House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee

Work of the Cabinet Secretary 2012–13

Oral evidence

Thursday 24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO, Cabinet Secretary

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 24 May 2012

HC 133-i Published on 10 October 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £5.50

The Public Administration Select Committee

The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith, and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service.

Current membership Mr Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex) (Chair) Alun Cairns MP (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan) Michael Dugher MP (Labour, Barnsley East) Charlie Elphicke MP (Conservative, Dover) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Robert Halfon MP (Conservative, Harlow) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Greg Mulholland MP (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West) Priti Patel MP (Conservative, Witham) Lindsay Roy MP (Labour, Glenrothes)

Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/pasc.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Emily Commander (Clerk), Charlotte Pochin (Second Clerk), Alexandra Meakin (Committee Specialist), Paul Simpkin (Senior Committee Assistant) and Su Panchanathan (Committee Assistant).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Public Administration Select Committee, Committee Office, First Floor, 7 Millbank, House of Commons, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5730; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

List of witnesses

Thursday 24 May 2012

Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO, Cabinet Secretary Ev 1

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Public Administration Committee on Thursday 24 May 2012

Members present: Mr Bernard Jenkin (Chair)

Alun Cairns Robert Halfon Paul Flynn Kelvin Hopkins ______

Examination of Witness

Witness: Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO, Cabinet Secretary, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Could I welcome our witness to this Q5 Chair: How often do you personally meet a session on the work of the Cabinet Secretary? Could journalist or commentator? you identify yourself formally for the record, please? Jeremy Heywood: Very infrequently, frankly. Jeremy Heywood: Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary. Q6 Chair: Is it at your invitation or their request? Chair: Can I just ask a gentle opening question? Your Jeremy Heywood: I get requests from time to time, role has been split from your predecessor’s in terms of and I usually agree to meet people whom I have not the Head of the Civil Service, so what is your average met before. I have generally not met journalists over working day like now? What do you tend to be doing the years, but people have now advised me that, given each day? that I have a reasonably prominent position and Jeremy Heywood: In terms of the length of time or people write about me, it is useful to keep in touch what I do in a day? with them from time to time. Chair: What you do. Jeremy Heywood: I come in to work in the mornings Q7 Chair: Do you find if somebody is writing about early on, usually with Bob Kerslake. It is a good No. 10, it is quite useful to ask them to come in? opportunity to take half an hour to chat through the Jeremy Heywood: Yes. I don’t usually take much of day with him. the initiative, to be honest, but I suppose I am slightly more receptive now when people invite me to have Q2 Chair: What time is that, usually? coffee or something. I will generally do that now, Jeremy Heywood: We normally get into the car usually on background only, but basically my job is together at about 7.30, or something like that. I catch not to be in the newspapers and not to be in the up on emails when I get into the office, or have a magazines. I am not doing a very good job of that at meeting with Francis Maude or Oliver Letwin at 8. I the moment, but I try my best to stay invisible. usually have a session with the No. 10 team, often involving the Prime Minister, in the mornings. Q8 Robert Halfon: Are you on Twitter? Jeremy Heywood: I am not on Twitter. Bob is on Q3 Chair: So that is your morning briefing on press Twitter. and what is happening that day? Jeremy Heywood: Yes, which I try to get to if I can. Q9 Chair: One of our concerns was that there was a lot of very negative criticism about the splitting of Q4 Chair: It is not a separate political meeting, then? the role of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Jeremy Heywood: No, it is a combination of civil Service—that you would finish up with a lot of power servants and political people—a useful session. but much less responsibility. Is that what it feels like? Obviously on some days we have Cabinet, which Jeremy Heywood: No, it does not feel like that at all, dominates the morning. On other days, on to be honest. First of all, on the split, I think it is Wednesdays, we have the Permanent Secretaries’ working really well. I think most of our Permanent meeting whilst the Prime Minister is preparing for Secretary colleagues would now argue that it is a Prime Minister’s Question time. I will generally have really good idea. It gives me the opportunity to serve a weekly bilateral with the Deputy Prime Minister. the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the The Deputy Prime Minister has several other Cabinet as a whole. Previously I was frankly working meetings, which I will attend. There are a series of just for the Prime Minister, so it has given me extra policy meetings; then we have a regular routine where bandwidth to do that. Secondly, it means that Bob can the Civil Service Management Board meets under focus on the capacity-building side of the Civil Bob’s chairmanship. I obviously sit on that. Service, leading the Civil Service reform programme. We try to get out and about to see Departments. I have Clearly they are different roles—very supportive of been to Scotland, Wales and a few other Departments each other all the time, but distinct roles, dual to talk to them about the issues they are facing. It is a responsibility. That is working very well. combination of policy meetings, management In terms of how my role has changed, I definitely feel meetings, catch-up meetings and so on. sitting in 70 Whitehall, which is what I do now, is a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Ev 2 Public Administration Committee: Evidence

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO different role. I have a responsibility to the whole politicians. They have to come to agreements Cabinet, rather than just to No. 10. Obviously I need themselves. Obviously, the Deputy Prime Minister, to maintain my close links with the Prime Minister’s the Prime Minister and other Ministers ask the civil office and with the Prime Minister, because he expects servants occasionally to help them try and find areas me to be one of his key advisers, but I work now for of common ground, to filter through issues and the Cabinet as a whole. I spend quite a lot of time with pinpoint the issues that really do need to be resolved the Deputy Prime Minister or working issues across at a political level, so I do get involved a lot in issues Whitehall for the Deputy Prime Minister, and I feel as that divide them, but frankly I also get involved though the role has evolved quite a lot. equally in issues that divide Departments from one another, not just splits that break down along Q10 Chair: What about the division between policy Coalition lines but Departmental lines. That is what I and implementation, or policy and administration? Do have been doing for much of the last 20 years of my you feel that is an appropriate division of roles career, frankly. between you and Sir Bob? Jeremy Heywood: No, I don’t think that is the Q13 Kelvin Hopkins: It strikes me, as you say, that division of roles. The division of roles really is you meet the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime between policy and implementation on the one hand, Minister separately each week. and the capacity of the Civil Service, the skills of the Jeremy Heywood: Yes. Civil Service, the long-term capability of the Civil Kelvin Hopkins: So you may have a kind of Service, and obviously to some extent the diplomatic role, trying to square circles between them. performance as well, on the other. Is that fair? On implementation, if you see it as a Venn diagram, Jeremy Heywood: That is one role. Other people play there is an intersection: both Bob and I are acutely that role as well. Of course, the Prime Minister and interested in implementation issues. You cannot the Deputy Prime Minister themselves meet on a very divorce policy design from implementation. If you regular basis, and I attend most of those meetings, design policy without a mind to how it can be probably. I am one of the people around who plays a implemented, and without talking to any of the people facilitative role, and tries to broker agreements and who will be asked to implement it, it will almost narrow down differences in good faith, working for certainly be bad policy. Policy and implementation both sides. That is what is very different about my issues are heavily intertwined and need to interact new role as compared with my previous role. very carefully. It would be absolutely hopeless if I was just focused on policy without thinking at all about Q14 Kelvin Hopkins: It has been argued that the implementation. That would not work at all. need to keep the Coalition together has led to paralysis, or in the case of the Budget perhaps even Q11 Chair: Sir Humphrey Appleby’s explanation of contradiction, at the heart of Government. How do the division between the policy of administration and you seek to ensure that things get done under these the administration of policy comes to mind. Do you conditions? Difficult. think your relationship with Sir Bob would work so Jeremy Heywood: I don’t recognise the word well if you did not get into the car together every “paralysis” at all in the current context. I think the morning? Government has achieved a huge amount. It set out Jeremy Heywood: I am sure it would survive that, but with many hundreds of commitments and has made it is certainly helpful. very good progress in developing them. The Budget, Chair: Obviously it is helpful, but— which was much criticised, was actually quite a bold Jeremy Heywood: It is obviously based on much Budget. It did not need to have been, but there was more than that. Firstly, it is based on mutual respect. lots of churn and change. I don’t really accept that Certainly I respect him immensely. He has done lots there is paralysis at all. Clearly, however, one of my of things in his career that I have not done, and he has jobs is to make sure that the machine is delivering on a proven track record on change management. He is a the commitments that were set out in the programme tough, visible leader—tough-minded, determined, for Government that was agreed at the start of the with consistency of purpose and so on. He and I are Coalition Government. obviously in a lot of meetings together. He chairs a lot of them: I chair some of them. We work a lot Q15 Kelvin Hopkins: But there clearly are tensions. together. We have weekly bilaterals on top of our In the last week we have seen some quite serious informal chats in the car, so it certainly is not divisions over Beecroft and so on—not necessarily the dependent just on car journeys. Deputy Prime Minister, although one assumes he is close with the Business Secretary. Is your work Q12 Kelvin Hopkins: Sir Jeremy, the Coalition is sometimes difficult, holding it all together? cited as one of the arguments for having a separate Jeremy Heywood: I would not say it is particularly Cabinet Secretary role. difficult. Government has always been like this. You Jeremy Heywood: Yes. always have disagreements between different Kelvin Hopkins: To what extent do you see your role Departments, different politicians, and you just have as that of a referee between two political parties with to knuckle down and try to find the points of disparate aims? agreement, even on something like Beecroft, which Jeremy Heywood: I would not use the word “referee”. has had a lot of attention. The Government has an I am a civil servant; I don’t arbitrate between elected agreed position, which is to put out a document that cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 3

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO is a call for evidence on Beecroft and an alternative people giving their time, and getting society itself to to Beecroft. Obviously there is a lot of rhetoric in the be less passive and more involved in the provision of newspapers, quite often briefed by different people, public services, and so on. I don’t think it is a but the business of Government goes on. particularly partisan concept. As I was saying in answer to your previous question, Q16 Paul Flynn: Is part of your role to be the I think at one level it is a big political piece of memory to the Government? Have you recently narrative, in which a lot of policies fit. There are also reminded them of the lesson of David Mellor, which one or two very specific policies that have been put is that a resignation delayed is a disgrace multiplied? forward under the Big Society heading, and they are Jeremy Heywood: Well, I do have a memory of very much work in progress. Probably the most previous events. Sometimes that is useful, sometimes successful one that I have come across is the National it is not. Citizenship Service, which is being piloted—getting 16-year-olds from all social backgrounds to come Q17 Paul Flynn: Would you describe the together in the summer and go on summer Government’s policy on the Big Society as anything programmes. I was speaking to some kids who have but paralysis, where Lord Wei resigns and is not been on the first pilot recently—the first pilot, as it replaced, Shaun Bailey, the Ambassador, goes and is were—and they could not have been more enthusiastic not replaced, and meetings are not held for month about it. It is quite easy to be cynical about these after month about the Big Society? Is it time to declare things, but the specific proposals that have been put it officially dead, put a stake through its heart, and forward under the Big Society are being taken forward consign it to the graveyard of all three-word wheezes and, from what I can see, have been quite successful by Prime Ministers of the past, like “The Third Way” so far—but obviously time will tell. “The Cones Hotline” and “Back to Basics”? Now the Paul Flynn: I am grateful to you. Big Society is officially dead—a dead wheeze walking. Is that right? Isn’t that paralysis? Or would Q20 Robert Halfon: Could I just ask you about paralysis be an improvement on the situation it is in political advisers, if I may? Do you think the now? Government has too few political advisers or special Jeremy Heywood: I would not use the word advisers, or too many? “paralysis” on that. I think the Big Society can be Jeremy Heywood: Broadly speaking, the number of looked at on two different levels. Firstly, it is a piece special advisers is in line with what it has been for the of political narrative, an overarching theme covering last 20 years. I think it is somewhere around 80 or 85. things like decentralisation, the use of the third sector It feels, roughly speaking, the right level, as it has and the private sector, and more active participation done for much of the last 20 years. I think we have to in society by citizens. At a very high level, that is a recognise that in a Coalition Government it would not cultural, almost societal, movement, which will take be that surprising if we had slightly more special more than a couple of years to put in place, as it were. advisers than we have had previously, because I think Certainly the Prime Minister remains every bit as there is more complexity. It is not unreasonable that committed to it as he ever was. Secondly— both sides of the Coalition have a decent number of special advisers. Q18 Paul Flynn: Do you think it is legitimate of the Personally I have always been a big supporter of the Prime Minister to prostitute the honours system to concept of special advisers. It is helpful to the Civil distribute honours to heroes of the Big Society in an Service to have people whose job it is to be political. attempt to resuscitate the corpse? Depending on the policies of the people involved, they Jeremy Heywood: No, I would not use any of those play a very big role in some Departments. I am words, really. The Prime Minister is entitled to give comfortable with the current levels. I would not strategic direction to the honours system— particularly want to see them dramatically increasing. Paul Flynn: I mean, we are in the Lloyd George Room— Q21 Robert Halfon: I am interested that you say Chair: Order, order. Let him answer the question. they are roughly the same, because the way it is Paul Flynn: It is an historic— reported in the media and elsewhere is that there are Chair: Mr Flynn, can you let him answer the not enough political advisers, fewer than before, and question? this is a weakness in the Downing Street machine. Paul Flynn: Well, yes. I think the questions are— Jeremy Heywood: Overall the number of special Chair: Well, could you let him answer the question advisers is broadly in line with where it got to under you have asked? Order, order. Tony Blair. It is probably slightly higher than it was Jeremy Heywood: The honours system has always under Gordon Brown. What is different is that there been used, I think, to reward people who have given are obviously far fewer Conservative special advisers community service, outstanding philanthropic work, than there were Labour special advisers—I think there and so on. That is very much part of the Big Society. are around 60 as opposed to 80-odd—and that is because we have two parties in the Coalition Q19 Paul Flynn: But to advance a political agenda? Government, not just one. Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think the Big Society is particularly a political agenda. I think political parties Q22 Chair: The criticism is that there are very few of all persuasions have welcomed more active political advisers in No. 10, and that is making life communities, charities and philanthropic giving, difficult for the Ministers— cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Ev 4 Public Administration Committee: Evidence

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO

Robert Halfon: Particularly in the Policy Unit. 25 would probably be slightly smaller than the Jeremy Heywood: Yes. In No. 10 it is probably number Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had of their around 20 now, and that is possibly slightly lower. own party in No. 10. This is complicated in that the What is strikingly lower, obviously, is that the number overall numbers have to take into account both of special advisers from the main governing party is Conservative and Lib Dem. significantly lower than it was. We can have a broader discussion about the Policy Unit, if you would like. Q27 Chair: We will come back to special advisers The decision was taken by the Prime Minister and later on. Can I ask the other side of the question? In Deputy Prime Minister to maintain one Policy Unit the second of our two reports on strategic thinking, for No. 10, rather than having two separate ones—a we explicitly suggested that we need to think about Lib Dem one and a Conservative one. If you take the the role of the permanent Civil Service as a stronger view that you will have one, it has to be able to anchor of stability, and that there should somehow be provide advice to both sides of the Coalition, as it were. It is quite difficult to see how that could be a stronger role for promoting the long-term national staffed with special advisers. The Prime Minister is interest. Ministers and Prime Ministers come and go, not going to take political advice on immigration from but many issues are much longer-term, and require a a Lib Dem special adviser. The Deputy Prime Minister much longer-term view. The Civil Service needs to is not going to take advice from a Conservative generate that longer-term view and put it in front of special adviser on the Big Society. You are driven to Ministers, and confront Ministers with the long-term having a more technocratic group of people. That is difficult choices, which the political agenda and the not to say that there are not also some policy special 24-hour news agenda tend to drive them away from. advisers at No. 10, on both sides of the Coalition. What do you think about that? There are, but possibly slightly fewer than in Jeremy Heywood: I think in the first year or two of a previous years. Parliament you are bound to spend your time focusing on what the new incoming Government, be it a Q23 Robert Halfon: Why did you say a moment ago Coalition Government or single-party Government, that you don’t think there need to be more special or has decided in its manifesto that it wants to do. The political advisers? Would the Government not benefit? strategic thinking, if you like, was done politically in There are arguments being made that the Government putting together manifestos. Frankly, for the first would benefit from more special advisers. couple of years of any Parliament you will spend most Jeremy Heywood: You asked me for my personal of your time implementing the manifesto agreements view. I think that, broadly speaking, the number of and so on. special advisers we have now is roughly the right The question you raise is a perfectly good one in level. relation to the latter end of a Parliament. You and I, Mr Chairman, have spoken about this before. I Q24 Robert Halfon: Why? personally think there is a case for the Civil Service Jeremy Heywood: Because I think the Government upping its game on horizon scanning and strategic is working perfectly well with the number of special thinking, so it can offer Ministers a view about some advisers it has. of those longer term issues. It is then for Ministers to decide whether they want to listen to that advice or Q25 Chair: But isn’t there a fundamental problem continue to do their strategic thinking in a political here, that Secretaries of State who want to talk to the frame. Prime Minister indirectly through the Policy Unit— One of the things we have done recently is to recruit because the Policy Unit is presumably one of the Jon Day as Chairman of the Joint Intelligence driving creative places where policy is being Committee. He has some extra time on his hands, as generated—have to talk to a civil servant? There have it is at the moment a three-day-a-week post, so I have been some complaints about that. The system is not asked him to specifically review across Whitehall working in that respect. horizon-scanning capability in different Departments. Jeremy Heywood: I think any Secretary of State who Is it good enough? Is it coordinated? What do we do wants to talk to the Prime Minister should be able to speak to the Prime Minister, directly, not when we receive the horizon scanning outputs? What intermediated through— hangs on it, as it were? That is partly motivated by the work of this Committee in putting the spotlight Q26 Chair: But, practically speaking, the Prime on this. Minister cannot be in permanent conversation with 18 This is work in progress, and I don’t have any firm Departments of State at all times. conclusions from that work yet. However, as I look at Jeremy Heywood: That is a very fair point, but we the Cabinet Office and the Civil Service, one of the have a Chief of Staff, a Deputy Chief of Staff, a Head gaps I personally think there is is, “Are we doing of Political Strategy, five or six special advisers on enough coordinated thinking about the future policy—I am talking about the Conservative side challenges facing the country?” In the end, Ministers now—and a slightly smaller number on the Lib Dem have to decide how relevant that is to policy side. There are plenty of political people in No. 10— formation. You cannot have a separate, parallel Civil about 20, in fact. Would it be transformed if there Service exercise that in a sense is deciding what to were 25 rather than 20? I don’t think it would be do. Ministers have to decide what to do, but we can transformative. You could make the argument. Even certainly do some more longer-term thinking. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 5

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO

Q28 Chair: Thank you for that. I am grateful, but I frankly quite a time-consuming business. If I had 35 cannot resist just pointing out that there are of them, I don’t think I would be doing anything else shortcomings to horizon scanning. Horizon scanning for this month. Even doing my 10 or 15, whatever it can make you feel that you know things about the is, if you do it properly and have some meaningful future that you cannot actually know. Very often, what feedback to give people and a real discussion about happens next is not what you thought you saw on the their objectives for next year, you need to put quite a horizon. Are you developing that kind of bit of time aside for that. responsiveness and capacity as well? Jeremy Heywood: No. I am using horizon scanning Q31 Alun Cairns: You obviously have a close as a shorthand for future thinking, scenario gaming working relationship with Sir Bob. How much of that and so on—a whole clutch of issues. Jon has done is down to personalities? The question should be then: quite a lot of this work. The MOD and the security could that work with someone else, or would it break side of Whitehall do this better, in some ways, than down if you were working with a different individual? the domestic, economic side of the Government, so I Jeremy Heywood: I suppose in theory there could be think Jon Day is a good person to give me some advice on that. such a character clash that it was impossible to work together, but I think most people at the top of the Civil Service get there because they are fairly collaborative, Q29 Alun Cairns: Sir Jeremy, when the roles were collegiate people who have a shared endeavour. I split, and effectively split between you and Sir Bob, think it is likely to be sustainable beyond just pure one of the driving forces was to reduce the 36 direct reporting lines that now Lord O’Donnell highlighted, personalities, though certainly getting on with and the responsibilities that went with those reporting someone helps. lines. How have you decided to divide them between you, and what progress have you made in this respect? Q32 Alun Cairns: Can I ask you about the Jeremy Heywood: I think we probably sent a note to responsibilities for the Civil Service Code and the the Committee on this some time ago, but if not, I Ministerial Code? am happy to send it to you. Effectively we took the Jeremy Heywood: Yes. crosscutting Departments, or people who had a Alun Cairns: I understand that Sir Bob is responsible crosscutting role, like the Treasury Solicitor, the for the Civil Service Code and that you are Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, the First responsible for the Ministerial Code. Is that right? Parliamentary Counsel, and I will line manage those Jeremy Heywood: It depends what you mean by people, and then we have the main Departmental responsible. The Prime Minister is responsible for the Permanent Secretaries, and Bob Kerslake will line Ministerial Code. I give him the benefit of my views, manage them. from time to time, on whether people have breached It sounds as though it is a clear division, and it is it or not. clear, because someone has to take responsibility for each of the Permanent Secretaries in a clear way. Q33 Chair: He did cite you recently, saying that you Obviously Bob and I talk a lot: I talk about his people; had given him advice. he talks about my people. Certainly I would not want Jeremy Heywood: I think it is clear in the Ministerial you to think that there is a great divide here, such that Code that that is one of the roles of the Cabinet I never talk to the people Bob is managing and vice Secretary, so I do that, and Bob, as you say, takes versa. However, I think it is right that each Permanent responsibility for civil servants’ behaviour under the Secretary or senior official has a line manager and Civil Service Code. As Head of the Civil Service that knows who that is and there is clarity about that, so is the right demarcation. that is the way we have done it. Q34 Alun Cairns: Is it part of the Civil Service Code Q30 Alun Cairns: How do you then ensure that a Minister should be encouraged to follow the consistency in priority setting and performance Ministerial Code? If a Minister has not necessarily management between you and Sir Bob when you have followed the Ministerial Code, how does that equate different priorities? in terms of achievement of delivering the Civil Jeremy Heywood: Obviously when it comes to deciding who are the top 25% of Permanent Service Code? Secretaries, we will end up having a moderation Jeremy Heywood: I would have to look again at the meeting between me and him, and some external detailed wording of the Civil Service Code, but in the people as well. We keep in very close touch on these end, if Ministers breach the Ministerial Code, it is the issues. We are not doing these in little silos and never Minister’s responsibility. I don’t think he can blame consulting each other; we work very carefully together the civil servant for that, unless the Minister’s to make sure that we are applying consistent culpability in some sense has been due to a failure by standards. Frankly it is a joint endeavour. However, if the Civil Service to bring something to his— you are to give people sufficient time to feel as though they are being properly managed and mentored, you Q35 Chair: Gus O’Donnell did say that he wished do need to reduce the number, in my view, from 35 he had been told earlier. He said it again and again in or 36, or whatever it was Gus had to deal with. front of this Committee—that he wished he had been I have just been through all my end-year appraisals told earlier on the Liam Fox affair. with all my Permanent Secretary direct reports. It is Jeremy Heywood: Yes, absolutely. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Ev 6 Public Administration Committee: Evidence

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO

Q36 Chair: Surely that was a failure of the Civil decide to give it up after a few months, so clearly Service? something has occurred. Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think that was the root Jeremy Heywood: It wasn’t actually a question, I cause. don’t think, but all I can say is that Ian did a really good job. Francis Maude certainly recognises that he Q37 Chair: Obviously it was not the root cause, but has been an excellent person to have in the Cabinet it was a contributory factor. Office in the formative stage, when we have been Jeremy Heywood: Yes. building this group, the Efficiency and Reform Group. They have notched up some tremendous Q38 Chair: Now you have those divided reporting achievements: they have created a really pacy, lines on the two Codes, does that not confuse the non-bureaucratic organisational culture, and brought accountability for the good order of Government, in lots of very good people, and now Ian has decided which is both Codes? it is time to move on. I think they will part on good Jeremy Heywood: I don’t believe so, no. I think it is terms. We can talk about Steve Hilton—I don’t want pretty clear that if the Prime Minister is worried, or to get too personal about these things. The way Steve someone is alleging a breach of the Ministerial Code, operates is to challenge; he is a very challenging he will ask me for my advice on it. I will then advise person. I don’t believe that Steve Hilton, who in any him on whether I think there is a case for bringing in event has now left, is the reason why Ian Watmore is Sir Alex Allan, or we will discuss between us how he leaving the Cabinet Office. As I say, Steve has now wants to take that forward. If a subsequent left for California, as far as I am aware. investigation shows that there may have been a glaring mistake by a civil servant that has caused this Q44 Kelvin Hopkins: I won’t press you any further in some sense, then we will bring in Bob Kerslake. I on it, but I must say I remain unconvinced that don’t think there is any lack of clarity about this at all, somebody walks away from this job lightly: at the frankly, and I certainly have not had any difficulties in centre of Government, fantastic power, interest, and the first few months in this job. whatever—but there we are. When do you expect his successor to be appointed, and how are prospective Q39 Kelvin Hopkins: Sir Jeremy, what happened to candidates being identified? make Ian Watmore leave his job after less than six Jeremy Heywood: We are in a discussion with the months in post? Minister for the Civil Service and Cabinet Office at Jeremy Heywood: He has certainly been in post more the moment on that issue, as to whether we have an than six months, I think. external competition or not. Either way we are talking about the end of July or early autumn, I would hope, Q40 Kelvin Hopkins: It might have been eight, but to fill the post. In the meantime, Melanie Dawes has you know— been asked to step in as the Acting Permanent Jeremy Heywood: It was getting on for two years, Secretary when Ian goes at the end of June. I think. Q45 Kelvin Hopkins: Are you thinking about the Q41 Chair: No, no, as Permanent Secretary of the structure of the relationships within the Cabinet Office Cabinet Office it was less than six months. and Downing Street? I must say, I remain Jeremy Heywood: Sorry, as Permanent Secretary, yes. unconvinced by the diagram we were given some He can speak for himself on this. months ago. I think it was prepared fairly hurriedly. One of my staff has drawn a rather more convincing Q42 Kelvin Hopkins: Even two years is not very diagram. long. Jeremy Heywood: I would like to see that. Can we Jeremy Heywood: It is a relatively short time, but Ian see that? has said himself that he wants to spend more time with his family in the north-west of England. He is Q46 Kelvin Hopkins: I will show it to you fed up with commuting up and down. I also feel that afterwards. Are you thinking about the structure and he feels he has got the Cabinet Office and its new role looking at it again? It is unusual, to say the least, what off to a very good start, and he now wants to move on. has happened. I don’t think there is any more to it than that, frankly. Jeremy Heywood: The short answer to your question is: yes, we will have a look at the structure again. I Q43 Kelvin Hopkins: Obviously we would not don’t expect to see major changes, but whenever expect you to tell tales out of school, but press someone leaves and someone else comes in, it is speculation is that there were certain quite serious always a good time to review whether it is working tensions in the centre between Ian Watmore, and properly. I don’t see any need to fundamentally indeed possibly even Sir Gus, and particularly Steve change it, but we will definitely have a short, sharp Hilton. review of that. Robert Halfon: Can I just add something, Chair? Chair: Can we just hear the answer to that question? Q47 Kelvin Hopkins: Is the Permanent Secretary to Robert Halfon: It is very relevant. When he came to the Cabinet Office responsible to you or to the Head the Committee, he was full of enthusiasm and passion of the Civil Service? for his job, and there was no indication that he would Jeremy Heywood: Head of the Civil Service. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 7

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO

Q48 Kelvin Hopkins: Head of the Civil Service— Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, have but it looks as if everything comes through the Head a very good relationship with the Civil Service, and of the Civil Service to you, and you don’t have direct respect and admire it. The Prime Minister and the hands-on responsibility for staff and so on at all. Deputy Prime Minister are both very firmly on the Jeremy Heywood: I line manage a number of them. I record along those lines, and my own personal am obviously a major customer for a lot of them, so I dealings with them suggest an openness to Civil have a huge stake in the Cabinet Office’s performance, Service advice and so on, which is in my view and I take a very close interest in it. However, the obviously very welcome. It suggests that there is no formal line manager of the Permanent Secretary is Sir real tension at all. I certainly do not, in my daily job, Bob Kerslake. feel any great problem here, although I have to acknowledge that there has clearly been briefing in the Q49 Chair: I am reminded of the utterance of one of newspapers and some sense of that, and it is true that your most eminent predecessors, Lord Butler, who some Ministers and advisers have been more said, when we asked how this would work: “The frustrated. Cabinet Secretary will be top dog.” Are you top dog, How do we deal with this? The first thing we have to Sir Jeremy? do, and the whole Permanent Secretary Group are Jeremy Heywood: No, no, I am not. There are two very committed to this, is to prove by our day-to-day top dogs in the Civil Service. Sir Bob Kerslake is the competence and dedication in public service that we Head of the Civil Service, and I am supporting him in are basically supporting the elected Government of the my role as Cabinet Secretary. day in a competent way. That is what we have to do. The first test is competence. The second thing is that Q50 Kelvin Hopkins: Moving on to other questions, we are putting together, with a lot of input from is it the policy of No. 10 to slash the number of civil Ministers and other parliamentarians, the Civil servants by up to 90%? That is one suggestion made Service reform plan, which we hope we will be in a by, I think, Steve Hilton. position to publish in the next few weeks, probably Jeremy Heywood: No, it is not the policy of the Prime next month, but it is not finally pinned down. Minister or anyone else at No. 10. Hopefully that will be a point at which all the points of criticism and concern can be addressed and Q51 Kelvin Hopkins: To what extent do you think discussed and put together, and the Government can that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister then get behind that plan. That is certainly our hope. understand the impact that such public utterances have on the morale of civil servants? Q54 Chair: But doesn’t there need to be some kind Jeremy Heywood: I think they are very conscious of of programme that is not just sanctioned by the Prime that, and they are just as frustrated and angry, frankly, Minister but driven by the Prime Minister to, if you as Sir Bob Kerslake and I are when that is put in the like, train? Very often special advisers are not trained, newspapers apparently as an authorised briefing, and civil servants very often are suspicious of which it certainly was not, and it does not remotely reflect the Prime Minister’s or the Government’s view advisers, and this inevitable triangularity between of the Civil Service. They totally share that anger, and Ministers, advisers and civil servants is potentially that is enough to be said about it. We are already always an unstable relationship. Doesn’t there need to spending too much time on something that has no be some programme to create those bonds of trust that authority whatsoever. will inevitably make a Department work much better, or undermine the work of that Department if those Q52 Kelvin Hopkins: Is this anger at the press bonds of trust are not met? comment, or anger at Steve Hilton? Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think there needs to be a Jeremy Heywood: I don’t know whether it has programme of training or anything like that. I don’t definitely come from Steve Hilton, but whatever it is think we have a general problem. I think generally and wherever it has come from, it does not reflect the speaking, relations between Ministers, special policy of the Government. I think that is the only thing advisers and their civil servants are excellent, and I to be said about it, frankly. think most Departments are functioning in a very effective way. I genuinely don’t believe this is a major Q53 Chair: I wholly respect your determination to issue. I know it has been in some of the newspapers, maintain a swanlike serenity about everything that is and I know in some quarters there is frustration with happening around you in public, but circumstantially the pace of change. There are some perfectly there does seem to be some tension and even mistrust legitimate criticisms of the Civil Service, which the around the relationship between civil servants and Public Accounts Committee and others make on a some Ministers and some advisers. What do you think regular basis, and we definitely need to address them. can be done to build up trust? The relationships will We are not at all complacent. We need to improve our not work unless there is trust. project management, we need to improve our use of Jeremy Heywood: First of all I would say I think you management information, we need to be better at have expressed it very well. Some Ministers, some certain commercial skills, and so on. We are not at advisers, are more frustrated with the Civil Service— all complacent. Some criticism of the Civil Service is and with the progress of change, frankly, not just the entirely valid. Is there a general problem in relations Civil Service—than others. I would say the clear between Ministers, special advisers and civil servants? centre of gravity of the Government, and certainly the I don’t believe there is. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Ev 8 Public Administration Committee: Evidence

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO

Q55 Robert Halfon: Could I just ask about the occasionally that will come across as trying to slow “enemies of enterprise”? When the Prime Minister things down or stop things happening. That is part of talked about the “enemies of enterprise in Whitehall our job. It is absolutely right that the Civil Service and the town hall”, who was he talking about? plays that role. Equally, the Civil Service is a great Jeremy Heywood: I think he was just talking source of innovation and a great generator of ideas. I generally about the system: the bureaucracy generated certainly don’t recognise the picture that the Civil by successive Ministers and civil servants, Parliament, Service as a whole is a force for conservatism in the processes, the media and so on. It was interpreted as sense you mean. an attack on the Civil Service. I don’t think it was a conscious attempt to attack the Civil Service. I think Q60 Robert Halfon: Or an enemy of enterprise? it was more a rhetorical flourish myself. Jeremy Heywood: Certainly not an enemy of enterprise. Q56 Chair: Did Sir Gus take it too personally? Jeremy Heywood: At the time we were all a little Q61 Kelvin Hopkins: Openly attacking Whitehall surprised by it, in a sense, and by the way it became and town hall officials as “enemies of enterprise” is such a big story, because it was not at all reflective of hardly a way of getting on well with officials, and our daily experience of dealing with this Government. must have, I would have thought, caused shockwaves I genuinely don’t think it was intended as a great at the time. A role of the Civil Service traditionally is attack on the Civil Service. Certainly, in all my to speak truth unto power, is it not? contacts with the Prime Minister, that is not the way Jeremy Heywood: Absolutely. he approaches the issue. Kelvin Hopkins: And when Governments get it wrong—and they frequently get things wrong, and Q57 Robert Halfon: I was there at the Conservative they go off charging in misguided directions—it is the party conference when he said this, and clearly all the job of the Civil Service sometimes to rein them in. I background at the time was that the Government am personally deeply suspicious of the Blair style and wanted to do things, remove red tape, remove the Cameron style, and a great admirer of the Sir regulation, but it was the Civil Service that was Humphrey style. We have an extremely centralised stopping it. The Prime Minister was very clear in form of Government, with extreme power at the making that point. centre, and it is important that we have these Chair: And so were many Ministers, incidentally. pluralistic forces working against each other to make Jeremy Heywood: I think we understand the context sure that power does not make big mistakes or become of what Ministers say in party conferences. overweening. Would you not agree with that kind of analysis? Q58 Chair: They say it privately to me; they mean it. Jeremy Heywood: I certainly think the Civil Service Jeremy Heywood: Yes, and on occasions civil has a responsibility to give Ministers fearless advice, servants have been responsible for insisting on due to speak truth unto power, and to set out its views if process and slowing things down, and making sure it believes that something is not implementable, or if that things go through a proper decision-making something is not feasible for some other reason, legal process. That is our job. Equally, however, I think or otherwise. My experience with Ministers, including most Ministers would recognise that we are the two Prime Ministers you mentioned by name, is collaborating very fully with the efforts of the that they want their civil servants to be quite brutal, Government to introduce cuts in regulation through truthful and honest in the advice they give. These are the Red Tape Challenge, which you may have heard not people who want to be surrounded by yes men, or about, which Oliver Letwin has been leading, and by yes women. They want to be told by the Civil Service: the general policy of the Government. If the general “Can this work? Does it work?” They won’t always policy of the Government is to deregulate, to remove take the Civil Service advice. They will sometimes regulation and so on, we will turn the tank around and say, “I understand the truly risk-averse approach start applying ourselves to that agenda. Unfortunately, would be to do nothing in this particular case, but on one or two of these things are laid down in statute, or this occasion I will take a risk, and I will do that.” are quite difficult for the Civil Service to do very That is entirely legitimate. I also don’t want to get much about, frankly. stuck in a parody where the Civil Service is always the voice in the room saying, “Don’t do it.” That is Q59 Robert Halfon: Tony Blair talked about the not the Civil Service that I represent, and it is certainly “forces of conservatism” in a similar way. not the culture that Bob and I want to see in the Civil Jeremy Heywood: Yes. Service. We want to see a “can do” culture, or a “can’t Robert Halfon: Does this not indicate that the Prime do” culture if we genuinely think it cannot be done. Minister’s view is that the civil servants are acting as a brake on reform? Q62 Chair: Moving on to the accountability of civil Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think that is the Prime servants, you know this is another tension that has Minister’s overarching view, or Ministers’ built up recently, particularly with the Public overarching view. Clearly, one of the roles of the Civil Accounts Committee, and the House of Lords Service is to give Ministers the benefit of our Constitution Committee is conducting a very welcome experience, and to give our best, fearless advice as to inquiry into the accountability question. The whether or not we think something will work, or conclusion I am coming to is that the Civil Service whether something is contrary to the law, and has moved on from the days when civil servants were cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 9

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO broadly anonymous, that Ministers have become more servants, that their only duty is to their Minister. It is adept at shuffling responsibility for things that go not, though, is it? Even if you are not the Accounting wrong onto civil servants, and yet civil servants Officer, you should be answering questions on matters remain very adept at avoiding the answering of of fact. difficult questions in order to protect themselves and Jeremy Heywood: Yes. Civil Servants are told they their Ministers from accountability. Accountability is should co-operate fully by providing whatever falling between stools. Billions of pounds could be information is requested to Parliamentary wasted on projects, and nobody seems to be Committees. Clearly they are accountable to their responsible. Do you understand Parliament’s concern Ministers, and Ministers ultimately are accountable to about this problem? Parliament and Committees for policy and strategies. Jeremy Heywood: I understand that Parliament thinks it is a very important issue. So do I. I think it is quite Q67 Chair: I think my colleague Mrs Hodge would healthy to have a debate, from time to time, on these argue that she has been stonewalled on matters of fact. sorts of issues. I therefore welcome the Lords inquiry, Jeremy Heywood: There was a very specific problem, and we will look forward to participating in it as best I think, in relation to HMRC at the end of last year. I we can help. I don’t fundamentally think there is a think there was a genuine question, which I have not problem with the current system, and I don’t really gone into in great detail myself, because it happened recognise the picture you are painting there, Mr before I took this job on. There were some particularly Chairman. difficult issues for the witnesses there in relation to legal professional privilege and taxpayer Q63 Chair: Billions being wasted and nobody being confidentiality over and above what you would think held accountable? That is not a problem? of as a normal situation. Jeremy Heywood: No, people are held accountable. I think the Accounting Officer role, and the Q68 Chair: All that was being asked was whether a accountability of civil servants to Parliament— minute in the hand of the chair of that committee was an accurate minute of the meeting the official had Q64 Chair: Who is being held accountable for the attended. billions wasted on the carrier programme? Jeremy Heywood: I am sorry, I don’t know the details Jeremy Heywood: The Public Accounts Committee of that case. can call the Accounting Officer at any stage, or anybody else they want to call, and ask whatever Q69 Chair: But as I have described it to you, it searching questions they want of the Civil Service on would seem reasonable for the official to answer the those sorts of issues. Civil servants are not hiding at question as to whether that was an accurate minute all. They have a responsibility to turn up when the or not? Public Accounts Committee summons them, and I can Jeremy Heywood: Yes. On the face of it, that does certainly assure you that in Whitehall that is seen as a sound a little unusual, but I am not a lawyer, and I very serious responsibility of all civil servants. I am don’t fully understand the complexity of the concept clearly not suggesting for a second that there is no of legal professional privilege, nor have I learned the wasted money or things that could have been done statute about taxpayer confidentiality. I am simply better. I am simply saying that I think the existing role saying that I think in that case you had two additional of the PAC and Accounting Officers, and the complicating factors that are not normally present requirement on them to turn up in front of the PAC, when a civil servant appears before a Select works very well, in my judgment. Committee. There is not normally a statute that prevents you from giving information, and you are not Q65 Chair: When the Haldane Report of 1918 first normally being asked to divulge something that you foreshadowed, very prophetically, the prospect of have under legal professional privilege. I Departmental Select Committees, as we now call fundamentally agree with your general point, which is them, the phrase used there is that “Ministers, as well that civil servants should co-operate to the fullest as the officers of Departments, should appear before extent possible in giving factual information at the them” in order to furnish those Committees with the request of Parliamentary Committees, and that is necessary information, the emphasis being the generally speaking what we try to do. surprising fact that Ministers would be brought before those Committees, not civil servants. Presumably, Q70 Chair: I think Select Committees will carry on civil servants are meant, therefore, to furnish these testing that. Committees with the necessary information. If the Jeremy Heywood: Absolutely. Civil Service just stonewall on matters of fact in order to protect the system, then the system is not working, Q71 Chair: That is not undermining the doctrine of is it? ministerial accountability. Ministers are still Jeremy Heywood: No. Civil servants should co- ultimately responsible, and I would point out that legal operate fully with parliamentary Committees. They professional privilege does not apply to Select certainly should. Committees, and unless it is strictly sub judice, which would be covered by our own rules, a civil servant is Q66 Chair: The Armstrong Memorandum said, very required to answer. forcefully, that civil servants’ first duty was to their Jeremy Heywood: I think generally speaking we Minister, and this is taken to mean, by some civil understand that. I don’t know all the details of that cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Ev 10 Public Administration Committee: Evidence

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO specific case. I certainly was not suggesting the Service. You give them an opportunity to address their contrary. performance failings, but if they fail to address them, Chair: We may write to you further on that question. then it is time to move them on. Jeremy Heywood: Of course. Q75 Kelvin Hopkins: I am not convinced by what Q72 Kelvin Hopkins: How likely is it that the has been suggested here. If one has reached the top of forthcoming Civil Service Reform White Paper will the Civil Service, one must have some skills, I would contain proposals to rank civil servants by have thought. Also, this again suggests some tension performance? between politicians and civil servants, which is not Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think it will go as far as healthy, I would think. Would you accept that? that, literally taking each one of the 435,000 civil Jeremy Heywood: If there were to be significant servants and ranking them in performance order. tension between the Civil Service and Ministers, that However, organisations I have worked in have used would not be healthy, and it would not be helpful to the same sort of technique, and I think in trying to good government and so on. In one of my answers to work out broadly speaking whether people are in the the Chairman earlier, I said that I think Ministers and top bucket, the top 25%, or the bottom bucket, the civil servants coming together behind the Civil bottom 10%, around the margins you have to make Service Plan, which I hope we will be able to do in the some judgments as to who falls on the right side of next few weeks, will reassure quite a few Ministers, if that line and who falls on the wrong side of it. Within they have concerns, that some of the concerns that a subset, therefore, you need to have a sense of who have been expressed are being addressed through this is in what category, as it were. Reform Plan. I cannot comment on the specific press The big point we will be making in the Civil Service reporting there, and I have no idea who was behind it, paper is that we do need to be tougher with ourselves but if anybody was concerned that the Civil Service about how we deal with poor performers. We have not was not gripping the issue of poor performance, I finalised all of our detailed proposals yet, but one of hope they will be reassured when they see the the things Bob and I are definitely keen to establish document. as a norm is that, if you can identify the bottom 10% of performers, effectively you give them a year to turn Q76 Kelvin Hopkins: I am much more convinced their performance around, and if they have not, that there are poorly performing Ministers. Would you basically it is time to go. How we codify that and like the opportunity to weed out some of the poorly what the precise details of that are, we are still performing Ministers, perhaps? working through, but you can see that in order to be Jeremy Heywood: That is not a matter for me. able to operate something like that, you need a sense of who is in the bottom 10%. A legitimate criticism Q77 Chair: But we can take it that there will be of the Civil Service over quite a few years now is casualties among the bottom 10%? that we are not as good at getting rid of the poorest Jeremy Heywood: Many Departments do this sort of performers as some other organisations, and that is thing anyway, so I don’t think this is a radical change. definitely something we have taken to heart and tried I think best practice would be to be much firmer in to find a way through. It does not require the forced identifying who are the poorest performers, and ranking of every civil servant in the country. finding a way of saying to them— Chair: Addressing it, yes. Q73 Kelvin Hopkins: If you were all ranked, I Jeremy Heywood: —“Unless you address your imagine you would be expected to be number one, problems within a reasonable period of time, you will I guess. be out.” Yes. Jeremy Heywood: I doubt that very much. Q78 Chair: What I hope is that the Civil Service Q74 Kelvin Hopkins: A recent survey by Civil White Paper will address, far more clearly, how Service World suggests that civil servants themselves people’s roles, tasks and responsibilities are being are keen to see improved performance management defined, and where there are shortfalls in people’s mechanisms put in place. Given that nobody seems personal capabilities, how they are either addressed to be disputing this, why have senior Ministers been or, if they won’t change, how they will be weeded out. briefing the press so aggressively on the subject? Jeremy Heywood: That is exactly what we are trying Jeremy Heywood: I am not sure that senior Ministers to get to. have been briefing the press, to be honest. I think there is a degree of consensus here. It is certainly true to Q79 Chair: What about the key gaps, the gaping say that nothing annoys the bulk of good, honest civil holes, in real capabilities like procurement, project servants more than seeing people who are badly management and IT—the things we really know performing allowed to stay in their jobs year in, year about? Will it address those things? out. It is not something that is being done to the Civil Jeremy Heywood: Yes. I would not go so far as to say Service from on high. It is something the Civil Service gaping holes. Clearly there are areas of really good itself wants to do. The vast majority of good, honest practice, in commercial skills, procurement skills and civil servants want to see bad performers weeded out, so on, and indeed IT skills, but we definitely recognise provided that they have been given a chance to sort that systemically we have not done enough to fill gaps out their performance. You do not push them out at in all of those areas. We will definitely put the the drop of a hat from an organisation like the Civil spotlight on that. I don’t want to anticipate the entire cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 11

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO document, which as I say has not yet gone to Cabinet. doing their job; they get it for exceptional service— I won’t go into all the details of it, but definitely one going well beyond the normal expectations of a job. of the issues it will address is: “What are the skills That is, in a sense, the quality control that is built into the Civil Service needs, taking a five-year view? the system. Where are the gaps between what we need and what we have, and how do we address them?” Q85 Alun Cairns: The Committee has received strong evidence from several quarters saying that, as Q80 Chair: And the evident difficulty that the centre soon as an individual reaches a certain rank, they of Whitehall has in encouraging effective expect an honour, be it a knighthood, a CBE or cross-Departmental working? Whenever I say that it something similar. Do you think that is appropriate? is endemically bad, the only people who disagree with Jeremy Heywood: Automatic honours would not be me are Permanent Secretaries. appropriate. I would not agree with that. I think in the Jeremy Heywood: I think we accept that it is easier past that may well have been more the case. I am not to sort out issues if they fall to one Department than an expert, but my sense is that 10 years ago that if they fall across Departments. We do not disagree probably was more like the norm. It certainly is not with the basic proposition. It is quite difficult to find the case now, and I don’t think that sort of practical solutions to it, though, within the current automaticity can be justified at all. Departmental structure, where people have accountabilities up through their Minister to Q86 Alun Cairns: You received your knighthood the Parliament. It is a work in progress. day before you took up your current role. Were they linked at all? Q81 Chair: One of the notable successes in local Jeremy Heywood: To be honest I don’t know why I government is how local authorities, despite having was given a knighthood at that point in my career. I separate departments, seem to work as a cohesive was not privy to that decision. I was just very pleased whole much more easily than central Government. to get it. Jeremy Heywood: Yes. We continue to work on that. That is a very good area of future challenge. Q87 Alun Cairns: If you believe that it was not because of the role that you were getting that the Q82 Kelvin Hopkins: One more question, if I may. knighthood was bestowed upon you, what other I was on this Committee in previous Parliaments, and assessments might have been made that would have something that arose at that time, which was very warranted that sort of honour? concerning, was that some civil servants seemed to be Jeremy Heywood: I don’t want to sit here and discuss moved for ideological reasons, because they did not my own achievements, but presumably the Committee fit with the zeitgeist or philosophy of the times, that made that decision looked back on my career and specifically under Blair and possibly even under decided that it was sufficiently meritorious to justify Thatcher. Isn’t that much more worrying? Don’t you want a range of views within the Civil Service, so that a knighthood. But it is an embarrassing subject for you have different views of any problem that arise and me to be asked about, because I was not involved in you do not have an ideologically rigid group of people the decision. going in a particular direction, with no possibility of anybody saying, “We have got this wrong”? Q88 Alun Cairns: That was unfair, granted. Can I Jeremy Heywood: That would be a major problem. I then extend it to other Permanent Secretaries? have not seen that to date in this role. I think both Jeremy Heywood: Yes. parties in the Coalition, and indeed all parties in Britain, as far as I can see, are committed to the Q89 Chair: It is not quite as bad as President Obama current model of the politically impartial Civil getting the Nobel Peace Prize before he had done Service, and in my experience do not seek to move anything. civil servants from jobs out of any concern about their Jeremy Heywood: I am not responsible for that either. political ideology. That would be a very rare case indeed. Q90 Alun Cairns: What would other Permanent Secretaries have to do in order to receive an honour Q83 Alun Cairns: Sir Jeremy, in terms of the split in the future? Sir Bob Kerslake told us in written of the roles between you and Sir Bob, one of the roles evidence that Permanent Secretaries can no longer you have accepted is Chairman of the main Honours expect knighthoods or damehoods as a matter of Committee. course. Jeremy Heywood: I am not the Chairman of it. I am Jeremy Heywood: I think Bob will have gone on to a member of it. tell you that what they will have to show is exceptional public service over a sustained period. Q84 Alun Cairns: Member of the main Honours One has to recognise that the honours system started Committee; I accept that. Do you agree with evidence off, essentially, as a system for rewarding Crown that has been given to this Committee that too many servants, and so I think it is legitimate, and extremely awards are given to people for simply doing their job? welcome, from where I sit, that public servants, not Jeremy Heywood: No, I don’t. Strenuous efforts are just in the Civil Service but across the whole country, made by the Committees to make sure that standards are honoured in this way. However, they do have to are maintained and that people do not get it just for perform exceptionally well in order to get those cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Ev 12 Public Administration Committee: Evidence

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO honours, which is no different from anybody else in Jeremy Heywood: I have not gone back and looked at the country. all the cases that have been referred to the Forfeiture Committee over the last 20 or 30 years, so I could not Q91 Alun Cairns: We would expect Permanent honestly attest to that. Secretaries at that rank or level to perform exceptionally well in their daily duties, would we not? Q96 Alun Cairns: Finally, then, can you tell me: do Jeremy Heywood: Even within the Permanent you believe that Forfeiture Committee in any way was Secretary rank there are some people who perform politically motivated? better than others. We are looking for exceptional Jeremy Heywood: No, I don’t think it was politically performance on a sustained basis, or something over motivated. It was set up because of extreme concern and above that as well. expressed about RBS right across the political spectrum, and by many members of the public, the Q92 Alun Cairns: How many Permanent Secretaries Treasury Select Committee and the FSA. In the only don’t have honours, then, or don’t have knighthoods? contact I had with Ministers about this, they were very Jeremy Heywood: I don’t have those numbers to clear that this was a decision that the Committee had hand. Quite a few don’t have honours at the moment, to make, and it was not an issue where they wanted and a number have left in recent years who did not to lead the Committee, if you like. We looked at this have knighthoods or damehoods. I agree that most from first principles in the Committee, as a group of people do end up getting one, but it is not automatic. civil servants, and we gave our best recommendation, which was unanimous. Q93 Alun Cairns: Can I turn to the Honours Q97 Alun Cairns: Finally, did it meet at the Prime Forfeiture Committee? Can you explain the Minister’s request? We have not quite had clarification background to when that Committee meets, how often in the past on that. it meets, why it meets, and any recent meetings it Jeremy Heywood: I cannot quite remember, but might have had? frankly it would not have mattered whether the Prime Jeremy Heywood: I hope you have had a chance to Minister requested it or not. Bob decided, and the question Bob about that, because Bob obviously Committee were very comfortable with that chairs the Forfeiture Committee. I have only attended decision—that given the degree of public concern and one meeting myself, and I think the Forfeiture interest in this topic, it was quite right for the Committee has now been reformed and I have been Committee to meet. rotated out of it. I have only attended one meeting, and that was set up in the wake of the FSA’s report Q98 Robert Halfon: Could I ask why you think it into RBS, which sparked another wave of public was that it was the decision of the Honours Committee concern and questioning about Sir Fred Goodwin’s to remove the honours of one banker, rather than the knighthood. On the back of that, the Committee many other bankers who had honours who had decided it ought to meet to consider this afresh, and colluded with politicians and had also been that is the meeting I attended. I have not attended one responsible for the collapse of the banking system? since, and frankly, I am sorry but I don’t know Jeremy Heywood: The concern that we had was that whether it has met since then. I am sure Bob could the scale and size of the losses triggered by the RBS help you with that. situation were quite different from the scale of any others, and as far as we could see, only Sir Fred Q94 Alun Cairns: Is it not right that the Forfeiture Goodwin—Fred Goodwin now—had been given an Committee usually meets when someone who has honour for services to banking. There were other received an honour has committed a criminal offence, people who might have been caught up in this who or has been censured or struck off by a relevant had their honour for something completely different. professional body? That was not the case in relation We felt that the uniqueness was the scale of the RBS to Fred Goodwin. Why did it meet on that basis, if situation, the fact that this person was well known at that is the meeting you attended? the time to be the person who effectively controlled Jeremy Heywood: The judgment is whether someone the strategy and direction of that business, plus the has brought the honours system into disrepute, rather fact that he got his knighthood for services to banking. than whether particular technical criteria have been If the question was put as to whether the continuation triggered. My recollection from the Committee is that of the knighthood of someone who had been given both John Major as Prime Minister and Gordon their honour purely for services to banking and had Brown as Prime Minister had made clear to been responsible for a complete collapse that cost the Parliament in short statements that the overarching British taxpayer £45.5 billion pounds brought the question was whether someone brought the honours thing into disrepute, our view was that it did. system into disrepute, so that was basically what we took as the framework for thinking about this Q99 Robert Halfon: So the people who ran Lloyds question. Bank, for example, who colluded with the former Prime Minister to also destroy a great bank and cost Q95 Alun Cairns: Can you confidently say that the taxpayer millions and millions of pounds, don’t judgment has been extended to others who have lose their honours, but one particular individual is received honours in the past, and whether the honour focused on. Is it not more of a lynch mob, because of should be withdrawn or not? the popular media, rather than actual natural justice? I cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 13

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO cannot understand why one individual was specifically we came into with a closed mind at all. As to the singled out, because there were many people objectivity of the process, you had five senior civil responsible for the banking and economic crisis. servants who had no particular axe to grind in this Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think it was a lynch mob. thing. I think what struck all of us involved in that It was a very calm, considered meeting, and we process was that the Forfeiture Committee itself could looked at it and thought that, on the basis of the do with a bit more independence of the Civil Service. reports we had seen from the FSA, from the Treasury Bob has been very keen to bring in some more Select Committee, and what we could see ourselves external members, slim it down a bit, and try, if you as the damage done by the RBS collapse, the person like, to increase its sense of independence. who was in charge of that bank had been given an Chair: We may well have some further proposals to honour for services to banking and it would bring the make. honours system into disrepute not to remove that Jeremy Heywood: Fine. knighthood. I don’t think anybody running Lloyds Chair: Can I move on? We are running out of time. Bank at that time had a knighthood. If you are talking about peerages, that is outside the remit of the Q105 Robert Halfon: Very briefly—I have to go Forfeiture Committee. It is not something we had any because I have a question downstairs—I still cannot power to do anything about. comprehend why it is that you guys focused on Sir Fred Goodwin, not on any of the politicians or the Q100 Robert Halfon: Could it not be argued that it civil servants who have honours, or people at the was the politicians at the time who created the Bank of England or whoever it may be, who created framework that enabled the bankers to do what they the framework that allowed Sir Fred Goodwin to do did? In any sense of natural justice it is the politicians what he did. He was only acting, rightly or wrongly, who should be held responsible, not someone who is within the existing law, and I hold no brief for Sir given an honour and then used as a scapegoat, and has Fred Goodwin, but it seems to me very easy for the his honour removed? establishment to focus in on a particular scapegoat, Jeremy Heywood: Not all of the banks collapsed in and nobody else seems to lose their honours. this way. I think the RBS situation was uniquely Chair: Just to emphasise, the FSA itself said that they damaging to the UK. did not intend any charge of incompetence or personal censure of Sir Fred Goodwin, or Fred Goodwin, as he Q101 Robert Halfon: And Lloyds Bank? now is. Jeremy Heywood: We were not trying to make a Jeremy Heywood: No, but all I can do is repeat scapegoat of anybody. It gave us no pleasure at all to myself: a number of other banks, subject to the same consider this, but we were asked the question, and framework, did not collapse in the same way that we asked ourselves the question, “Is it reasonable that someone who got his knighthood for services to RBS did. banking, who then led a bank that caused a complete collapse and cost the taxpayer £45.5 billion—” Q106 Chair: I think we need to move on, but thank you. Back to the question of special advisers, and in Q102 Chair: Sir Jeremy, I am darkly amused that a particular concerning Adam Smith, on what basis did new criterion has been introduced about the removal you feel it was right to advise the Prime Minister to of honours, concerning how much money someone allow Jeremy Hunt to be questioned by Lord Justice is deemed to have cost the public purse. That is a Leveson on that subject, instead of referring the matter new criterion. to Sir Alex? Jeremy Heywood: It is not the only criterion. It is just Jeremy Heywood: I genuinely felt that Lord Justice one of them. Leveson’s would be the right and most rigorous and searching investigation that could be done, and if we Q103 Chair: Our general concern is about the had tried to suggest that an alternative approach was objectivity and natural justice of this process. Would set up in anticipation of that, I think we would have you have any comments to make? The public reaction been criticised very strongly for trying to pre-empt to the decision taken was quite negative. I don’t think in some way, or duplicate or undermine, the Leveson the public had much confidence in the objectivity of Inquiry. That was my advice to the Prime Minister. the decision. What do you think could be done to He agreed with it. It was good faith advice. You could improve that? argue it either way, but my genuine belief is that if Jeremy Heywood: I think, to be honest, whatever you have set up an inquiry that will question decision we had taken would have been severely somebody under oath, with a leading QC, in public, criticised by one group or another. It was a fairly that is bound to be a very effective way of getting to thankless task, and it was not one we had any relish the bottom of this. in taking forward. Q107 Chair: There have been rather mixed signals Q104 Chair: It is rather like the execution of Charles out of Leveson, however. On the one hand, he does I: it just had to be done. not want other people trampling all over his patch, but Jeremy Heywood: It did not have to be done. We on the other hand he has no jurisdiction over matters looked at it from first principles and decided that concerning the Ministerial Code. actually the right thing to do was to recommend Jeremy Heywood: No, he does not, and the Prime getting rid of the knighthood. It was not something Minister never suggested that he does. Clearly the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Ev 14 Public Administration Committee: Evidence

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO

Prime Minister has to decide whether the Ministerial Jeremy Heywood: I think I would have taken the Code has been breached. action that was subsequently taken, in a sense, which was to make clear that was not authorised and not Q108 Chair: He is reliant on your advice, and you acceptable. are very honestly saying what your advice was, and I appreciate that. Q115 Chair: That is an implicit criticism of Mr Jeremy Heywood: I am sure he will seek my advice Stevens, who said he was “aware and content”. at that point, but in the end he has to decide. It is his Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think he was aware and decision, not my decision. The question, if I could just content with what appeared to have happened. complete this point, is: what is the best process for getting to the facts and investigating Jeremy Hunt’s Q116 Chair: So it would have been all right for the conduct, and that of his special adviser and so on? Is special adviser to be talking in some fashion to News it better to set up a private inquiry under Sir Alex International? It was merely the content of the emails Allan, or is it better to go with the inquiry that has that was unsatisfactory? already been set up, which has full powers to compel Jeremy Heywood: I won’t go into great detail about witnesses and all the rest of it? We took the view that this, because almost as we speak he is probably in it was better to leave it with the Leveson Inquiry. In front of the Inquiry himself. the light of that investigation, if something comes up on his day of evidence that warrants further Q117 Chair: In principle, should a special adviser be investigation or bears on his adherence to the involved in talking to parties in a matter where the Ministerial Code, then we may have to take some Secretary of State is making a quasi-judicial decision further action at that point. that might be subject to judicial review? Is that a sensible policy, or do you think you will be tightening Q109 Chair: The very way you expressed that up the control of special advisers on these matters? underlines how circumstantially this looks like an Jeremy Heywood: To be honest, I don’t think I would exercise in buying time. completely rule out special advisers being involved, Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think that is fair. It is not provided that they operated at all times in line with buying time. It is basically using the established the guidance given. It is not in principle the process. Jeremy Hunt did volunteer to appear earlier. involvement of a special adviser in any conversations with an interested party, because that is perfectly Q110 Chair: The established process is to refer a legitimate, provided it is done in a controlled and fully prima facie breach of the Ministerial Code to the transparent way. I would expect the main point of Independent Adviser. That is why the Independent conduit to be through the officials and the lawyers Adviser is there. Otherwise, why do we not have a acting for the Department, but I don’t rule out as a judge-led inquiry on every potential breach of the matter of principle special advisers being involved. Ministerial Code? However, they must do so in line with the procedures Jeremy Heywood: Because in this particular case we laid out for handling quasi-judicial processes. It happened to have a judge-led inquiry already under became very clear to Jonathan Stevens, I think, as it way. became clear to all of us at the time, that the contacts Chair: How convenient. had been much more extensive than anyone had Jeremy Heywood: It was the fact, and Jeremy Hunt understood, and that is what the surprise was. was due to appear before it, so it seemed perfectly sensible to let that run its course. Jeremy Hunt did Q118 Chair: For the record, can I say I have the volunteer to try to do it earlier, but obviously the judge greatest sympathy for Adam Smith, because I rather decided he wanted to keep to his established suspect he thought he was doing what was expected timetable, which was entirely his prerogative. of him. However, does that not raise questions about how special advisers in Departments are held Q111 Chair: When did you first know that Adam accountable, to whom they report, and who is Smith was furnishing News International with a responsible for their conduct? running commentary about the progress of the referral Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think it raises new questions or not of the BSkyB bid? about that. I think special advisers have to report to Jeremy Heywood: At the same time as everyone else: their Ministers, who appoint them, and are the day before he resigned. accountable to their Ministers.

Q112 Chair: So you were completely unaware? Q119 Chair: They are actually appointed by the Jeremy Heywood: I was completely unaware, as was Prime Minister, aren’t they? his Permanent Secretary. Jeremy Heywood: The Prime Minister approves their appointments, definitely. Q113 Chair: Do you think anybody in No. 10 was aware? Q120 Chair: We have a confusing reporting line Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think anyone was, no. We there. The Minister is responsible for their conduct had no advance warning of that at all. under the Ministerial Code. The Permanent Secretary is the nominal employer, and is responsible for the Q114 Chair: If you had been aware, what action good conduct and propriety within the Department. would you have taken? However, it is also quite widely understood that on a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 15

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO day-to-day basis they report into No. 10 on the Q125 Chair: The whole argument is quite activities of their Ministers and are expected to keep destructive, isn’t it? No. 10 informed about what their Ministers may be Jeremy Heywood: You need to strike a balance. The doing, and who they are talking to, particularly in best special advisers manage to strike a balance, and contacts with the press, and so on. I think a lot of are able to support their departmental Minister, if they special advisers will be quite confused about whom are based in a Department, whilst keeping No. 10 in they are ultimately responsible to. the loop as to what is going on and making sure that Jeremy Heywood: I take your point, but I think most their Minister is operating within the strategic special advisers would see themselves as working framework of the Government. There is a perfectly basically for their Minister. Yes, the Permanent legitimate role for the centre to say: “That is all very Secretary has a role in the pay and rations element of well in your Department, but how does that fit in with it, and I would expect Permanent Secretaries to be the overall policy and strategy of the Government?” keeping tabs on whether or not conduct is satisfactory, The special advisers at the centre play that sort of role and so on. Fundamentally, however, they are working in helping line Departments. for their Minister. That is the relationship that matters. Q126 Kelvin Hopkins: I do use the word Q121 Chair: Would you give some thought to the “commissar” advisedly. I think that has changed—my question of how they are employed, supervised and impression is that they have changed. I wondered if held accountable as part of our inquiry into special you could confirm that that relationship now is advisers? I think we will be minded to make some different, and that, setting Steve Hilton to one side, recommendations in the light of all this. most special advisers work to Ministers and do not Jeremy Heywood: I think it is a perfectly good line work above Ministers. of inquiry. One of the things we have been trying to Jeremy Heywood: Definitely. I certainly would not do over the last couple of years, with the full support ever accuse my good friend Lord Adonis of being a of the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Ed Llewellyn, commissar. This Prime Minister and the Coalition and Deputy Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Jonny Government came in with a very clear view that Oates, is to see whether we can develop a slightly Secretaries of State and Departments had to be given more freedom to manage their Departments, and not more managerial framework around special advisers, be micromanaged from No. 10. That is another aspect and in particular give them some feedback on their of the discussion about the Policy Unit we talked performance. about earlier, and I think that basically works very well. Q122 Chair: On recent history, it is quite a hazardous profession to go into, is it not? You never Q127 Chair: Moving on to the question about know what is going to happen to you next. vetting, and in particular in relation to Andy Coulson, Jeremy Heywood: High risk, high reward. it was unfortunate that Andy Coulson was not deep vetted, as we call it, and that was your decision, Q123 Chair: What, special advisers? High reward? wasn’t it? Jeremy Heywood: Many special advisers go on to Jeremy Heywood: Yes. I took the decision after the greater things. 2010 election to try to limit the number of people who Chair: They certainly do, don’t they? would have access to top secret intelligence on an unsupervised basis—not out of any particular concern Q124 Kelvin Hopkins: I was very concerned during about Andy Coulson, but just because in general I the Blair years that special advisers, rather than think that sort of highly confidential, secret working to Ministers, were often working to the Prime intelligence material should be seen only by those Minister and seen as commissars keeping Ministers who have an absolute operational need to see it. under control, and indeed the Civil Service beneath them. The classic case was Lord Adonis, when he was Q128 Chair: But nevertheless he got into those kinds at Education. It was very clear to most of us that of meetings and saw that kind of material. Estelle Morris resigned as Secretary of State for Jeremy Heywood: Anyone who has the slightly lesser Education because she felt she was redundant, level of vetting, SC, is entitled to have supervised because the power was really in the hands of the access to this material on a controlled basis. That is Prime Minister and then Lord Adonis. They were perfectly reasonable, and as Director of running Education, not her, and interposing special Communications for the Prime Minister, Andy needed advisers between either civil servants and Ministers or that sort of access. I took the view at the time that the the Prime Minister and Ministers is a quite different priority after the election was to do DVs with other role from sitting to one side and advising Ministers. people. I did not see myself why necessarily all Chair: That kind of arrangement is not very members of the Communications side of No. 10 conducive to trust and strong relationships, is it? needed to have uncontrolled access to top, top secret Jeremy Heywood: No, and of course in the course of intelligence. That was a judgment I made. Over a few one hearing we have heard both sides of this months it became clear that, to do his job properly in argument, with some people saying there should be the way the Prime Minister wanted, it would probably more special advisers sitting in No. 10, interposing make more sense to give him that sort of access, themselves between Ministers and the Prime Minister, particularly in relation to terrorism material, which and some people saying that is not at all right. could blow up at very short notice. He needed to be cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-10-2012 15:01] Job: 021500 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/021500/021500_o001_th_Corrected PASC 24 05 12 (HC 133).xml

Ev 16 Public Administration Committee: Evidence

24 May 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB CVO well on top of it before it was communicated to the our allies. The Americans mind about this sort of outside world. We took the view several months later thing. that it made sense to have a few more people added Jeremy Heywood: The Americans know very well to the DV list. how seriously we take this, and in fact the point I was trying to make here is that I was very keen to limit the Q129 Chair: Nevertheless, he was not deep vetted, number of people who had access to the most secret, was he? sensitive intelligence. My presumption was that you Jeremy Heywood: The process started, I think, but did not need to have access to this material, unless had not completed by the time he left. experienced proved that you did. That was the cautionary approach I took precisely because I want Q130 Chair: And he was seeing that material to limit the number of people who have access to anyway? super-sensitive material. It was for that reason, and Jeremy Heywood: He was seeing material on a that reason alone. controlled basis. Q133 Chair: I have no further questions today, Q131 Chair: I can see why decisions like this could unless there is anything more to add in the light of be made, but it leaves a very unfortunate impression our exchanges? with our allies, for example. I should not think the Jeremy Heywood: I don’t think so. Thank you very Americans are particularly impressed to read in the much. papers that unvetted people are seeing the high level Chair: You have been extremely helpful, and we are material. Would it not be better as a matter of course very grateful for your time and for your frankness. to decide that certain people are going to be deep Jeremy Heywood: It is a pleasure. Thank you very vetted, or they do not see the material? much. Jeremy Heywood: We are very careful in No. 10 and the Cabinet Office to make sure—

Q132 Chair: I have no doubt about that, but I am talking about the public impression, particularly with

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 10/2012 021500 19585