail – you get so wrapped into it, you’re in the tree, but the principles give you a chance to step back and look at the whole forest.”
Alongside its primary role advising the government on standards, CSPL is the custodian of the rules. This is something Chalmers takes seriously, always carrying copies of the Nolan Principles with him to give to people. He also holds dear two principles he picked up while taking part in the UN’s 1992-93 peacekeeping mission in Cambodia as part of a force of 21,000 military and civilian personnel from more than 100 countries. “It was quite a tough time,” Chalmers recalls. “The culture was very different to anything I’d ever worked in. And it was the first time I’d really worked in a position where I didn’t have authority. So learning how to listen, properly listen – not wait for your turn to talk – was really key.”
During this period, he became “fascinated by theories of cooperation” and learned lessons that have stuck with him throughout his career. “I centre much of that around two words, which I’ve tried to advise everyone since,” he says. “The first one is empathy. Listen carefully so you have empathy for the other person’s position, and what they can actually do.”
Chalmers recalls how, during his time as a major general, he would meet with counterparts and “instinctively think that you have the same power and authority as me”.
“Never is that the case,” he says. “You have to spend time to gain empathy to understand what they can do, what their perspective is. To have true empathy takes time.”
“Thirty years ago, trust in our institutions was high. I worry it has come down”
Chalmers’ second word is “rapport”, which he initially thought “equalled friendship”.
“It doesn’t, actually,” he says. “Strong rapport, particularly when you’re dealing with difficult issues with people you don’t necessarily agree with, is about respect. I have empathy for you, you have empathy for me, and we both have respect for each other, and that’s the way you can make sustainable, tough judgements.”
Chalmers would see the lessons of Cambodia play out a decade later, serving in the Iraq War. In an interview with the University of Cambridge’s Varsity newspaper two years ago, Chalmers said he was “deeply troubled by the invasion of Iraq in 2003” and that “a series of… catastrophic errors” during the war led him to apply for an MPhil to write a thesis on the problems of coordinating government departments.
What were his conclusions? “We didn’t really understand the problem, we didn’t really have empathy for some of the things that were going on, and we didn’t invest in building genuine rapport to get it,” Chalmers says. “We thought we knew best. And that I think has carried on.
“The point of that thesis was about coordinating government departments in complex interventions, so overseas-type stuff. One of my findings was ideally we should have a National Security Council, which of course we do now – because I wrote this quite a while ago, before Chilcot was published.”
Chalmers discovered that each government department has its own culture, and says, because of this, that early-career civil servants should try to develop in a number of different departments once they have picked their field. Chalmers says “no one department is the owner of all the bright ideas”.
Collaboration is an “easy thing” to talk about, Chalmers says, but “quite hard to do” without building empathy and rapport, “which is why for civil servants’ careers, I think zigzagging between departments is a really healthy thing”.
During his career in the army, Chalmers worked with civil servants in departments including the Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development, as well as officials from other nations, and got a lot out of these interactions. “I found it really enjoyable. I think it creates a good diversity of thought, and it creates a good challenge structure,” he says.
Chalmers also believes one of the great strengths of the MoD is military personnel and civil servants working together in teams. “It’s not the same in many other countries where there’s a policy branch literally on one side of the city and a military headquarters on the other side of it,” he says. “I found we were much better by mixing policy and practice, if I could describe it as simplistically as that.”
Creating a culture where civil servants can challenge the status quo is an important theme of CSPL’s Early warning signs report, which came out in March. It urges public sector leaders to advocate for a “speak-up” culture in their organisations and lists numerous points for reflection. With departments’ budgets being squeezed and voluntary exits planned, civil servants who stay on could see their roles intensifying, making it more difficult to find time to think about ethics. How can leaders drive a culture where staff can step back and raise ethical questions?
Chalmers says this is easier to do in the army, where there are mandated annual sessions on values and standards for all personnel. He says he encouraged everyone he worked with to properly engage with the scheme and form cluster groups with a mix of seniority, while also carving out moments of time throughout the year. “The key thing is creating time for the conversation,” Chalmers says.
CSPL has also created a “pack of vignettes” to help civil service managers with these conversations. The vignettes pose ethical questions “which there is no right answer to” and the principles help people navigate through them. “If you’re trying to talk about something that’s live in the day, then the hierarchical nature of our structure can’t help but slightly become present,” he says. “Providing something that is not related to that might break the ice, and teams might then be able to get to the issue of the day.”
Chalmers says “multi-generational” conversation is also vital. One way he facilitated this at the MoD was through a “reverse-mentor” scheme, which each year matched him, as an “old military person”, with “a young civil servant”. He recalls how his reverse mentor would join him for all of his meetings on certain days, getting an understanding of the pressures he faced. When he delivered “town hall” communications to staff, they would critique him afterwards. Chalmers has found a way to apply the same principle to his job as CSPL chair, utilising his other post-military role as master of Emmanuel College at the University of Cambridge to ask his 18-25-year-old students for their views on why standards matter.
“It takes active leadership to get culture right. If you only listen to the loud voices, you’re missing a large chunk of people who are very bright, have real thoughts and care about their job”
In October 2023, 60 female senior civil servants in the MoD wrote a letter to the department’s permanent secretary raising concerns about a “hostile” and “toxic” culture and making allegations of sexual assault and harassment. CSW asks Chalmers about the letter, how he feels the response has been handled, and for his reflections on what the culture was like during his military career.
“I knew some of the individuals involved and actually when that came out, I had a number of conversations with a number of people that are involved,” Chalmers says. “I think it is a real, real issue. The military’s been working on this for a while. When I joined, for example, there were very few women in the military, and they had certain key roles.” Over time, more roles have been opened up to women and their representation has risen. This has been a “really powerful thing”, Chalmers says, because “the ability to have different perspectives really, really matters”.
Chalmers reflects that the military can sometimes “spiral” into male-dominated discussion. Getting the culture right and “calling out” the wrong behaviours is “absolutely critical”, he says.
“I was really sad to see that letter,” he adds. “My feeling is that we’ve been coming from nowhere, frankly, slowly climbing our way up, and I still think we have a lot further to go. And that’s both in the service, as well as mixing between the service personnel in the MoD and civil servants. But it’s not just a military problem. I think this problem is broader than that. And other departments might do better for various reasons.
"But anyone who thinks they’ve got this nailed, I think, is deluding themselves, and it takes active leadership to get the culture right, to make sure that everyone’s voice is [heard]. If you only listen to the loud voices that are prepared to stand up, you’re missing a large chunk of people who are very bright, have real thoughts and care about their job, but you’re not providing a forum for them to speak. It’s why things like the reverse mentor [are so important]. Unsurprisingly, most of my reverse mentors were young women, because I’m not a woman, and therefore being able to get their perspective was really important to me.”
As well as being the leading custodian of the Nolan Principles, Chalmers sees it as his responsibility to take up the cause of his predecessors’ reports. He has followed up on the failure of the Johnson, Truss and Sunak governments to act on CSPL’s 2019 review of local government ethical standards. Following Labour’s 2024 general election win, Chalmers wrote to the new government to see if ministers would consider implementing the recommendations.
The government subsequently launched a consultation on six of the CSPL proposals. “We then ran another round table, confirmed our recommendations were still sound, and entered into the consultation,” he adds. Chalmers is also keeping an eye on the government’s manifesto commitments to launch an ethics and integrity commission and to introduce a duty of candour for public servants. “When they do come in, they’ll be part of our standards landscape, and it’ll be beholden upon us to do our best to ensure that they add value,” he explains. Artificial intelligence is also on the watchlist and Chalmers feels generative AI is a pressing topic, mentioning concerns around human creativity.
With plenty to keep him busy, how does he unwind? “The Army was a vocation and indeed my role at Cambridge is a vocation, so the two interweave. But I’m a firm advocate of sleep, exercise and diet. So I do quite a lot of exercise,” he says, including going rowing a lot with his wife. “In busy jobs, time with your partner often gets deprioritised, so I try to prioritise some of that. And she’s my most grounding individual and will politely tell me when I’ve slightly stopped listening or something like that, which is really helpful. We both fly fish as well, which gets me closer to the rhythm of nature and gives me time to think.”